Clearly Romero is conflicted.
In reading the paper I found myself agreeing with Romero as topedagogy; the paper would have been highly appropriate in anacademic setting. However, the paper never explains why heabsolves the District and joins a corrupt group. Romero says that
the District is in the midst of “its second attempt to obtain unitarystatus in its federal segregation case,” adding that the District doesnot understand how “to make schools more effective and joyousplaces for all students.” He concedes that
the TUSD destroyed an
“effective and special” program.”What is disturbing is Romero’s lack of context, which is necessary
for most professionals to understand what is happening in Tucson.The truth be told, most progressive educators view Romero as achampion and advocate for MAS, a fighter for its integrity. Witnesshis multiple YouTube presentations.
Curious to learn more, I read a piece that Romero wrote in the
Arizona Daily Star
around the first of the year. Romero sa
fully understand that we have created something special for young
people.” He vigorously defended the program but the Daily Star
headline left me wondering Romero by this time had resigned
himself to go along with the District. It reads, “Mexican
Studies’ demise will foster even stronger program.” It left me
wondering if by this time Romero was contemplating absolvingthose who had thrown Humpty Dumpty off the wall.As I have said, I respect Romero as an educator; I am in agreementwith Romero on pedagogy. However, as a historian I am offendedby his lack of context, which will lead to bad history. History differsfrom education; it is a study of documents, and whether Romerowants to admit it or not, his paper is a historical document. At the
heart of the Tucson MAS struggle is the Truth, and Romero’s paper
distorts the narrative.