HB-2569 - student protection from state
Bob Tiernan
Forwarded by Bob Tiernan - written by Martin Buchanan
*************************************************
House Bill 2569 in the Oregon legislature would protect students
in government schools from intrusive tests and surveys without
prior written parental consent, where such tests or surveys
inquire about the student or any family member's:
- political affiliation or philosophies
- mental or psychological problems
- sexual behavior, orientation, or attitudes
- illegal, antisocial, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior
- religious affiliations or beliefs
[ three other minor categories omitted ]
This bill extends to all Oregon government school activities
protections that already exist for federally funded activities.
People who are more involved in this issue cite many instances
of intrusive testing without such safeguards, including asking
intrusive sexual questions.
Note that this is not a 'school choice' issue, but it does
relate to the battle for parental rights with respect to
THE STATE. When the state sets itself
and its agents up as the intimate 'confessors' of our children
through intrusive counseling and psychological testing, then
it turns itself into more family than the family itself. Who
we confess ourselves to is often an indication of the depth
and directions of our affections, which is why the Papacy's
institution of confession was and is such a powerful tool
for social control.
Thus I urge your support for this bill. Please call or fax
one or more House Education Committee members:
503-986-xxxx: PHONE FAX
Rep Dennis Luke, Chair 1454 1598
Rep Terry Thompson, Vice Chair 1404 1598
Rep Roger Beyer 1428 1130
Rep Ryan Deckert 1408 1130
Rep Bob Jenson 1457 1561
Rep Charles Starr 1403 1130
Rep Ron Sunseri 1422 1591
[ Starr and Sunseri probably already support the bill. ]
For more information about this bill and the underlying issues,
you can call Jan Meekcoms, 625-0613 (H), 222-6400 (W).
In liberty,
Martin L. Buchanan
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, zu...@teleport.com (Bob Tiernan) says:
>Forwarded by Bob Tiernan - written by Martin Buchanan
> House Bill 2569 in the Oregon legislature would protect students
> in government schools from intrusive tests and surveys without
> prior written parental consent, where such tests or surveys
> inquire about the student or any family member's:
> - political affiliation or philosophies
> - mental or psychological problems
> - sexual behavior, orientation, or attitudes
> - illegal, antisocial, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior
> - religious affiliations or beliefs
Gee, what a nifty idea! Although, I wonder why we should limit it
to public schools? Seems like the privacy interests involved would
be equally valid at private, especially religious, schools.
I'd be more concerned about a private religious right school
using these sorts of techniques to ferret out any sin, apostacy,
or heresy which may be occurring in a student's home or private
lives. Why are only public school students worthy of this "protection"?
Why should not private religious school students gain the same
"benefits"?
I mean, if somehow a public school finds out that dad enjoys a
few beers in the evening or mom listens to heavy metal rock
music or the kid is thinking about becoming a Buddhist, the
public school folks ain't gonna care much and are gonna do less.
I'd imagine there are some fundamentalist Christian schools that
would Care Very Much.
Sauce goose, sauce gander, eh?
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer bsha...@orednet.org -
"Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to
old ladies."
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 24 Apr 1997 03:57:51 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:
>
>In a previous article, zu...@teleport.com (Bob Tiernan) says:
>
>>Forwarded by Bob Tiernan - written by Martin Buchanan
>
>> House Bill 2569 in the Oregon legislature would protect students
>> in government schools from intrusive tests and surveys without
>> prior written parental consent, where such tests or surveys
>> inquire about the student or any family member's:
>> - political affiliation or philosophies
>> - mental or psychological problems
>> - sexual behavior, orientation, or attitudes
>> - illegal, antisocial, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior
>> - religious affiliations or beliefs
>
>Gee, what a nifty idea! Although, I wonder why we should limit it
>to public schools? Seems like the privacy interests involved would
>be equally valid at private, especially religious, schools.
>
>I'd be more concerned about a private religious right school
>using these sorts of techniques to ferret out any sin, apostacy,
>or heresy which may be occurring in a student's home or private
>lives. Why are only public school students worthy of this "protection"?
>Why should not private religious school students gain the same
>"benefits"?
Yawn. Bill, you really should get your head out of a certain part of
your anatomy.
Don't know about fundie Christian schools (I suspect they're already
much more intrusive, plus I recall seeing some releases parents have
to sign with regard to behavior, et al).
But with regard to Catholic schools, I can tell you they're much LESS
intrusive regarding home practices than your much beloved public
schools.
Besides, unlike public schools, if a parent sends their kids to
private schools with that sort of agenda, it's with full consent to
whatever's being taught there.
>I mean, if somehow a public school finds out that dad enjoys a
>few beers in the evening or mom listens to heavy metal rock
>music or the kid is thinking about becoming a Buddhist, the
>public school folks ain't gonna care much and are gonna do less.
>
>I'd imagine there are some fundamentalist Christian schools that
>would Care Very Much.
It's also highly unlikely said persons are gonna fork out the cash to
send their kids to those private schools.
You forget, Bill, we have to PAY to send our kids to these schools,
above and beyond taxes. We made our choice.
I might also add that if you're gonna apply these standards to private
Christian schools, they oughta also apply the same privacy standards
to some of the loosey-goosey alternative private schools around
town...believe me, from what I've heard via the mom grapevine, a
so-called "alternative, politically correct" school is MUCH more
intrusive about home life than my son's Catholic school.
jrw
I spamblock
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrw@*nospam*aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
-snips-
>Besides, unlike public schools, if a parent sends their kids to
>private schools with that sort of agenda, it's with full consent to
>whatever's being taught there.
And just why is that unlike public school? No one is _forced_
to send their kids to public school - if the parents select
public school, as opposed to any one of the many other options,
why is that not deemed equally "full consent to whatever's
being taught there"?
Besides, the bill has nothing to do with what's being _taught_
as you might have noticed had you been paying attention. (Here
I restrain myself from use of the "head in the anatomy" phrase
you seem so fond of.) It has to do with what schools can ask
about and/or test for but has nothing to do with teaching.
>>I mean, if somehow a public school finds out that dad enjoys a
>>few beers in the evening or mom listens to heavy metal rock
>>music or the kid is thinking about becoming a Buddhist, the
>>public school folks ain't gonna care much and are gonna do less.
>>
>>I'd imagine there are some fundamentalist Christian schools that
>>would Care Very Much.
>It's also highly unlikely said persons are gonna fork out the cash to
>send their kids to those private schools.
Why is that unlikely? There are some mighty powerful pressure
groups in the fundamentalist community.
>You forget, Bill, we have to PAY to send our kids to these schools,
>above and beyond taxes. We made our choice.
As did the parents who chose to send their kids to public schoools.
But still, how do you _know_ what private schools are asking
kids or testing for if they don't tell ya' about it and ask
your permission to do it? How do ya' know ya' ain't gonna
sometime get a real conservative bishop determined to track
down all apostacy and sin is HIS diocese?
>I might also add that if you're gonna apply these standards to private
>Christian schools, they oughta also apply the same privacy standards
>to some of the loosey-goosey alternative private schools around
>town...believe me, from what I've heard via the mom grapevine, a
>so-called "alternative, politically correct" school is MUCH more
>intrusive about home life than my son's Catholic school.
Well, the grapevine is not known as a notoriously reliable source
of information. But, I didn't suggest excluding _any_ school
from these proposed regulations - "sauce goose, sauce gander"
was, I believe, my comment. If this is a good proposal, it
should be an equally good proposal for _all_ schools, public and
private, nonsecular and religious.
Scott Johnson
This bill, it seems to me, is a solution looking for a problem. I can't
recall ANY incidents of any school, public or private, from using
questionnaires handed out to the kiddies to dig dirt on the parents.
Scott
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Scott Johnson -- Professional (sometimes) SW Engineer and all-purpose Geek|
|I don't speak for nobody but myself, which everyone else is thankful for |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 24 Apr 1997 23:57:49 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:
>
>In a previous article, jrw@*nospam*aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>
>-snips-
>>Besides, unlike public schools, if a parent sends their kids to
>>private schools with that sort of agenda, it's with full consent to
>>whatever's being taught there.
>
>And just why is that unlike public school? No one is _forced_
>to send their kids to public school - if the parents select
>public school, as opposed to any one of the many other options,
>why is that not deemed equally "full consent to whatever's
>being taught there"?
Bill, Bill, Bill, most parents send their kids to public school by
default. I'll hazard a guess that only a minority--significant,
perchance, but still a minority--get picky about the particular public
school.
As for being _forced_ to send kids to school, may I remind you of the
Troutdale kids case? You've gotta do something, and public school is
the resort of least resistance, at least for most folks.
I resubmit: you send a kid to a conservative religious school, you're
sending the kid there because you want to do so and fully endorse
what's going on, down to the degree of mind control present.
>
>Besides, the bill has nothing to do with what's being _taught_
>as you might have noticed had you been paying attention. (Here
>I restrain myself from use of the "head in the anatomy" phrase
>you seem so fond of.) It has to do with what schools can ask
>about and/or test for but has nothing to do with teaching.
Moi? Fond of head in the anatomy phrases? Surely you jest.
As for what schools can ask for/test for, all I've gotta say is that
any info given has to be with your consent. Or have you ever filled
out any kind of school application forms?
>
>>>I mean, if somehow a public school finds out that dad enjoys a
>>>few beers in the evening or mom listens to heavy metal rock
>>>music or the kid is thinking about becoming a Buddhist, the
>>>public school folks ain't gonna care much and are gonna do less.
>>>
>>>I'd imagine there are some fundamentalist Christian schools that
>>>would Care Very Much.
>
>>It's also highly unlikely said persons are gonna fork out the cash to
>>send their kids to those private schools.
>
>Why is that unlikely? There are some mighty powerful pressure
>groups in the fundamentalist community.
Begging the point, Mr. Bill. If you aren't a fundamentalist who cares
what these people think about you and your kid, why should it affect
you what they do in their schools?...again, with full consent of the
parents. Believe me, you sign off on a lot of forms. I doubt that
any parent who sends their kid off to a private, fundamentalist school
which is going to be that concerned about the family's private life
does so unknowingly without full knowledge and consent. It just
doesn't operate that way. Among other things, you sign off on a
behavior standards statement or some such thing.
You aren't making sense here.
And if fundies choose to pressure each other to behave in a certain
way, well, if they choose to associate with each other in that matter,
to each their own. Just like Libertarians or Democrats....
>
>>You forget, Bill, we have to PAY to send our kids to these schools,
>>above and beyond taxes. We made our choice.
>
>As did the parents who chose to send their kids to public schoools.
Or who took the course of least resistance. C'mon, public schools are
the easy choice.
>But still, how do you _know_ what private schools are asking
>kids or testing for if they don't tell ya' about it and ask
>your permission to do it? How do ya' know ya' ain't gonna
>sometime get a real conservative bishop determined to track
>down all apostacy and sin is HIS diocese?
Snort. First off, control isn't quite that centralized. It's more
likely that the parish Education Commission would decide to do any
such thing...and, believe me, if you get (which Portland may very well
have happen, with Francis George moving on) a conservative bishop or
archbishop, it ain't gonna happen in secret. The record of a
Brusekwitz or some such character (be still my beating heart, please
God we don't get HIM to replace Archbishop George) is very public.
Catholic bishops are active on various internal bodies and the laity
are well aware of how they stand. You'd find out right away.
Same with the Education Commission. Small school like my son's, I
know the members of the school board.
Also, given the nature of our schools, we've got volunteers crawling
up the ying-yang to help out, and believe me, we don't march in
lockstep. It'd be awfully hard to enforce such a thing. You've gotta
remember, we don't have very many nuns teaching any more.
>
>>I might also add that if you're gonna apply these standards to private
>>Christian schools, they oughta also apply the same privacy standards
>>to some of the loosey-goosey alternative private schools around
>>town...believe me, from what I've heard via the mom grapevine, a
>>so-called "alternative, politically correct" school is MUCH more
>>intrusive about home life than my son's Catholic school.
>
>Well, the grapevine is not known as a notoriously reliable source
>of information. But, I didn't suggest excluding _any_ school
>from these proposed regulations - "sauce goose, sauce gander"
>was, I believe, my comment. If this is a good proposal, it
>should be an equally good proposal for _all_ schools, public and
>private, nonsecular and religious.
Frankly, my dear, I think it's another one of Les Lemke's paranoid
fantasies.
jrw
I spamblock
Scott Johnson
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970426...@linda.teleport.com>,
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On 24 Apr 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>> No one is _forced_
>> to send their kids to public school
>
>with so much income going to various taxes, potential private schools
>never opening up due to difficulty in starting a business (thanks
>again to government), and so on.
Nonsense. Private schools abound, and homeschooling is ALWAYS an option.
Many private schools are tax-exempt, to boot.
If the Evil Gubmint Konspiracy is trying to brainwash our kids...its doing
a piss-poor job of it.
Bob Tiernan
On 24 Apr 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> No one is _forced_
> to send their kids to public school
Government doesn't exactly make it easy to choose another option, what
with so much income going to various taxes, potential private schools
never opening up due to difficulty in starting a business (thanks
again to government), and so on.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On 26 Apr 1997, Scott Johnson wrote:
> Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Government doesn't exactly make it easy to choose another option,
> >what, with so much income going to various taxes, potential private
> >schools never opening up due to difficulty in starting a business
> >(thanks again to government), and so on.
>
>
> Nonsense. Private schools abound, and homeschooling is ALWAYS an option.
> Many private schools are tax-exempt, to boot.
Do people first get a tax refund equal to their "fair share" of their
funding of the skooling system so that they can put it towards the
education of their own kids? If not, then this is highly unfair, and I'm
*not* talking about the voucher system.
> If the Evil Gubmint Konspiracy is trying to brainwash our kids...its doing
> a piss-poor job of it.
Since most to almost all people believe that the government should
be as involved as it is in skooling, I'd have to say that it's
working fine.
Bob T.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On Fri, 16 May 1997 07:18:21 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>On 26 Apr 1997, Scott Johnson wrote:
>
>> Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>> >Government doesn't exactly make it easy to choose another option,
>> >what, with so much income going to various taxes, potential private
>> >schools never opening up due to difficulty in starting a business
>> >(thanks again to government), and so on.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. Private schools abound, and homeschooling is ALWAYS an option.
>> Many private schools are tax-exempt, to boot.
>
>
>Do people first get a tax refund equal to their "fair share" of their
>funding of the skooling system so that they can put it towards the
>education of their own kids? If not, then this is highly unfair, and I'm
>*not* talking about the voucher system.
Nope.
I know this firsthand as a parochial school mom.
We don't get to deduct our tuition payments on our taxes, even though
the school is a tax-exempt entity. More on this below. The only tax
exemption which directly affects us is the school's exemption from the
property tax.
OTOH, if the school had to pay property taxes (along with the parish),
then it would be in the ironic position of paying to support its
competition....
But hubby-n-I don't get any tax refunds for our contributions to
Portland Public Schools, and all we did get was damned lousy service
when our kid was taking speech therapy from PPS. Kaiser did a much
better job of it.
If the school lost its property tax exemption, we'd be paying twice to
the public schools, both in our property tax and in paying the
increased tuition necessary to pay for the school's property tax.
Now, as for deducting tuition payments as contributions to a
tax-exempt organization, you just plain can't do that. Scott reveals
his ignorance of that aspect of the tax laws by making that assumption
(I'm assuming myself that he's assuming this situation). You can't
deduct any contribution for which you receive an item of comparable
value. You can only deduct the difference between the market value of
the service or item you purchased and what you paid.
Tuition is payment for a service received, so it isn't deductible.
And, for some convoluted reasoning I can't recall now, our
contributions to our mandatory school fundraising commitment are also
not deductible for us. Perhaps it's due to the fact that it's
additional purchase of services, or a required thing or some such
stuff. For us, all things considered, that's about $2500 a school
year with parish subsidy. And we contribute above and beyond the
minimum.
jrw
I spamblock
>
Scott Johnson
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.97051...@kelly.teleport.com>,
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 1997, Scott Johnson wrote:
>
>> Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>> >Government doesn't exactly make it easy to choose another option,
>> >what, with so much income going to various taxes, potential private
>> >schools never opening up due to difficulty in starting a business
>> >(thanks again to government), and so on.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. Private schools abound, and homeschooling is ALWAYS an option.
>> Many private schools are tax-exempt, to boot.
>
>Do people first get a tax refund equal to their "fair share" of their
>funding of the skooling system so that they can put it towards the
>education of their own kids? If not, then this is highly unfair, and I'm
>*not* talking about the voucher system.
Should they? Last I checked, We The People, in our infinite wisdom,
decided that primary and secondary education should be made available to
all--a good investment, I say. You may disagree with this, of course.
>> If the Evil Gubmint Konspiracy is trying to brainwash our kids...its doing
>> a piss-poor job of it.
>
>Since most to almost all people believe that the government should
>be as involved as it is in skooling, I'd have to say that it's
>working fine.
Bob, Bob, Bob... not everyone who disagrees with you has been
brainwashed--most of us form our opinions out of our own free
wills--public schools or no public schools. (MY public school curriculum
included topics such as critical thinking--something that would not likely
be taught if the purpose was to indoctrinate.)
Besides. Lots of folks who were educated in private schools or
home-schooled nonetheless support public education.
Nobody ever here accuses Libertarians of being the unwitting dupes of
Corporate America (or any other such silliness), though I've heard more
than a few lefties express that sentiment before. I, for one, assume that
your opinions are yours and yours alone--arrived at in a rational, honest
fashion. I may disagree with lots of 'em--but I certainly don't consider
you a mindless sheep for holding them.
Remeber to show the same respect.
Scott Johnson
In article <337cf1cb...@news.aracnet.com>,
Joyce Reynolds-Ward <jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 1997 07:18:21 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 26 Apr 1997, Scott Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Government doesn't exactly make it easy to choose another option,
>>> >what, with so much income going to various taxes, potential private
>>> >schools never opening up due to difficulty in starting a business
>>> >(thanks again to government), and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Private schools abound, and homeschooling is ALWAYS an option.
>>> Many private schools are tax-exempt, to boot.
>>
>>
>>Do people first get a tax refund equal to their "fair share" of their
>>funding of the skooling system so that they can put it towards the
>>education of their own kids? If not, then this is highly unfair, and I'm
>>*not* talking about the voucher system.
>
>
>I know this firsthand as a parochial school mom.
>
>We don't get to deduct our tuition payments on our taxes, even though
>the school is a tax-exempt entity. More on this below. The only tax
>exemption which directly affects us is the school's exemption from the
>property tax.
That was the exemption to which I was referring. Thanks for clarifying
this.
>OTOH, if the school had to pay property taxes (along with the parish),
>then it would be in the ironic position of paying to support its
>competition....
>
>But hubby-n-I don't get any tax refunds for our contributions to
>Portland Public Schools, and all we did get was damned lousy service
>when our kid was taking speech therapy from PPS. Kaiser did a much
>better job of it.
>
>If the school lost its property tax exemption, we'd be paying twice to
>the public schools, both in our property tax and in paying the
>increased tuition necessary to pay for the school's property tax.
>
>Now, as for deducting tuition payments as contributions to a
>tax-exempt organization, you just plain can't do that. Scott reveals
>his ignorance of that aspect of the tax laws by making that assumption
>(I'm assuming myself that he's assuming this situation).
I wasn't...but your point is a good one.
> You can't
>deduct any contribution for which you receive an item of comparable
>value. You can only deduct the difference between the market value of
>the service or item you purchased and what you paid.
>
>Tuition is payment for a service received, so it isn't deductible.
>And, for some convoluted reasoning I can't recall now, our
>contributions to our mandatory school fundraising commitment are also
>not deductible for us. Perhaps it's due to the fact that it's
>additional purchase of services, or a required thing or some such
>stuff. For us, all things considered, that's about $2500 a school
>year with parish subsidy. And we contribute above and beyond the
>minimum.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
-snips-
>But hubby-n-I don't get any tax refunds for our contributions to
>Portland Public Schools, and all we did get was damned lousy service
>when our kid was taking speech therapy from PPS. Kaiser did a much
>better job of it.
Oh blather and nonsense! Look right there on line six of your
schedule A - the one that is entitled "Taxes you paid - Real Estate
Taxes". Or, for the state's contribution to the local schools, look
at line five, the one entitled, "Taxes you paid - state and local income
taxes. You most certainly get a tax refund for your contributions
to Portland Public Schools, perhaps not as large a one as you would
like but a tax refund ne'er the less.
>If the school lost its property tax exemption, we'd be paying twice to
>the public schools, both in our property tax and in paying the
>increased tuition necessary to pay for the school's property tax.
Hokay - how 'bout we just have the private school pay for the services
it uses - like police, fire, prisons, streets and street lighting,
that sort of stuff - so the rest of us aren't subsidizing your
religious choice. Separation of church and state and all that -
isn't giving church schools free fire protection that the rest of
us gotta pay for kinda flying in the face of the spirit of the
First amendment?
-generally cogent discussion about the non-deductibility of tuition
snipped-
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer bsha...@orednet.org -
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 19 May 1997 20:49:24 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:
>
>In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>
>-snips-
>
>>But hubby-n-I don't get any tax refunds for our contributions to
>>Portland Public Schools, and all we did get was damned lousy service
>>when our kid was taking speech therapy from PPS. Kaiser did a much
>>better job of it.
>
>Oh blather and nonsense! Look right there on line six of your
>schedule A - the one that is entitled "Taxes you paid - Real Estate
>Taxes". Or, for the state's contribution to the local schools, look
>at line five, the one entitled, "Taxes you paid - state and local income
>taxes. You most certainly get a tax refund for your contributions
>to Portland Public Schools, perhaps not as large a one as you would
>like but a tax refund ne'er the less.
No more than anyone else who gets full service. The point, Bill, was
that the previous poster was of the opinion that parochial school
parents benefit from an additional tax exemption because their
children attend a tax-exempt school. Not so.
Read for comprehension, dimwit! Sheesh!
>>If the school lost its property tax exemption, we'd be paying twice to
>>the public schools, both in our property tax and in paying the
>>increased tuition necessary to pay for the school's property tax.
>
>Hokay - how 'bout we just have the private school pay for the services
>it uses - like police, fire, prisons, streets and street lighting,
>that sort of stuff - so the rest of us aren't subsidizing your
>religious choice. Separation of church and state and all that -
>isn't giving church schools free fire protection that the rest of
>us gotta pay for kinda flying in the face of the spirit of the
>First amendment?
Then let's wipe tax exemptions for all charities, if you're going to
pick on religious charities.
For that matter, taxing private nonprofit schools is unfair taxation.
After all, do the public schools pay taxes on the services THEY use?
Police, fire, and so on. Of course not! So if private nonprofit
schools have to start paying property tax, then let's have the public
schools pay property tax as well. And the Feds. And the state.
Let's wipe out all nontax properties, whether government owned or
religious owned or nonprofit exempt owned.
Otherwise, taxing the private exempt school while not taxing the
public exempt school is unfair taxation, bub, and you are guilty of
bigotry and discrimination against religious folks.
Of course, discrimination against religious folks is entirely PC these
days, especially if the religion happens to be Catholic. I don't
often agree with David Reinhold of the Oregonian, but his editorial on
the subject (and, BTW, Reinhold is Episcopalian, so he has no Catholic
ax to grind) hits bang on.
You're just proof of the PCness of attacking religious faith.
jrw
talltom
Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
> On 19 May 1997 20:49:24 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
> No more than anyone else who gets full service. The point, Bill, was
> that the previous poster was of the opinion that parochial school
> parents benefit from an additional tax exemption because their
> children attend a tax-exempt school. Not so.
>
> Read for comprehension, dimwit! Sheesh!
That's Bill's tactic when he's all wet, change the subject to some irrelevent point
and treat it as is tht point has some bearing on the point of the argument.
Often he can pick some insignificant detail and attempts to make as if that proves
his contention on the point correct, when in fact it's only a diversionary
waste of time to sidetrack the easily manipulated.
> Then let's wipe tax exemptions for all charities, if you're going to
> pick on religious charities.
What, you wnt real equality? Not govt. just messing with everybody on the basis of
whether or not they like them at the moment???
> For that matter, taxing private nonprofit schools is unfair taxation.
> After all, do the public schools pay taxes on the services THEY use?
> Police, fire, and so on. Of course not! So if private nonprofit
> schools have to start paying property tax, then let's have the public
> schools pay property tax as well. And the Feds. And the state.
> Let's wipe out all nontax properties, whether government owned or
> religious owned or nonprofit exempt owned.
OK! :-)
> Otherwise, taxing the private exempt school while not taxing the
> public exempt school is unfair taxation, bub, and you are guilty of
> bigotry and discrimination against religious folks.
>
> Of course, discrimination against religious folks is entirely PC these
> days, especially if the religion happens to be Catholic. I don't
> often agree with David Reinhold of the Oregonian, but his editorial on
> the subject (and, BTW, Reinhold is Episcopalian, so he has no Catholic
> ax to grind) hits bang on.
Well I'll agree with you on the tax issues you raise, but I thought
Reinhardt(Not Reinhold, Mrs. spelling Knotsie!:-) really was all wet on that
one. And Reinhardt goes to church with with people that I went to church with
30 years ago.(I quit)
> You're just proof of the PCness of attacking religious faith.
Well it's probably well known that I'm about as far as one can get from PC,
but I see no reason to attack religion in general or any specific denomination,
however the behavior of many religious nutballs in the legislature damn sure does
deserve to be attacked, and the tax subsidy should be eliminated as you say.
The action on measure 16("death with dignity") by Ron Sunseri and his ilk
that can't seem to figuire out that a person's body is their property,
and the state has no jurisdiction or authority to force it's preservation.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>On 19 May 1997 20:49:24 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
>wrote:
-snips-
>>Hokay - how 'bout we just have the private school pay for the services
>>it uses - like police, fire, prisons, streets and street lighting,
>>that sort of stuff - so the rest of us aren't subsidizing your
>>religious choice. Separation of church and state and all that -
>>isn't giving church schools free fire protection that the rest of
>>us gotta pay for kinda flying in the face of the spirit of the
>>First amendment?
>
>Then let's wipe tax exemptions for all charities, if you're going to
>pick on religious charities.
That wouldn't upset me a bunch - in fact, a sound public policy
argument could be made for removing that portion of the property
tax exemption for all charities.
But, a rational argument can be made for tax exemptions for
most charities which cannot be made for churches and religious
schools. After all, most non-religious charities simply
supplement the services which gubmint already provides, thus
theoretically lessening the need for tax-payer supported
funding for those services. The Red Cross engages in disaster
relief, thus reducing the need for FEMA funds, the Cancer
Society funds cancer research, supplementing the research
done at the Centers for Disease Control, the Salvation Army
feeds the homeless, thus reducing the costs of welfare and
gubmint homeless shelters, and so on.
BUT, under the first amendment, the gubmint is _forbidden_
to fund religious activities - private charitable funding
of churches and church schools doesn't reduce gubmint expenditures
in these areas a wit 'cause the gubmint does not and cannot
fund these activities.
Additionally, of course, there is the additional problem that while
the Red Cross, the Cancer Society, and the Salvation Army
make their services available to anyone in need of those
services without regard to race or creed, churches and
church schools only make their "services" generally available
to those they consider "truly shriven". The Cancer Society,
etc. serves _all_ the tax payers while churches only serve
_certain_ taxpayers.
>For that matter, taxing private nonprofit schools is unfair taxation.
>After all, do the public schools pay taxes on the services THEY use?
>Police, fire, and so on. Of course not! So if private nonprofit
>schools have to start paying property tax, then let's have the public
>schools pay property tax as well.
Would be kinda silly, wouldn't it? The same taxpayers that are
paying for the schools are the same taxpayers paying for the
police. Hardly makes much sense to reduce the taxes for police
by having public schools pay for the police while at the same time
raising school taxes to pay for it. With public schools, the
money comes, basically, from the same pockets. This is not,
of course, the case with private schools.
>And the Feds. And the state.
>Let's wipe out all nontax properties, whether government owned or
>religious owned or nonprofit exempt owned.
Well, as to gubmint owned properties, the exemption makes sense as
the money is ultimately coming from the same pockets. As to the
Elks Lodges and churches and the headquarters for the Boy Scouts,
yep, "taxing" 'em at least for the direct services they receive
like police, fire, street lighting, street cleaning and the like
seems sound public policy to me.
>Otherwise, taxing the private exempt school while not taxing the
>public exempt school is unfair taxation, bub, and you are guilty of
>bigotry and discrimination against religious folks.
Hmmmm! Every year around property tax time I send off a substantial
"donation" to the public schools via my property taxes. I am
constitutionally forbidden to send off such a "donation" via the
property taxes to any religious school or organization. "Unfair"
is, of course, in the eye of the beholder but it is certainly
less than bigotry and discrimination.
>Of course, discrimination against religious folks is entirely PC these
>days, especially if the religion happens to be Catholic. I don't
>often agree with David Reinhold of the Oregonian, but his editorial on
>the subject (and, BTW, Reinhold is Episcopalian, so he has no Catholic
>ax to grind) hits bang on.
>You're just proof of the PCness of attacking religious faith.
Now, now, you just simmer down there a minute. I had one daughter
attend St. Mary's Academy and another who applied for
Jesuit so I'm obviously not bent on attacking
church schools. They are, by and large, A Good Thing for many
folks. But whether or not they are A Good Thing for many
folks is really not relevent to the public policy issue of
whether or not the taxpaying public should be funding 'em
by providing 'em with police protection and clean streets for
free.
And, while writing my check to St. Mary's, I wasn't whinning about
how I should get a tax break for doing it nor bemoaning the
unfairness of it all!
Hal Lillywhite
In article <5lvgrk$r...@ednet2.orednet.org> bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes:
...
>But, a rational argument can be made for tax exemptions for
>most charities which cannot be made for churches and religious
>schools. After all, most non-religious charities simply
>supplement the services which gubmint already provides, thus
>theoretically lessening the need for tax-payer supported
>funding for those services.
??? And religious schools don't? If we have a religious school
with, for example, 600 students then those students are not in
public schools. That means that several teachers, together with
some administrators are on a private, not public payroll. In
addition the public school need not build classrooms for those
students. Seems to me that would save the taxpayers money. I
think you blew it on this one Bill.
(Actually I suspect much of the objection to private schools,
religious or otherwise, comes from the teachers unions. They know
that a lot of private schools are non-union. It is to be expected
that they would oppose anything which would help private schools,
such as tuition credits. The more students are in private schools
the fewer teachers will belong to the union.)
>The Red Cross engages in disaster
>relief, thus reducing the need for FEMA funds,
As do many churches, including my own. And it those helped aren't
limited to church members. In fact since our local government has
not yet implemented any real disaster preparations our church is
doing something on the order of the FEMA CERT (Community Emergency
Response Team) program. Non-members are welcome to participate.
>... the Salvation Army
>feeds the homeless, thus reducing the costs of welfare and
>gubmint homeless shelters, and so on.
As do many other churches. However I have to wonder why you are
willing to give one distinctly religious organization (the Salvation
Army) a tax break but not others. I agree churches should get such
breaks but it seems a bit inconsistent to suggest that the SA get
them but that they be denied to other religious organizations.
By the way Bill, church sponsored welfare often goes well beyond
mere feeding the homeless. At times it meets personal and social
needs in valuable ways which government agencies cannot. Some of
these include job training for severely disadvantaged people and
personalized help and encouragement for those who might otherwise
remain on welfare rolls. Government welfare is constrained by rigid
rules saying who they must assist and how much they must help. If a
person meets the criteria they have to help even if they believe the
subject is deliberately doing poorly on job interviews so as not to
get hired. A private organization such as a church can deny help in
such cases. On the other hand the private organization can help
someone with a special problem which might be left out of the
government rules.
Let me give you an example: Go out to Deseret Industries on SW 82nd
and look at the people working there. Better yet ask if you can
take a tour and see what goes on behind the scenes. Many of their
employees would have a hard time getting employment in private
business but they can work there, they feel useful and they get
training. Many go on to get jobs in private business after that
training. However when I drove truck for them (in Utah) I saw many
people employed there who would probably never be able to land a
job in a normal business. DI is an example of a sheltered
workshop sponsored by a church and is very effective. I believe St
Vincent de Paul is similar but don't know as much about it as I do
about DI. Both are church sponsored and provide services which
relieve the welfare burden on the state.
>BUT, under the first amendment, the gubmint is _forbidden_
>to fund religious activities -
I agree government can't fund them. However I see a difference
between funding them and not taxing them. Indeed I believe the
root of the tax exemption for churches is that the power to tax is
the power to control. Government could just pick out the churches
it doesn't like and tax them so heavily that they would be severely
hampered. To prevent that we don't tax them at all. (And yes, I
know some have abused that exemption but that doesn't make it
inapplicable to the rest.)
>private charitable funding
>of churches and church schools doesn't reduce gubmint expenditures
>in these areas a wit 'cause the gubmint does not and cannot
>fund these activities.
While government cannot teach religion most churches do teach
morality and respect for fellow man. As a result I believe that
they reduce the burden on law enforcement. Democracy depends on the
willingness of the majority to obey the unenforceable. The moral
teaching given by churches enhances that willingness. Since most
also teach that people should support themselves they likely reduce
the welfare burden also. I see church teaching as a definite
benefit to society.
>Additionally, of course, there is the additional problem that while
>the Red Cross, the Cancer Society, and the Salvation Army
>make their services available to anyone in need of those
>services without regard to race or creed, churches and
>church schools only make their "services" generally available
>to those they consider "truly shriven".
Nonsense. I've yet to see a church limit attendance to only the
chosen few. Maybe a few minor churches do that but I think any one
of us would be welcome to attend any major church in the US. They
may not let just anyone sing in the choir or teach Sunday School but
most are glad to have anyone attend. And if you are willing to meet
what are usually some rather nominal requirements you can be a
member of most churches and get all sorts of "services" from them.
(Well, somebody with my musical "ability" may not be allowed to sing
in the choir. :-) )
As for church schools I have plenty of friends who have sent
children to them even though they weren't members. Some may limit
attendance to members but many do not. You mention sending your
daughter to a Catholic school but don't say if you are Catholic.
Regardless I suspect she had a few non-Catholic classmates.
I think your charge that churches limit who they will serve is
poorly thought out. The truth is that many people don't want
churches to serve them (which is their right) and so do not take
advantage of that service. However, even with that and with Oregon
being one of the least churched states in the union I believe
churches here serve a larger percentage of the population than does
the cancer society. (At least I hope we don't have as many cancer
patients as we do church goers.) In any case, show up at any church
in town and tell them you are interested in their "product" and you
will likely be welcomed with open arms.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
>In article <5lvgrk$r...@ednet2.orednet.org> bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes:
>>But, a rational argument can be made for tax exemptions for
>>most charities which cannot be made for churches and religious
>>schools. After all, most non-religious charities simply
>>supplement the services which gubmint already provides, thus
>>theoretically lessening the need for tax-payer supported
>>funding for those services.
>
>??? And religious schools don't? If we have a religious school
>with, for example, 600 students then those students are not in
>public schools. That means that several teachers, together with
>some administrators are on a private, not public payroll. In
>addition the public school need not build classrooms for those
>students. Seems to me that would save the taxpayers money. I
>think you blew it on this one Bill.
Well, I think you misconstrue the thrust of what I was getting at -
or I said it poorly. Of course a religious school diverts a
certain number of children from public schools. But that is
hardly the test for a tax exemption - after all, the KOA
campgrounds divert a certain number of vacationers from the
state and national parks and the airlines divert a certain number
of travellers from the public highways yet we don't give tax
exemptions to either KOA campgrounds or airlines.
My point was that the _service_ provided by religious schools and
public schools is fundamentally different - one is a _public_
education and the other is a _religious_ education. While concededly
there are some similarities between the two services (just as there
are some similarities between state parks and KOA campgrounds) the
differences are of a fundamental constitutional nature such that
government not only does not provide but is constitutionally
_forbidden_ from providing the type of service provided by religious
schools.
>(Actually I suspect much of the objection to private schools,
>religious or otherwise, comes from the teachers unions. They know
>that a lot of private schools are non-union. It is to be expected
>that they would oppose anything which would help private schools,
>such as tuition credits. The more students are in private schools
>the fewer teachers will belong to the union.)
There is no objection to private or religious schools per se by
the teachers' unions that I know of. What there is, of course,
is an objection to taking _public_ monies and resources and
diverting them to religious education. That diversion whould
result in less money and fewer resources being available for
public education. And, needless to say, no one in public education,
unionized or no, is likely to support fewer resources for public
education.
>>The Red Cross engages in disaster
>>relief, thus reducing the need for FEMA funds,
>As do many churches, including my own. And it those helped aren't
>limited to church members. In fact since our local government has
>not yet implemented any real disaster preparations our church is
>doing something on the order of the FEMA CERT (Community Emergency
>Response Team) program. Non-members are welcome to participate.
I don't doubt the sincerity of your church but, quite frankly,
the history of churches in this regard is NOT good. Oh, they
pitch in if disaster strikes _their_ community (I've no doubt
that if there are churches left standing in Tyler, TX, they've
opened their doors to all as emergency shelters) and they
may take up a collection to help some sister congregation
rebuild their church after a fire or flood but actual disaster
relief has _not_ been the forte of most churches, by and large.
How much money did your church sent to the flood ravished folks
in the Dakotas or the tornado ravished folks in Texas? The
Red Cross, OTOH, has spent plenty and is spending more as
I type this.
>>... the Salvation Army
>>feeds the homeless, thus reducing the costs of welfare and
>>gubmint homeless shelters, and so on.
>
>As do many other churches. However I have to wonder why you are
>willing to give one distinctly religious organization (the Salvation
>Army) a tax break but not others. I agree churches should get such
>breaks but it seems a bit inconsistent to suggest that the SA get
>them but that they be denied to other religious organizations.
Any church which wishes to adopt the same mission statement as
the Salvation Army should be treated as is the Salvation Army.
But, with most churches, feeding the homeless, save maybe the
homeless of their own religion or congregation, is a once a
year, feel-good sideshow. Any church which wants to make it
their full time mission as does the SA should get whatever
breaks the SA gets. Those that don't, shouldn't.
>By the way Bill, church sponsored welfare often goes well beyond
>mere feeding the homeless. At times it meets personal and social
>needs in valuable ways which government agencies cannot.
But this is meaningless Hal - all sorts of organizations meet
personal and social needs - hell, fortune tellers and psychics
meet personal needs but we don't give 'em a tax break.
>Some of
>these include job training for severely disadvantaged people and
>personalized help and encouragement for those who might otherwise
>remain on welfare rolls.
YOUR church runs a sheltered workshop? If so, I applaud it but
it's gotta be one of the few that does. But even there, that
might be an argument for a tax break for the sheltered workshop
but hardly an argument that the church itself, the auditorium,
the minister's house and all the rest should be exempt from property
taxes, especially that portion of the property taxes which pay
for the services those properties receive.
(I've no problem, incidently, with exempting churches from the
school district portion of the property taxes but the taxes for
things like fire protection and street lights seem something
churches _should_ be required to pay for - in fact, something
_all_ non-profits should be paying for.)
>>BUT, under the first amendment, the gubmint is _forbidden_
>>to fund religious activities -
>
>I agree government can't fund them. However I see a difference
>between funding them and not taxing them. Indeed I believe the
>root of the tax exemption for churches is that the power to tax is
>the power to control. Government could just pick out the churches
>it doesn't like and tax them so heavily that they would be severely
>hampered. To prevent that we don't tax them at all. (And yes, I
>know some have abused that exemption but that doesn't make it
>inapplicable to the rest.)
But, you misconstrue my proposal - first of all, under the 1st
and 14th amendments, there is no way you could tax the bejeebers
out of churches without taxing the bejeebers out of everyone else.
In other words, you couldn't single out churches for a particularly
heavy handed tax without doing the same to everyone. That should
be sufficient protection against gubmint "picking out the churches
it doesn't like" 'cause it can't do that.
But secondly, I'm only proposing that churches pay for the gubmint
services they actually use or benefit by - the costs of police
and fire protection, street maintenance and cleaning, street lights,
that sort of thing. Why _should_ churches receive these services
for free and leave the rest of us, both the shriven and the unshriven,
to pick up the bills for these services?
>>private charitable funding
>>of churches and church schools doesn't reduce gubmint expenditures
>>in these areas a wit 'cause the gubmint does not and cannot
>>fund these activities.
>
>While government cannot teach religion most churches do teach
>morality and respect for fellow man. As a result I believe that
>they reduce the burden on law enforcement.
Perhaps, perhaps - yet so do many other activities supposedly.
>Democracy depends on the
>willingness of the majority to obey the unenforceable. The moral
>teaching given by churches enhances that willingness. Since most
>also teach that people should support themselves they likely reduce
>the welfare burden also. I see church teaching as a definite
>benefit to society.
Ah, but under the first amendment, we _can't_ require churches to
teach anything! And check out the teachings of the nation of
Islam or the Scientologists or the late, great Rajneeshis.
>>Additionally, of course, there is the additional problem that while
>>the Red Cross, the Cancer Society, and the Salvation Army
>>make their services available to anyone in need of those
>>services without regard to race or creed, churches and
>>church schools only make their "services" generally available
>>to those they consider "truly shriven".
>Nonsense. I've yet to see a church limit attendance to only the
>chosen few. -snips-
"Services", Hal in the sense of benefits, not in the sense of
"Sunday services"
-snips-
>I think your charge that churches limit who they will serve is
>poorly thought out.
Well, I do know the LDS church has an extensive "welfare" system
and LDS members who "fall on hard times" will usually receive
assistance and support from the church. I've yet to hear of
that system springing into action to assist an non-LDS member
(or, whose yet, a lapsed LDS member) in similar circumstances.
-snips-
But, again, all I am suggesting is that non-profits, churches
included, should pay for the government services they receive.
No more, no less.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 30 May 1997 05:05:48 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:
snip
>My point was that the _service_ provided by religious schools and
>public schools is fundamentally different - one is a _public_
>education and the other is a _religious_ education. While concededly
>there are some similarities between the two services (just as there
>are some similarities between state parks and KOA campgrounds) the
>differences are of a fundamental constitutional nature such that
>government not only does not provide but is constitutionally
>_forbidden_ from providing the type of service provided by religious
>schools.
Bill, I'll lay odds that you can go into any *academic* class in a
parochial or public school and not see much if any difference.
Religion is a class like any other in the parochial system, and the
hours dedicated to it are limited. By the state.
Moreover, the state has quite a bit of say in the administration of a
parochial school. Parochial schools must be state-certified as well
as public schools (these days the process is combined. Our school is
currently going through accreditation and my understanding is that
this is good for both systems). Parochial schools also must meet the
same total hour requirements that public schools have, the same
teacher certification requirements, the same in-service requirements.
Given the degree of state regulation and the fact that parochial
schools, like public schools, are also subject to the same Standard
"Q" fire and earthquake requirements, I fail to see the justification
for denying a parochial school tax-exemption. If you're gonna tax
'em, then by golly they should be able to carve their own way without
regulation. Otherwise, they have to jump through many of the same
hoops and regulations as the public schools. There really isn't that
great of an administrative or academic difference...except for
religion class. And, these days, that's limited. We had parishioners
ask why the kids didn't attend Daily Mass as they had when they were
children. The answer was "state regulations. The once a week Mass
fits into the religious education slot so they can do that...but no
more." So the State already controls the religion aspect in parochial
schools.
snip
>There is no objection to private or religious schools per se by
>the teachers' unions that I know of. What there is, of course,
>is an objection to taking _public_ monies and resources and
>diverting them to religious education. That diversion whould
>result in less money and fewer resources being available for
>public education. And, needless to say, no one in public education,
>unionized or no, is likely to support fewer resources for public
>education.
I don't hear much bellyaching about such things outside of Portland
Public Schools. Other school districts seem perfectly happy to share
resources with parochial schools, to the extent that parochial school
kids ride the public school bus to their school. Portland doesn't
allow that. In fact, parochial school kids going to Outdoor School
with public school kids can't even be picked up at their own school in
Portland. They have to go over to the public school, because in
Portland's eyes stopping in front of the parochial school to pick up
those kids Is A Major Violation. Sheesh.
>
>>>The Red Cross engages in disaster
>>>relief, thus reducing the need for FEMA funds,
>
>>As do many churches, including my own. And it those helped aren't
>>limited to church members. In fact since our local government has
>>not yet implemented any real disaster preparations our church is
>>doing something on the order of the FEMA CERT (Community Emergency
>>Response Team) program. Non-members are welcome to participate.
>
>I don't doubt the sincerity of your church but, quite frankly,
>the history of churches in this regard is NOT good. Oh, they
>pitch in if disaster strikes _their_ community (I've no doubt
>that if there are churches left standing in Tyler, TX, they've
>opened their doors to all as emergency shelters) and they
>may take up a collection to help some sister congregation
>rebuild their church after a fire or flood but actual disaster
>relief has _not_ been the forte of most churches, by and large.
How very interesting. Bill, last week in the Catholic Sentinel I read
eight separate references to charitable activities by Catholic
parishs, organizations and individuals. At least 8. And Catholic
Charities asked for a special collection for the Oklahoma City bombing
victims, as well as other disasters. Catholic Charities was also
active in the relief for the 1996 floods, as were the Mennonites and
other groups.
snip
>Any church which wishes to adopt the same mission statement as
>the Salvation Army should be treated as is the Salvation Army.
>
>But, with most churches, feeding the homeless, save maybe the
>homeless of their own religion or congregation, is a once a
>year, feel-good sideshow. Any church which wants to make it
>their full time mission as does the SA should get whatever
>breaks the SA gets. Those that don't, shouldn't.
Let's see. This week in the Sentinel we have an international
reference from Caritas Hong Kong, which is coordinating the Catholic
Church's response to the North Korean famine. St. Alexander parish in
Cornelius contributed $1000 to the Rice Bowl program to help poor
people locally and in the world. Christ the King parish in Milwaukie
is taking up a collection to support Westwood Guest House for poor
families, Elizabeth House for unwed mothers, and Burnside Projects.
Assumption Parish in northeast Portland has been working in
partnership with Portland schools by offering space to Roosevelt High
School's Teen Parent program on Friday mornings, serving more than 60
moms. St. Andrew parish in Portland sponsors an annual festival for
disabled people and parishioners. St. Andrew also has a summer day
camp which aids needy children from the neighborhoods.
Let's see. That's six things which got reported to a weekly paper.
That doesn't count ongoing activities like St. Francis's soup kitchen.
So you were saying, Bill.....?
snip
>
>Ah, but under the first amendment, we _can't_ require churches to
>teach anything!
Gee Bill, my son's school principal would be *glad* to hear that in
your opinion she's free from having to administrate her school
academic program according to state requirements!
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>On 30 May 1997 05:05:48 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
>wrote:
>snip
>>My point was that the _service_ provided by religious schools and
>>public schools is fundamentally different - one is a _public_
>>education and the other is a _religious_ education. While concededly
>>there are some similarities between the two services (just as there
>>are some similarities between state parks and KOA campgrounds) the
>>differences are of a fundamental constitutional nature such that
>>government not only does not provide but is constitutionally
>>_forbidden_ from providing the type of service provided by religious
>>schools.
>Bill, I'll lay odds that you can go into any *academic* class in a
>parochial or public school and not see much if any difference.
>Religion is a class like any other in the parochial system, and the
>hours dedicated to it are limited. By the state.
Ya' forget, I had a daughter at St Mary's Academy. And, if nothing
else, the crucifix on the wall of ever academic class room is an
observable difference. And, while not a problem at St. Mary's,
I understand the science ciriculum differs considerably from that
at public schools at several "Christian academies", especially
on the subject of Darwin and his theories.
And, I think you are in error claiming that the state "limits" religious
education - the state _may_ require a certain number of hours
to be devoted to "academic" subjects but I suspect if a religious
school wants to keep the kiddies there 'til 8 o'clock at night
and noon on Saturdays singing hymns or whatever, the state is
unlikely to say nay.
>Moreover, the state has quite a bit of say in the administration of a
>parochial school. Parochial schools must be state-certified as well
>as public schools (these days the process is combined. Our school is
>currently going through accreditation and my understanding is that
>this is good for both systems). Parochial schools also must meet the
>same total hour requirements that public schools have, the same
>teacher certification requirements, the same in-service requirements.
Well, I think you're wrong here as well - I think the certification
you refer to is voluntary and for the school's benefit and not the
state's. But, this is something I'm uncertain on - I'll check my
references and follow up on this latter.
>Given the degree of state regulation and the fact that parochial
>schools, like public schools, are also subject to the same Standard
>"Q" fire and earthquake requirements, I fail to see the justification
>for denying a parochial school tax-exemption.
Begging your pardon, but this argument is downright silly. Gubmint
has fire and earthquake requirements for every building in the state -
Fred Meyers, the Wells Fargo Bank, and Standard Insurance as well
as schools, both public and private. And Fred Meyer, Wells Fargo,
and Standard Insurance are certainly not free of gubmint regulation
as to just how they run their businesses. Certainly, you are not
claiming that as a result, these businesses should be free of
taxes?
>If you're gonna tax
>'em, then by golly they should be able to carve their own way without
>regulation.
If we are gonna tax Fred Meyer, they oughta be able to carve their
own way without gubmint regulation on how they treat their milk,
who checks their scales, or what santitation standards they maintain
in their delis and butcher shops?
>Otherwise, they have to jump through many of the same
>hoops and regulations as the public schools. There really isn't that
>great of an administrative or academic difference...except for
>religion class. And, these days, that's limited. We had parishioners
>ask why the kids didn't attend Daily Mass as they had when they were
>children. The answer was "state regulations. The once a week Mass
>fits into the religious education slot so they can do that...but no
>more." So the State already controls the religion aspect in parochial
>schools.
Nice to blame gubmint, isn't it? But, if it _really_ mattered,
why not just extend the school day by a half hour and go for
it anyway. Perhaps the problem is actually getting a priest there
every single day (no priest, no can do mass, eh? and the
priest shortage _is_ getting serious, eh?)
Incidently, as recently as two years ago (when my other daughter was
applying to Jesuit), Jesuit managed to include a daily chapel period,
so finding the time was not, apparently a problem there. Whether
Jesuit still has this or not, I cannot say but it does seem likely -
I'm not aware of any big increase in state requirements in the last two
years.
>snip
>>There is no objection to private or religious schools per se by
>>the teachers' unions that I know of. What there is, of course,
>>is an objection to taking _public_ monies and resources and
>>diverting them to religious education. That diversion whould
>>result in less money and fewer resources being available for
>>public education. And, needless to say, no one in public education,
>>unionized or no, is likely to support fewer resources for public
>>education.
>I don't hear much bellyaching about such things outside of Portland
>Public Schools. Other school districts seem perfectly happy to share
>resources with parochial schools, to the extent that parochial school
>kids ride the public school bus to their school. Portland doesn't
>allow that. In fact, parochial school kids going to Outdoor School
>with public school kids can't even be picked up at their own school in
>Portland. They have to go over to the public school, because in
>Portland's eyes stopping in front of the parochial school to pick up
>those kids Is A Major Violation. Sheesh.
Dunno - I know for a fact that Corvallis doesn't bus private school
kids to their parochial school either although it will let 'em get
on along the route and get off at the destination public school, as
will Portland. The problem in Portland is that there is no or almost
no rural population served by Portland schools and portland only
provides buses for kids who live more than one-half mile from their
school. As public schools and private schools are seldom co-located,
providing bus service for private school kids who live more than
one-half mile from _their_ school would require a whole new set of
bus routes (and many more buses.) But parochial school kids _are_
free to ride the public school buses in portland - just they gotta
ride where the bus is already going.
>>>>The Red Cross engages in disaster
>>>>relief, thus reducing the need for FEMA funds,
>>
>>>As do many churches, including my own. And it those helped aren't
>>>limited to church members. In fact since our local government has
>>>not yet implemented any real disaster preparations our church is
>>>doing something on the order of the FEMA CERT (Community Emergency
>>>Response Team) program. Non-members are welcome to participate.
>>I don't doubt the sincerity of your church but, quite frankly,
>>the history of churches in this regard is NOT good. Oh, they
>>pitch in if disaster strikes _their_ community (I've no doubt
>>that if there are churches left standing in Tyler, TX, they've
>>opened their doors to all as emergency shelters) and they
>>may take up a collection to help some sister congregation
>>rebuild their church after a fire or flood but actual disaster
>>relief has _not_ been the forte of most churches, by and large.
-snip-
>
>>Any church which wishes to adopt the same mission statement as
>>the Salvation Army should be treated as is the Salvation Army.
>>
>>But, with most churches, feeding the homeless, save maybe the
>>homeless of their own religion or congregation, is a once a
>>year, feel-good sideshow. Any church which wants to make it
>>their full time mission as does the SA should get whatever
>>breaks the SA gets. Those that don't, shouldn't.
>
>Let's see. This week in the Sentinel we have an international
>reference from Caritas Hong Kong, which is coordinating the Catholic
>Church's response to the North Korean famine. St. Alexander parish in
>Cornelius contributed $1000 to the Rice Bowl program to help poor
>people locally and in the world.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with North Korea - that contribution
may be directly contrary to gubmint policy.
>Christ the King parish in Milwaukie
>is taking up a collection to support Westwood Guest House for poor
>families, Elizabeth House for unwed mothers, and Burnside Projects.
>Assumption Parish in northeast Portland has been working in
>partnership with Portland schools by offering space to Roosevelt High
>School's Teen Parent program on Friday mornings, serving more than 60
>moms. St. Andrew parish in Portland sponsors an annual festival for
>disabled people and parishioners.
An annual festival, eh? Like I said, "a once a year, feel-good
side show"!
>St. Andrew also has a summer day
>camp which aids needy children from the neighborhoods.
Hmmmm! And do they make Bible puppets? Read Bible stories?
Is this truly charity or a form of proselyzing?
>Let's see. That's six things which got reported to a weekly paper.
>That doesn't count ongoing activities like St. Francis's soup kitchen.
The soup kitchen is fine and let's exempt the soup kitchen from property
taxes - assuming that is its fulltime use. If not, let's exempt
from a portion of its taxes, in the ratio that its soup kitchen
use bears to its total use.
>So you were saying, Bill.....?
>snip
See above.
>>Ah, but under the first amendment, we _can't_ require churches to
>>teach anything!
>Gee Bill, my son's school principal would be *glad* to hear that in
>your opinion she's free from having to administrate her school
>academic program according to state requirements!
I repeat, we can't require churches to teach anything. Perhaps
(subject to further checking) we can require certified _schools_
to teach certain subjects but if the churches wish to operate
uncertified schools (which they are free to do) they can teach
what they will. Indeed, under the first amendment speech clause
(let alone the religion clause) _any_ school is free to teach what
it will. And I fully support that right.
But the first amendment is no reason to exempt 'em from paying for
the services they recieve.
Look, I am not anti-private or even religious schools - I think
they are great things for lots of people. I just see no reason
they should pay for the services they receive. They don't
get free water, they don't get free garbage pick up. Why
should they get free fire protection or street cleaning.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
-snips-
>>Moreover, the state has quite a bit of say in the administration of a
>>parochial school. Parochial schools must be state-certified as well
>>as public schools (these days the process is combined. Our school is
>>currently going through accreditation and my understanding is that
>>this is good for both systems). Parochial schools also must meet the
>>same total hour requirements that public schools have, the same
>>teacher certification requirements, the same in-service requirements.
And I replied:
>Well, I think you're wrong here as well - I think the certification
>you refer to is voluntary and for the school's benefit and not the
>state's. But, this is something I'm uncertain on - I'll check my
>references and follow up on this latter.
And, having checked my references, I can now report, definitively,
that, yep, certification is voluntary with the school. It has
certain advantages for the school like it lets its students freely
transfer credits earned and ensures that the credits will be
recognized by colleges and universities. It also gives its
students an "automatic" exemption from the general obligation
to attend public schools.
But the state certification is _not_ required for any elementary or
secondary school, private or parochial. And if a private or
parochial elementary or secondary school wishes to pass on the
state certification, it may do so.
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer bsha...@orednet.org -
- Cave ab homine unius libri! -
Hal Lillywhite
>In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
>>In article <5lvgrk$r...@ednet2.orednet.org> bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes:
>>>But, a rational argument can be made for tax exemptions for
>>>most charities which cannot be made for churches and religious
>>>schools. After all, most non-religious charities simply
>>>supplement the services which gubmint already provides, thus
>>>theoretically lessening the need for tax-payer supported
>>>funding for those services.
>>??? And religious schools don't?...
>Well, I think you misconstrue the thrust of what I was getting at -
>or I said it poorly...
>My point was that the _service_ provided by religious schools and
>public schools is fundamentally different - one is a _public_
>education and the other is a _religious_ education...
I think you are saying that removing a burden from taxpayers is
irrelevant. What counts in your mind, as I understand it, is that
the entity offer a duplication of government services. I find that
reasoning difficult to understand. Am I correct? If so I must
disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the more important
aspect is that they relieve the taxpayers of a burden.
As for "fundamentally different," I don't see that either. There
is a core of teaching in all schools, the famous three Rs, along
with other commonalities such as history. In fact except for some
fundamentalist schools I think most teach pretty much everything
taught in the public schools. Should we penalize those which refuse
to teach evolution? I don't think so, even though I disagree with
them. We should avoid the temptation to force our beliefs on
others. Indeed I believe that the purpose of the first amendment is
to protect unpopular views or those the government dislikes.
Clearly those people have a right to teach what they believe and no
protection should be contingent upon those beliefs. In fact I think
one of the strengths of this country is that ideas can be freely
taught, regardless of how silly any particular idea may seem to the
rest of us. Yes, many dumb things get this protection but on the
other hand there are a few "dumb" ideas which survive till someone
shows that they aren't quite so dumb after all. (For example, right
now we have news reports of such a dumb idea which suddenly appears
true, namely the "cosmic snowball comets" which seem to have
provided much of the earth's water.)
>While concededly
>there are some similarities between the two services (just as there
>are some similarities between state parks and KOA campgrounds) the
>differences are of a fundamental constitutional nature such that
>government not only does not provide but is constitutionally
>_forbidden_ from providing the type of service provided by religious
>schools.
Forbidden from teaching religion, yes. However government does
teach readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic just as do the private
schools.
However I see a problem with your comparison between schools and
campgrounds or travel. The law requires children to attend school
but does not require anybody to travel or go camping (at least since
we stopped drafting young men into the army). If we required you
to spend a week in a tent I think we should allow you as much choice
as we can in how you do it. Since we require people to send their
children to school I think we should give them as much choice as we
reasonably can. If a family finds evolution repugnant or simply
believes the public schools are incompetent, I think we should allow
them the opportunity to use a school of their preference if
feasible. Furthermore, I think it is unfair to require that family
pay both public and private schools if they send their children
to a private school.
>>(Actually I suspect much of the objection to private schools,
>>religious or otherwise, comes from the teachers unions...
>There is no objection to private or religious schools per se by
>the teachers' unions that I know of. What there is, of course,
>is an objection to taking _public_ monies and resources and
>diverting them to religious education.
Not only religious but *any* non-government schools.
>That diversion whould
>result in less money and fewer resources being available for
>public education.
And of course less need for public education since there would be
fewer students there. The students would still get educated but the
public education establishment would have less power and control
over society. I see that as a good thing.
The objective is not public education. The objective is educated
citizens.
>And, needless to say, no one in public education,
>unionized or no, is likely to support fewer resources for public
>education.
True. They do not want to see anybody allowed to compete with them
on a level playing field. It's real nice to have an advantage over
your competition. Those who buy from their competition still have
to pay the public schools even though they don't use their services.
Obviously the public school establishment wants the taxpayers money
regardless of if they serve those taxpayers or not. Sweet deal for
them but I don't like it.
You can put me down as one who believes that if schools were forced
to compete on a more level playing field they would have more
motivation to improve. No, I don't claim that this would solve all
the problems in education. However I think it would be a step in
the right direction. It might even allow us to deal with some of
the problems of tenure and unions.
Consider a situation schools often face now: a tenured teacher who
has retired in place or is otherwise not doing the job. I know,
most teachers are competent and try to teach but there are a few
exceptions. At present it is nearly impossible to fire a bad
teacher (except for serious misconduct and sometimes even then).
Suppose the parents had the option to tell the school, "I will not
have my child in that teacher's class. If you put him there I will
take my money and go the private school across town." Now you are
hitting the school where it hurts. How long do you think it would
be before the other teachers (whose jobs were threatened by the loss
of money) would support changes in tenure laws and union procedures
so schools could get rid of the dead wood?
Or consider the opposite situation, the superteacher. Right now
there is no way for a public school in most jurisdictions to pay
the top teachers more. Their pay is what they get based on time in
service and degrees. Neither is a good indicator of how well a
teacher actually performs in the classroom. In fact in some cases a
teacher may short his students in order to have time to "punch his
ticket" with a few classes or an advanced degree. As a result many
of those good teachers (who are competent and employable elsewhere)
leave the field to make more money elsewhere. If competition were
allowed the other teachers would likely support paying the
superstars more since they would attract more students and hence
more money.
>>>The Red Cross engages in disaster
>>>relief, thus reducing the need for FEMA funds,
>>As do many churches, including my own. And it those helped aren't
>>limited to church members...
>I don't doubt the sincerity of your church but, quite frankly,
>the history of churches in this regard is NOT good.
Care to document that claim? Do you know any other type of
organization which can put hundreds, sometimes thousands of willing
workers into a disaster area to do the backbreaking hand labor
required to clean up homes?
>Oh, they
>pitch in if disaster strikes _their_ community (I've no doubt
>that if there are churches left standing in Tyler, TX, they've
>opened their doors to all as emergency shelters) and they
>may take up a collection to help some sister congregation
>rebuild their church after a fire or flood but actual disaster
>relief has _not_ been the forte of most churches, by and large.
I don't know about most but there are some which do a rather good
job in disasters.
>How much money did your church sent to the flood ravished folks
>in the Dakotas or the tornado ravished folks in Texas?
They haven't published the numbers yet but I am confident it was
plenty. We did provide a lot of help in previous disasters and I'm
sure the same will hold true when the numbers come in on these.
Beyond that we send lots of people into such areas to help with
the tremendous amount of work which must be done. Since we go in
as an organized group the authorities will allow us into these
areas while they turn away most volunteers who just show up with no
organization.
Some of our members can provide heavy equipment to help but in
those situations there is always a lot of work requiring muscle
power to dig the mud out of basements and do other jobs where the
equipment can't reach. And our welfare department has a lot of
emergency supplies already loaded into trailers ready to move as
soon as it is feasible to do so. I think we are usually there about
as soon as the Red Cross is, at least in the US and Canada. In
other parts of the world we don't have the resources we do in North
America but often work with other organizations which are
established there. Specifically we have worked with the Red Cross
and with some Roman Catholic charities to help people in less
developed parts of the world.
There are almost certainly some churches which help only their own
in this situation but I think they are in the minority. For one
thing it is difficult to find only your church members and bypass
others in need.
Actually, I think the area where we help most in disasters is what
you never hear about: Preparation. I know most churches don't do
this but in mine we are urged to prepare ourselves for the
unexpected. A disaster is less disastrous if at least some people
in the area are prepared to care for themselves and help others.
The LDS (Mormon) emphasis on storage is fairly well known but what
is less well known is that church leaders have urged us that if
disaster does strike we should help our neighbors, in and out of the
church.
In addition they are now asking us to have emergency plans more
or less like the FEMA CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)
program. I know of at least one protestant church in Hillsboro
doing something similar. Yes, this would be better handled under
the direction of a government body which could include everybody but
they aren't there yet, at least in my area. Until they get their
part in place we will do what we can. When they are ready I expect
we will have at least some people ready to step right in and help
with their program. (If you want to see one of our classes, email
me your phone #. You would be welcome to visit and I need an
"accident victim" for my students to practice on this Thursday
evening. This is an example of church/government cooperation since
FEMA provided the texts.)
>>>... the Salvation Army
>>>feeds the homeless, thus reducing the costs of welfare and
>>>gubmint homeless shelters, and so on.
>>As do many other churches. However I have to wonder why you are
>>willing to give one distinctly religious organization (the Salvation
>>Army) a tax break but not others...
>Any church which wishes to adopt the same mission statement as
>the Salvation Army should be treated as is the Salvation Army.
The mission of the SA is salvation, and that does not mean soup and
sandwiches, it means salvation in the religious sense. Physical aid
is a means to an end for them (as well as being an important way to
express love for mankind). They hope to let others see their good
works and investigate the source.
>But, with most churches, feeding the homeless, save maybe the
>homeless of their own religion or congregation, is a once a
>year, feel-good sideshow...
Why limit it to the homeless? Most people in trouble are not
homeless, especially in today's welfare state. Most who need help
do have a home of some sort but they need help in various ways.
Soup kitchens may attract publicity but they are only the tip of the
iceberg.
I have no statistics to tell me what "most" churches do. However I
do know several (including my own) for which it is a year around
major mission. Yes, many do limit most of their help to their own
members but usually that is a matter of resource availability and
the fact that few people will approach a church for help unless they
have some connection with that church. And at least in my church we
help lapsed members as well as the active.
>>By the way Bill, church sponsored welfare often goes well beyond
>>mere feeding the homeless. At times it meets personal and social
>>needs in valuable ways which government agencies cannot.
>But this is meaningless Hal - all sorts of organizations meet
>personal and social needs - hell, fortune tellers and psychics
>meet personal needs but we don't give 'em a tax break.
Actually you were the one who brought up the benefits of removing a
burden from the taxpayers. Last I checked the taxpayers weren't
spending a lot on psychics and fortune tellers but they were
spending a lot on welfare, mental hospitals, hospice etc. Churches
can and do help prevent and deal with problems which would otherwise
cost the taxpayers money.
I remember a few years ago of a case where the feds got concerned
about several counties in Utah and Idaho. Seems the welfare costs
were too low there and the natural government assumption was that
case workers weren't doing their job and people weren't being
helped. I'm sure you can guess the real cause when the
investigation was complete: Church welfare was meeting the needs of
large numbers of people there, not only providing them food and
clothing but helping many of them find gainful employment.
>>Some of
>>these include job training for severely disadvantaged people and
>>personalized help and encouragement for those who might otherwise
>>remain on welfare rolls.
>YOUR church runs a sheltered workshop? If so, I applaud it but
>it's gotta be one of the few that does.
I'm not sure how "few" churches do this but I know we aren't the
only ones.
>But even there, that
>might be an argument for a tax break for the sheltered workshop
>but hardly an argument that the church itself, the auditorium,
>the minister's house and all the rest should be exempt from property
>taxes, especially that portion of the property taxes which pay
>for the services those properties receive.
Well, we have no manse. In fact we have no professional clergy.
However the building where we meet every week is rather important
for the sheltered workshop and other welfare activities. That is
where we organize volunteers and other activities which support the
welfare projects. It is also where we get our religious
instruction, including instruction on the importance of loving and
helping others. Without the spiritual side the welfare side would
soon vanish. In fact during last year's flooding one of our
churches in Hillsboro was pretty much the headquarters for aid to
places like Vernonia. Many volunteers and other relief workers
worked out of that building. I'm sure we weren't the only church
doing similar things, that is just one I know of.
...
>But, you misconstrue my proposal - first of all, under the 1st
>and 14th amendments, there is no way you could tax the bejeebers
>out of churches without taxing the bejeebers out of everyone else.
>In other words, you couldn't single out churches for a particularly
>heavy handed tax without doing the same to everyone. That should
>be sufficient protection against gubmint "picking out the churches
>it doesn't like" 'cause it can't do that.
They probably wouldn't but don't underestimate the ingenuity of those
who want to suppress certain viewpoints. They could probably come up
with something like a tax on certain building features which
churches tend to have. It might be overturned in court but that
would require a long and expensive legal battle. An unpopular
church might go bankrupt before that fight ends.
>But secondly, I'm only proposing that churches pay for the gubmint
>services they actually use or benefit by - the costs of police
>and fire protection, street maintenance and cleaning, street lights,
>that sort of thing. Why _should_ churches receive these services
>for free and leave the rest of us, both the shriven and the unshriven,
>to pick up the bills for these services?
...
>Ah, but under the first amendment, we _can't_ require churches to
>teach anything! And check out the teachings of the nation of
>Islam or the Scientologists or the late, great Rajneeshis.
I don't care for any of that bunch. However who is to say that
certain speech is not protected while other ideas are? I am willing
to risk a few bagwans to protect the rest of our freedom of speech
and religion. Even the Nation of Islam has some positive aspects in
that they encourage young black men to get an education.
...
>>Nonsense. I've yet to see a church limit attendance to only the
>>chosen few. -snips-
>"Services", Hal in the sense of benefits, not in the sense of
>"Sunday services"
Are you saying that is not a benefit? Maybe you don't choose to use
it but for many it is an important benefit. We give taxpayers money
to "artists" who do things which outright offend many citizens.
Many others just don't care about that stuff but the artist gets not
just a tax break but a government check. Government claims that such
art is important even though only a miniscule part of the population
wants it. I don't see that the fact that some choose not to use the
church service precludes consideration of that service for those who
want it.
>-snips-
>>I think your charge that churches limit who they will serve is
>>poorly thought out.
>Well, I do know the LDS church has an extensive "welfare" system
>and LDS members who "fall on hard times" will usually receive
>assistance and support from the church. I've yet to hear of
>that system springing into action to assist an non-LDS member
>(or, whose yet, a lapsed LDS member) in similar circumstances.
I've personally seen it help lapsed members and part-member families
(even if the member is inactive). In fact when I drove truck for
Deseret Industries my typical "swamper" was hardly the image of a
good Mormon. Yes, the church as an organization doesn't help a lot
of people with no church connections (except in disasters) but that
is a matter of resource availability. Individual members however are
urged to make Christian service part of their lives, including help
for non-members. I believe most do some of this although of course
we can always do better.
>-snips-
>But, again, all I am suggesting is that non-profits, churches
>included, should pay for the government services they receive.
>No more, no less.
And then should we refund that money if they provide a certain
amount of community service? Who will calculate the value to the
state of what they do? If one church helps a lot of people get off
welfare should they not have to pay (or maybe even get paid) while
another regarded as less valuable pays for these services? One
thing I think we must not do is discriminate between different
churches.
There is room for disagreement on churches paying for things like
police and fire protection. I prefer to leave things the way they
are.
The Cavalier Brat
On 3 Jun 1997, Hal Lillywhite wrote:
> In article <5mln7c$6...@ednet2.orednet.org> bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes:
> >In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
> >>In article <5lvgrk$r...@ednet2.orednet.org> bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes:
[Look, guys, a cascade of Fish Shit! Lots of snipping ... ]
> As for "fundamentally different," I don't see that either. There
> is a core of teaching in all schools, the famous three Rs, along
> with other commonalities such as history.
I've always found the "three Rs" particularly telling:
Presumably, they refer to Reading 'Riting & 'Rithmatic.
IMO, that's fairly disgusting ... I mean, the "core
educational requirements" being misspelt like that.
> >That diversion whould
> >result in less money and fewer resources being available for
> >public education.
>
> And of course less need for public education since there would be
> fewer students there. The students would still get educated but the
> public education establishment would have less power and control
> over society. I see that as a good thing.
:-)
> Consider a situation schools often face now: a tenured teacher who
> has retired in place or is otherwise not doing the job. I know,
> most teachers are competent and try to teach but there are a few
> exceptions. At present it is nearly impossible to fire a bad
> teacher (except for serious misconduct and sometimes even then).
> Suppose the parents had the option to tell the school, "I will not
> have my child in that teacher's class. If you put him there I will
> take my money and go the private school across town." Now you are
> hitting the school where it hurts. How long do you think it would
> be before the other teachers (whose jobs were threatened by the loss
> of money) would support changes in tenure laws and union procedures
> so schools could get rid of the dead wood?
Do public primary & secondary school teachers not get
tenure? I thought it was only at the collegiate level, at
*all* public institutions but not all private institutions
(e.g. Yale School of Music faculty never get tenure, only
the dean does).
[I snipped too much -- I would like to throw out, though,
that while you, Hal, may consider your church to be helpful
to "less fortunate people in the world" (I'm presuming you
mean missions) this opinion is by no means universal.
Missionaries are *always* destructive to native cultures and
religions.]
> I have no statistics to tell me what "most" churches do. However I
> do know several (including my own) for which it is a year around
> major mission. Yes, many do limit most of their help to their own
> members but usually that is a matter of resource availability and
> the fact that few people will approach a church for help unless they
> have some connection with that church. And at least in my church we
> help lapsed members as well as the active.
FWIW, my folks' church, of the southern Baptist variety near
Dallas, TX, maintains a food bank and a clothing bank, year
'round, and encourages folks from the community who need
them to come and get them, or give a call (they'll drop them
off), regardless of whether or not they are members.
> They probably wouldn't but don't underestimate the ingenuity of those
> who want to suppress certain viewpoints. They could probably come up
> with something like a tax on certain building features which
> churches tend to have. It might be overturned in court but that
> would require a long and expensive legal battle. An unpopular
> church might go bankrupt before that fight ends.
I agree with Hal ... (the only folks I trust less than
church folks being government folks, and all) ... and could
easily see a reality where churches who do help the
community are required to pay property taxes on their food
and clothing banks, or even to license themselves as a
restuarant or retail store. Probably would be over-turned
in court as well, but at the expense of many folks who
needed help and didn't get it, not only materially but
psychologically.
> Are you saying that is not a benefit? Maybe you don't choose to use
> it but for many it is an important benefit. We give taxpayers money
> to "artists" who do things which outright offend many citizens.
> Many others just don't care about that stuff but the artist gets not
> just a tax break but a government check. Government claims that such
> art is important even though only a miniscule part of the population
> wants it. I don't see that the fact that some choose not to use the
> church service precludes consideration of that service for those who
> want it.
You're totally deluded if you think the NEA has funded a
significant portion of art in this country at any point in
time, or will ever do so. Two postage stamps (soon to be
alot less, if there can be a such thing as "alot less than
nearly nothing") does not equal the large amount of property
and service taxes which would become revenue were churches
taxed as everything else.
> There is room for disagreement on churches paying for things like
> police and fire protection. I prefer to leave things the way they
> are.
Me too -- even with all my misgivings about religion.
Whatever it is, it's a step in the direction I want things
to go in: Less taxes, zero property taxes, etc.
-Steph
--
Beethoven always sounded to me like the upsetting of bags of nails, with
here and there also a dropped hammer. sspa...@efn.org
talltom
The Cavalier Brat wrote:
> [I snipped too much -- I would like to throw out, though,
> that while you, Hal, may consider your church to be helpful
> to "less fortunate people in the world" (I'm presuming you
> mean missions) this opinion is by no means universal.
> Missionaries are *always* destructive to native cultures and
> religions.]
While I'm no great fan of Hal's and Gordon Smith's church, I am somewhat familiar
with it, and they do do beneficial things in the community, mostly their own community, but
community just the same. It's a lot more segmented and refuses help for any number of what I
consider attrocious reasons, but there are definitely positive things within the organization.
In fact, I believe that some of their ideas are good policy despite the grounds they use for
coming up with them is, let's say a little shakey. I suspect that many members of that
Church realize the shakiness of the founding but put up with it because of the soundness of
some of the ideals reguardless of origin. As one who's dad died at an early age, I can say
that some in that church went out of their way to look out for me in my younger years,
and despite our differences, I think that's an admirable quality. It just didn't work that
way for one of my buddies that happened to be black. Supposedly they've wised up since.
> > I have no statistics to tell me what "most" churches do. However I
> > do know several (including my own) for which it is a year around
> > major mission. Yes, many do limit most of their help to their own
> > members but usually that is a matter of resource availability and
> > the fact that few people will approach a church for help unless they
> > have some connection with that church. And at least in my church we
> > help lapsed members as well as the active.
FWIW, from what I've seen Hal's selling it a little short. Local wards(#1?)
have members call on older shut ins periodically, and have a practise of
stockpiling a year or two's worth of food, damn good idea near as I can see.
They also have youth groups that cater to all the problems associated with that,
and some kind of group that attempts to inspire romance.(not sure how good of
an idea that is!) Personal friends have been the ones that fixed all the old gals
broken old cars and whatever else congregation needed. Course in their case the favors
never got returned... Anyhow, the point is they do do some good, but are far from
the whole answer.
> FWIW, my folks' church, of the southern Baptist variety near
> Dallas, TX, maintains a food bank and a clothing bank, year
> 'round, and encourages folks from the community who need
> them to come and get them, or give a call (they'll drop them
> off), regardless of whether or not they are members.
>
> > They probably wouldn't but don't underestimate the ingenuity of those
> > who want to suppress certain viewpoints.
yeah, Hal"s shown us that.
They could probably come up
> > with something like a tax on certain building features which
> > churches tend to have. It might be overturned in court but that
> > would require a long and expensive legal battle. An unpopular
> > church might go bankrupt before that fight ends.
>
> I agree with Hal ... (the only folks I trust less than
> church folks being government folks, and all)
Yeah! Me too! Everybody pays cash, and God pays cash twice first.:-)
... and could
> easily see a reality where churches who do help the
> community are required to pay property taxes on their food
> and clothing banks, or even to license themselves as a
> restuarant or retail store. Probably would be over-turned
> in court as well, but at the expense of many folks who
> needed help and didn't get it, not only materially but
> psychologically.
Oh, I don't know about that. What part of "will make no law with respect to religion"
do you not understand? Tax free status for churches is a law with respect to religion.
Seems pretty simple to me. The 14th requires equal treatment. What's the problem?
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 4 Jun 1997 06:16:14 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
snip
>You raise an excellent point and one worthy of discussion.
>
>Where did you get the idea that private school students _don't_
>use the services of public schools. For public schools are
>mandated by law to provide _all_ their "special education" services
>to private school students who request those services. The
>private schools routinely take the cheap way out and do not
>retain education specialists for "different" students - folks
>like physical therapists, speech therapists, learning disabled
>teachers, psychologists, handicapped learning specialist, etc.
In a small private school the children eligible for this service are a
small part of the population. In fact, given the difference in size
between Llewellyn School and St. Agatha School, the fact that
Llewellyn, the bigger school, could not get adequate funding to
support a full-time speech therapist the last year we were there just
underlines the fact that the private school which was one-third of the
size couldn't even hope to find someone to provide such services.
Cheap way out? Hardly, Bill.
Furthermore, more parochial schools are developing their own resource
rooms. Additionally, the parents of the private school kids are
already paying for the public school services both through property
taxes and Federal income taxes. Title IX *is* a federally funded
program, Bill. We're paying our own way.
>Rather they provide the "regular" class room instruction and
>send the "difficult" cases over the the public schools for the
>required specialized teaching or treatment - which the public
>schools are _required_ to provide.
*Required* by Federal law, Bill, paid for by Federal funds, and the
last time I checked I was still paying my fair share (and more) of
Federal taxes. In the least restrictive environment. Least
restrictive environment is interpreted for public school kids as their
own school and classrooms. Least restrictive environment for
parochial school kids is interpreted as the nearest public school.
Heck, why couldn't both facilities share the expertise and the price
of the services? I know my school would be willing to have someone
come on premises and do a share of some sort with the public system.
That would certainly create more employment and better service if
specialized teachers could make the rounds of all the local schools,
not just the publics.
I might add that such services are slowly and reluctantly provided in
the Portland Public system. Meantime the principals are begging the
parochial students to officially enroll so they have another student
on the rolls...but they don't have to teach the warm body except for
specialty services. A contradiction, for certain..but the difference
between special services.
snip
>But, of course, it is _not_ just a kid at random being selected
>for transfer from public school to private school - the private
>school is affirmatively selecting the students it will accept.
>The multiple handicapped, the mentally retarded, the mentally
>disturbed, the children who have parents who are in jail,
>or on drugs, or mental disturbed or retarded themselves are
>generally _not_ accepted by private schools. And with children
>with lesser problems like the hearing impaired or the learning
>disabled or the physically handicapped who may be accepted by
>a private school are often returned to the public school system
>to deal with their "special needs".
Ever heard of Tucker-Maxon Oral School, Bill? They mainstream a lot
of their kids into Holy Family. No federal funds being used there,
since Holy Family's a Catholic school. In many cases, the private
school can and will accomodate special needs if possible, especially
for parishioners.
>And, of course, should a child accepted by a private school prove
>to be a discipline problem or fail to achieve adequate academic
>progress (in the view of the private school) the private school
>is free to dismiss (or expel) that student. The public schools
>do not have that luxury of expelling these types of students in
>most instances and are _required_ to accept back any students
>dismissed from or expelled by private schools.
Maybe the public schools would have fewer problems if they had better
discipline options, including explusion and various other punishments.
Not physical discipline but other stuff.
>Thus the concern of the public education establishment - that
>the private education sector will take large numbers of the
>"easy" students - the ones that are inexpensive to teach while
>leaving the public sector to deal with the special needs students -
>the ones that are expensive to teach. And, to the extent that
>any of the students actually accepted by the private sector
>actually turn out to be less than "easy", the private sector will
>either require the public sector to provide the expensive
>"extra" services required by its students or just dismiss those
>expensive students and return them to the public education process.
I might add that the parents requesting those expensive "extra"
services have already paid for those services via Federal taxes. I
might also add that we're talking 1/2 hour to maybe 2 hours a week max
instead of having the child in the school full time.
snip
>Then would you favor a level playing field where private schools
>were _required_ to accept _any_ student who applied - including
>those with physical, mental or emotional handicaps? Where private
>schools, as well public schools, were required to provide a suitable
>program of instruction and training for _any_ child, what ever his
>or her handicaps or limitations. Where not only would a student
>dismissed from a private school for fighting be required to be
>accepted by the public education system but a private school would
>be required to accept a child suspended from a public school for
>the same cause. Where not only would public schools be required
>to maintain appropriate English as a second language programs for
>Spanish, Russian, Roumanian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese
>speaking children but the private schools would be required to
>maintain similar appropriate programs for the less than English
>fluent?
And maybe the public schools should be able to have some serious
sanctions for kids who get into fights! As for the ESL programs, hey,
it already happens.
>
>That would be a level playing field. But I see little agitation
>for such a playing field among the private school folks.
Very simple. We have smaller classes which allows for some
flexibility.
snip
>
>What public school does not have two or three or even four teachers
>for any elementry grade? "Oh, you don't like Ms. Reilly? No problem,
>we'll put your daughter in Mr Corchran's (or Ms. Johnson's) class."
>(Ms. Reilly will end up with the kids whose parents just don't care.)
Urban bias, Bill. Smaller rural schools don't have that option.
jrw
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com
(Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>On 1 Jun 1997 06:06:14 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
>>Ya' forget, I had a daughter at St Mary's Academy. And, if nothing
>>else, the crucifix on the wall of ever academic class room is an
>>observable difference. And, while not a problem at St. Mary's,
>>I understand the science ciriculum differs considerably from that
>>at public schools at several "Christian academies", especially
>>on the subject of Darwin and his theories.
>
>Question is, are these Christian academies considered nonprofit and
>tax-exempt as well? If they are not actually affiliated with a church
>and on church grounds, you'd have to check.
Generally they are, but religious affiliation is not required for
a property tax exemption for schools.
Churches and other religious property have their own section of the
ORS exempting them from property taxes but schools are covered in
a separate exemption section. With schools, the only requirement
for the tax exemption is ('cept for some paper filing requirements)
that they actually be a school and that they be operated by a
religious _or_ eleeomosynary organization.
>>And, I think you are in error claiming that the state "limits" religious
>>education - the state _may_ require a certain number of hours
>>to be devoted to "academic" subjects but I suspect if a religious
>>school wants to keep the kiddies there 'til 8 o'clock at night
>>and noon on Saturdays singing hymns or whatever, the state is
>>unlikely to say nay.
>
>Mmm, I do think there are statutes which address this.
Well, not statutes but section of the Oregon Administrative Rules -
and those do _not_ place any upper limits on the number of hours
private certified schools may be in session. There are some limits
on the maximum number of hours a day a public school student may be
-required- to attend school but those regulations apply only to the
public schools, not the private ones. And, in even with the public
schools, the key word is "required" - students may voluntarily attend
more than the state mandated maximums.
>>>Moreover, the state has quite a bit of say in the administration of a
>>>parochial school. Parochial schools must be state-certified as well
>>>as public schools (these days the process is combined. Our school is
>>>currently going through accreditation and my understanding is that
>>>this is good for both systems). Parochial schools also must meet the
>>>same total hour requirements that public schools have, the same
>>>teacher certification requirements, the same in-service requirements.
>>
>>Well, I think you're wrong here as well - I think the certification
>>you refer to is voluntary and for the school's benefit and not the
>>state's. But, this is something I'm uncertain on - I'll check my
>>references and follow up on this latter.
>Bill, certification IS NOT VOLUNTARY. At least not for parochial
>schools.
It is voluntary as far as the State is concerned. I suppose
if the diocese requires state certification, then it is, in a
sense, involuntary, but it is _not_ required by the state.
I think other private schools must be state-certified as
>well, and I'm pretty sure that if you're tax-exempt you'd better plan
>on state certification. At least that would make sense to me.
Don't always expect tax laws to "make sense" - indeed, that was the
whole point of my initial discussion is that it doesn't make sense
to exempt churches and church schools (and Elks Clubs and the Boy
Scouts and so forth as well) from at least that portion of the
property taxes which pay for direct services rendered to the
church property - things like fire and police protection, street
maintenance and cleaning, street lighting, that sort of thing.
But, in fact, as stated above, the only requirements for the
property tax exemption for private schools (parochial or otherwise)
is that they be a school and that they be operated by a religious
or eleeomousynary organization. That and filling out the correct
forms and filing them on time is _all_ that's required. State
certification is -not- required.
>Then
>the question arises...are those "Christian academies" you refer to
>both state-certified and tax-exempt?
They are all tax exempt assuming they are being operated by a
religious organization - and being a "Christian academy", that's
pretty much a given. They may or may not be certified but, again,
that has nothing to do with whether or not they are getting a
property tax exemption.
>In any case, my understanding is that the Archdiocese of Portland
>requires its schools to be state-certified as well as
>Catholic-certified.
OK, but that is the archdiocese's choice, not the state's.
>Furthermore, every ad I've seen looking for Catholic school teachers
>requires them to be certified or certifiable. We have two teachers at
>our school who are not certified--but they are teaching under an
>emergency certificate. So it seems to me that certification is a
>requirement.
And that's one of the requirements for state certification - the
teachers have to have equivelent training, education, etc. as
is required for public school teachers. But again, that is an
issue -only- if the school voluntarily opts for state certification.
State certification is -not- a perequisite for either operating
a school -or- getting the property tax exemption.
-snips-
>>Begging your pardon, but this argument is downright silly. Gubmint
>>has fire and earthquake requirements for every building in the state -
>>Fred Meyers, the Wells Fargo Bank, and Standard Insurance as well
>>as schools, both public and private. And Fred Meyer, Wells Fargo,
>>and Standard Insurance are certainly not free of gubmint regulation
>>as to just how they run their businesses. Certainly, you are not
>>claiming that as a result, these businesses should be free of
>>taxes?
>Aren't the standards higher for schools than for businesses?
Well, depending on what business you're talking about, the standards
may be -different-. Yet the standards for a private, for-profit
preschool and day care center are identical for the standards for
a kindergarten. And the standards for both are higher than the
standards for a high school. Nursing homes and elder care facilities,
for-profit or otherwise, have higher standards than do high schools
as well and businesses which are handling highly flammable or
explosive products have fire and building code standards which are
quite rigorous as well although as those standards are addressing
a different set of potential problems than the standards for schools,
day care centers and nursing homes, it would propably be inaccurate
to claim that either standards were "higher" - let's just say that
while they are "different", they are all fairly rigorous.
And, of course, the standards are all directed towards getting folks
out of the building alive if something should go wrong. So the
government fire and building codes which government requires of the
schools are hardly something applied for -government's- benefit.
It's something which is applied to prevent a repetition of the
Our Lady of the Angels fire where nearly 100 parochial school kids
plus a dozen or so teachers and nuns were trapped by fire and burned
to death. I would suspect that your archdiocese, if it was acting
responsibly, would require something very similar to the current
fire and building codes even if government didn't require it.
>snip
>>Nice to blame gubmint, isn't it? But, if it _really_ mattered,
>>why not just extend the school day by a half hour and go for
>>it anyway. Perhaps the problem is actually getting a priest there
>>every single day (no priest, no can do mass, eh? and the
>>priest shortage _is_ getting serious, eh?)
>
>Bill, we already *have* Daily Mass in the parish. That's not the
>problem. The Mass is there. The priest is already saying Mass
The men of the cloth never sleep, eh? The fact is, with commute
time and "make ready" time, it would take a priest a hour of
time out of his day to hold a half hour mass at an elementary
school. That's fine if you've got lots of priest with nothing
to do but hold masses. That is not generally the case nowadays
however - most of 'em put in pretty full days already and don't
usually have an extra hour to kick away once a day, every day,
holding mass for a bunch of 11-year old kids, most of whom don't
really want to be in mass any way. (Come on, admit it - how
did -you- feel about mass when -you- were eleven? Especially
on a sunny spring day?)
But,let him go out the the school and hold mass as well if he wants
and if he's got the time. As stated above, there is _no_ maximum
hours limitation for private schools - if ya' really want mass and
can't fit it into the present school day, extend the school day
by 20 minutes and stick it in there.
The diocese could do it if it wanted to. Apparently it doesn't
-really- want to.
>I got the information on this restriction directly from my school's
>principal. And, as for extending the school day, I think you'll find
>that there are limits for state-certified schools as to how long the
>school day can be for elementary kids.
Your information is wrong - I just finished checking the OARs on
this. And even in public schools, the limitation is only on how
long the students can be -required- to attend. Voluntary attendence
in excess of the maximum is most certainly allowed - were it otherwise,
my daughter would not be playing volleyball with her 2 hour practices,
four days a week during the season. If she is allowed to voluntarily
add two hours to her school day for volleyball, there would seem
no impediment to a parochial school allowing its students to voluntarily
add 30 minutes for mass, if that's what they want.
-snips-
>Yes, but how long was it, what part of the day is it, and is it
>considered to be elective credit? Different rules apply for high
>schools and elementary schools, Bill. You're talking high school.
>I'm talking elementary school. The chapel time may be a half hour.
>That's different from a full hour for daily Mass (which is what it
>works out to be).
Oh, come on - ya' can do a full high mass faster than that.
But, if not, then add a voluntary hour to the day - dismiss
the kiddies at quarter to four rather than two-thirty. It's
no big deal _if_ ya' really want it. (But don't ya' think
subjecting -elementary- school children to a full hour's mass
five days a week plus Sunday is a little much? I can't see
they'd get that much from that much religion - heck I'll bet
few of their -parents- go to mass six days a week.)
-snips-
>>Excuse me if I'm not impressed with North Korea - that contribution
>>may be directly contrary to gubmint policy.
>Christians aren't suppossed to be concerned with gubmint policy when
>people are starving. You wanted examples of charity, Bill...here's
>one for you.
I wasn't looking for examples of -charity-, I was looking for examples
of providing services which gubmint would ordinarily provide and
thus reducing the burden of the gubmint to provide those services.
The gubmint ain't providing charity to North Korea 'cept in carefully
controlled dosages intended to wring some concessions out of the
North Koreans and make 'em less likely to build an atomic bomb or
send the tanks rolling south. To the extent they can get the
food from non-governmental sources, they have less incentive to
make the concessions, stop the bomb, or point the tanks north.
>>>St. Andrew parish in Portland sponsors an annual festival for
>>>disabled people and parishioners.
>>
>>An annual festival, eh? Like I said, "a once a year, feel-good
>>side show"!
>
>Easy to sneer and make fun of actual efforts, huh Bill? My
>understanding from the writeup is that this is part of an ongoing
>project.
An annual festival is, well, how can I say it, annual, no? It
may be a nice thing in many regards but an annual event is unlikely
to make any significant impact on _any_ problem. I don't really
sneer but I do regard it as the equivelent to the Clintons going
down to serve thanksgiving diners at the homeless shelter - the
sort of thing that does more for the Clintons than for the homeless.
>>>St. Andrew also has a summer day
>>>camp which aids needy children from the neighborhoods.
>>
>>Hmmmm! And do they make Bible puppets? Read Bible stories?
>>Is this truly charity or a form of proselyzing?
>
>Come on, buddy, we're talking Catholics here.
OK, do they learn the catechism? I seem to remember that being
part of the Catholic day camp routine?
>>>Let's see. That's six things which got reported to a weekly paper.
>>>That doesn't count ongoing activities like St. Francis's soup kitchen.
>>The soup kitchen is fine and let's exempt the soup kitchen from property
>>taxes - assuming that is its fulltime use. If not, let's exempt
>>from a portion of its taxes, in the ratio that its soup kitchen
>>use bears to its total use.
>Of course, the local neighborhood group wants to see the soup kitchen
>go away. Where do you stand on that issue, Bill?
Don't know - I'd have to know more about the neighbors' gripes and
how valid they were. But, generally speaking, my inclination would
be to side with the soup kitchen and not with the neighbors.
>snip
>
>>I repeat, we can't require churches to teach anything. Perhaps
>>(subject to further checking) we can require certified _schools_
>>to teach certain subjects but if the churches wish to operate
>>uncertified schools (which they are free to do) they can teach
>>what they will. Indeed, under the first amendment speech clause
>>(let alone the religion clause) _any_ school is free to teach what
>>it will. And I fully support that right.
>I think you will find that most schools with over a handful of kids
>attending are required to be state-certified. I would certainly
>expect that state-certification is imperative for tax-exempt schools.
See above regarding the voluntary nature of state certifcation and
its irrelevance to property tax exemptions.
>>But the first amendment is no reason to exempt 'em from paying for
>>the services they recieve.
>The first amendment is no excuse for taxing them, either. Which is
>the actual point of keeping church and state separate in your
>argument. You've got your argument muddled, Bill.
I think not. The excuse for taxing 'em is that they are getting
services for free. Services which I pay for. Now, we could, I
suppose, pass a law that sez churches and church schools get free
electricity and just allow PGE to fold in the cost of that free
electricity into everybody else's electric rates. 'Cause that
is in effect what we are doing by giving 'em free streets and
free fire protection and free police protection. And I just don't
understand the rational for that. If they don't have to pay
for having the streets repaired in front of their church, why
should they have to pay for the electricity they use either?
Heck, free water, free sewage disposal, free garbage hauling,
free natural gas, free roof repairs. Why make 'em pay for anything.
Just give it to 'em free and let the rest of us pick up the tab?
This just makes no sense to me at all.
>>Look, I am not anti-private or even religious schools - I think
>>they are great things for lots of people. I just see no reason
>>they should pay for the services they receive. They don't
>>get free water, they don't get free garbage pick up. Why
>>should they get free fire protection or street cleaning.
>
>Because a state-certified, tax-exempt parochial school is providing
>the same service to society that a state-certified, tax-exempt public
>school is doing...educating future citizens. At no real cost to the
>general public, except for the tax exemption. Which, spread out per
>taxpayer, turns out to be pretty miniscule.
Yep, it would probably be a pretty miniscule addition to my electric
bill if we gave 'em free electricity as well. Heck, why not?
And while I'm certainly not questioning the fact that parochial
schools, by and large, do turn out educated citizens, I must confess
to considerable unease about what some of the fundamentalist
'Christian academies' are turning out - both as to the education
quotient and the citizen quotient.
And, of course, the 1st amendment prevents gubmint from attempting
to distinguish between catholic schools and fundamentalist schools.
As a basic premise, if a gubmint benefit is bestowed on -any-
religion, it must be bestowed on -all- religions. So, gubmint is
unable to grant tax exemptions to parochial schools and deny it
to Christian academies.
>And, by the way, I think you made a mistake...unless you really mean
>"I just see no reason they should pay for the services they receive."
>In which case we are in agreement after all.
I did, indeed, make a mistake - the word "not" was omitted.
Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,
Hal Lillywhite
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.97060...@garcia.efn.org> The Cavalier Brat <sspa...@efn.org> writes:
...
>I've always found the "three Rs" particularly telling:
>Presumably, they refer to Reading 'Riting & 'Rithmatic.
>IMO, that's fairly disgusting ... I mean, the "core
>educational requirements" being misspelt like that.
You can look at it that way. However I prefer to see it as
a bit of humor in a field which at times takes itself far
too seriously.
...
>[I snipped too much -- I would like to throw out, though,
>that while you, Hal, may consider your church to be helpful
>to "less fortunate people in the world" (I'm presuming you
>mean missions)
Not necessarily. Churches provide a lot of help right at home. As
you say my post was rather long so I won't repeat the examples I
gave but I think they are sufficient to indicate that a lot of
churches help people in their own neighborhood and country.
>this opinion is by no means universal.
>Missionaries are *always* destructive to native cultures and
>religions.]
Well, this is getting a bit off subject but of course they are
destructive to native religions, that is the idea behind teaching
what the missionaries regard as important truths. As for cultures,
sometimes missionaries are destructive, sometimes not. Sometimes I
think they *should* be destructive to certain aspects of local
culture. I was a missionary in an area where heavy consumption of
alcohol was part of the culture. You bet I wanted to see a change
in that aspect of the culture. However those people were also the
cleanest and hardest working people I ever encountered and I want
them to keep that part of their culture. If they can do that and
avoid the alcohol and a few other things they will probably escape
the poverty which plagues them.
Why do we want to preserve native cultures anyway? Is it so we can
entertain ourselves by looking at them? Not very nice in my
opinion. I think we should not force them to change but neither
should we preserve the grinding poverty which too often goes along
with such cultures. Really we should to seek to preserve the best
parts of those cultures but replace the bad aspects if the people
are willing. People are important, cultures are secondary. Surely
you would not want to preserve the tradition in many cultures which
keeps women as second-class citizens or worse, often making them
little more than animals owned by husbands or fathers?
...
>You're totally deluded if you think the NEA has funded a
>significant portion of art in this country at any point in
>time, or will ever do so. Two postage stamps (soon to be
>alot less, if there can be a such thing as "alot less than
>nearly nothing") does not equal the large amount of property
>and service taxes which would become revenue were churches
>taxed as everything else.
I am having a hard time understanding the above paragraph. However
my point is:
1. Bill complains that it is unfair to give tax breaks to churches.
One of his reasons is that not everyone chooses to benefit from a
church. I don't think that reason is worth much, to be useful an
organization needs to help some people in need, not necessarily
serve the entire population.
2. As a counter example I used funding of the arts. This is not
just a tax break, it is the active giving of taxpayers money to
artists. Those who want that artwork are an even smaller part of
the population than the church-goers. Furthermore, some of that
money goes to fund "art" which probably a majority of the population
finds offensive (eg. the "Piss Christ").
My whole point was that just because an organization serves a
relatively small group such as the religious or cancer victims
should not disqualify them for a tax exemption.
Hal Lillywhite
>In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
...
>>>And, needless to say, no one in public education,
>>>unionized or no, is likely to support fewer resources for public
>>>education.
>>True. They do not want to see anybody allowed to compete with them
>>on a level playing field. It's real nice to have an advantage over
>>your competition. Those who buy from their competition still have
>>to pay the public schools even though they don't use their services.
>>Obviously the public school establishment wants the taxpayers money
>>regardless of if they serve those taxpayers or not. Sweet deal for
>>them but I don't like it.
>You raise an excellent point and one worthy of discussion.
>Where did you get the idea that private school students _don't_
>use the services of public schools.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that private schools
never use services of the public schools, I am quite aware of things
like therapy, outdoor school etc. However most of those are
comparatively minor expenses (and I think therapy brings in some
federal money). My point is that the private school must pay
personnel and support buildings and the same people who provide the
money for that are also forced to pay for the public schools, even
if they don't like them and will never use them except for some
minor services. In fact in a lot of places the services provided to
private schools come not from the school district but from a
more or less separate educational service district budget.
> The
>private schools routinely take the cheap way out and do not
>retain education specialists for "different" students - folks
>like physical therapists, speech therapists, learning disabled
>teachers, psychologists, handicapped learning specialist, etc.
Some do. For some small schools it is not practical to hire these
specialists. Others accept these students and do an excellent job
with them. I would support requiring equity in this area for any
private school large enough to make such feasible. Maybe they could
work out a deal to share the cost of the specialist with a public
school (and of course also share any federal money provided for the
purpose).
...
>Which brings us to the real nub of the problem which is "skimming".
...
>But, of course, it is _not_ just a kid at random being selected
>for transfer from public school to private school - the private
>school is affirmatively selecting the students it will accept.
Sometimes. In other cases parents take a student who is having
trouble in public school and put him in a private school. I have
very little experience with nuns but I understand some of those
women can really put the fear of God into problem students.
The real skimming problem I see is skimming parents. Parents of
private school students tend to be interested in the education of
their children, otherwise they wouldn't send the kids there. In the
public schools some parents are involved while others don't care.
>The multiple handicapped, the mentally retarded, the mentally
>disturbed, the children who have parents who are in jail,
>or on drugs, or mental disturbed or retarded themselves are
>generally _not_ accepted by private schools.
Often that is true. However I think the severe problems require
special treatment. This goes against the current legally mandated
practice but I think we should drastically scale back on
mainstreaming some of these real problem cases. Many of these kids
benefit little if at all from their classes but they do present a
serious obstacle to the education of other students in the class.
Yes we should level the playing field here but by removing an
unnecessary burden from the public schools, not by adding it to the
private schools.
We should try to help these students but in many cases that may mean
a special class oriented to their needs. In the case of severe
discipline problems expel them and put them in a place where they
have limited freedom if necessary. Kids are usually not dumb and
many will misbehave as long as they know there are no consequences.
If the consequences of misbehavior are unpleasant most will shape
up. If the misbehavior is due to severe emotional problems then put
them in a place equipped to deal with such problems. It is unfair
to expect teachers to be cops, judges, and shrinks as well as teach.
How can we expect them to have time to provide instruction if they
must do all those other things as well?
...
>. Where not only would public schools be required
>to maintain appropriate English as a second language programs for
>Spanish, Russian, Roumanian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese
>speaking children but the private schools would be required to
>maintain similar appropriate programs for the less than English
>fluent?
ESL should be handled as a separate program. If the federal
government chooses to allow these people into the country (in many
cases they should) then the burden should be on the federal
government to support the necessary ESL classes.
...
>>Consider a situation schools often face now: a tenured teacher who
>>has retired in place or is otherwise not doing the job. I know,
>>most teachers are competent and try to teach but there are a few
>>exceptions. At present it is nearly impossible to fire a bad
>>teacher (except for serious misconduct and sometimes even then).
...
>What public school does not have two or three or even four teachers
>for any elementry grade?
Lots of them, especially in rural areas. And once you get beyond
elementary school there are some classes in which even fairly large
schools have only one teacher.
...
>Thus the problem - the request doesn't get rid of "bad" teachers
>because the number of "concerned' parents is not that large and
>because the requests of "concerned" parents are not necessarily
>directed against "bad' teachers.
Not necessarily but I can name a couple of rotten apples in our
district who have been the cause of plenty of complaints. The
administration knows they are bad but can't do much about it.
>>Or consider the opposite situation, the superteacher. Right now
>>there is no way for a public school in most jurisdictions to pay
>>the top teachers more.
>Three points here:
>How many private schools reward a "superteacher" financially?
Admitedly not many but some of the "elite" ones do.
>How many superteachers are superteachers for the financial rewards?
Obviously not many right now. Teaching doesn't pay enough to
attract those who won't sacrifice some financial gain. However I
have seen good teachers finally decide they really have to have more
money and leave (my daughter's 4th grade teacher for example). Had
there been a way to pay those folks more they probably would have
stayed. Further, if there were a way for a good teacher to earn
more we might see more bright young people attracted to the
profession.
>How does one objectively recognize a superteacher?
A problem in any field. How do you recognize a good office worker
for example? I admit we wil probably never be perfect at
recognizing excellent teachers but we can do a pretty good job.
When we see students who progress rapidly under one teacher and not
another we know which teacher is most effective. Obviously we have
to consider things like what type of student they start with but I
don't think it would be too difficult to at least sort out the
deadwood, competent and superstars. If the principal is doing
his/her job he will know which students are progressing and which
are not. In fact as a parent I know which of my children's teachers
are good, bad and average. Their principals know this too.
...
>I can think of several ways I might attract students without necessarily
>providing a better education. And, I can think of several quite
>valid and effective educational techniques which might not exactly
>have 12 year-olds lining up to get into my classes.
Actually I think making the subject enjoyable is an important aspect
of teaching but obviously secondary to causing the learning to
happen. The competent teacher will facilitate learning and it's not
too difficult to judge if that happens. The great teacher will
usually have students wanting to get into the class cause they enjoy
it. I think no teacher should remain employed unless they actually
teach and cause learning to happen. Any "teacher" who fails at that
should be dismissed, regardless of how enjoyable the class is. A
teacher who makes the subject enjoyable while causing learning to
happen should get extra rewards. His/her students will almost
certainly learn more and retain it longer than those of the average
teacher.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
>I am having a hard time understanding the above paragraph. However
>my point is:
>1. Bill complains that it is unfair to give tax breaks to churches.
>One of his reasons is that not everyone chooses to benefit from a
>church. I don't think that reason is worth much, to be useful an
>organization needs to help some people in need, not necessarily
>serve the entire population.
Well, my original point was only that all properties, whether owned
by religious, eleeomosynary, educational or fraternal organizations,
should pay property taxes for the direct government services they
receive - things like streets and fire protection and the like.
My subsidary point was that a stronger case can be made for giving
the Red Cross (fer instance) an exemption from the taxes used to
pay for these services than can be made for churches and Elks
Clubs. Just _why_ should the general public assume the costs of
providing fire protection to, for instance, the local Nation of
Islam Temple? What is the effective difference between gubmint
writing the Nation of Islam a check for it to purchase its own
fire truck and hire its own firefighters and gubmint providing the
Nation of Islam _free_ gubmint fire protection? The first amendment
would, presumably forbid the former - why is the latter somehow
different?
>2. As a counter example I used funding of the arts. This is not
>just a tax break, it is the active giving of taxpayers money to
>artists. Those who want that artwork are an even smaller part of
>the population than the church-goers. Furthermore, some of that
>money goes to fund "art" which probably a majority of the population
>finds offensive (eg. the "Piss Christ").
Actually, I wonder why no one has raised a first amendment objection
to that particular "work of art" - for as the first amendment forbids
gubmint aid to religion, it equally gubmint funded opposition to
religion. Still, as far as funding for the arts goes, while it it
not something I generally favor, it at least does not run afoul
of any specific constitutional prohibition. Whether or not the
arts are to be funded is a question to be worked out through the
democratic process. But gubmint -aid- to religion (or aid to
anti-religion, fer that matter) seems clearly prohibited. And
providing free police and fire protection to churches seems clearly
gubmint aid to religion. (Providing free police and fire protection
to Elks Clubs is, while not unconstitutional, just silly.)
>My whole point was that just because an organization serves a
>relatively small group such as the religious or cancer victims
>should not disqualify them for a tax exemption.
But, ya' notice that religious organizations are the _only_ organizations
which are allowed to discriminate. The cancer society would not,
for instance, be allowed, for a minute, to limit its benefits to
cancer victims of a particular ethnic group or particular religious
persuation. Were it to attempt such a tactic, it would be immediately
sued and lose its tax exempt status as well. Yet a religious organization
can (and often does) limit its benefits to those it considers "truly
shriven" with nary a question raised.
I would opine that the first amendment would -require- the gubmint
to "butt out" of the question of as to whom a religious organization
might wish to offer its benefits but, on the other hand, gubmint
should not be giving it free fire protection at the same time either.
As to the Elks Clubs and the like, which have a long history of being
less than open to all sorts of "unshriven" folks of various ethnic,
religious, and gender backgrounds, the idea of giving _them_ free
fire protection _really_ grates.
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer bsha...@orednet.org -
- Cave ab homine unius libri! -
The Cavalier Brat
Hi again y'all ...
On 6 Jun 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
>
> >I am having a hard time understanding the above paragraph. However
> >my point is:
>
> >1. Bill complains that it is unfair to give tax breaks to churches.
> >One of his reasons is that not everyone chooses to benefit from a
> >church. I don't think that reason is worth much, to be useful an
> >organization needs to help some people in need, not necessarily
> >serve the entire population.
>
> Well, my original point was only that all properties, whether owned
> by religious, eleeomosynary, educational or fraternal organizations,
> should pay property taxes for the direct government services they
> receive - things like streets and fire protection and the like.
I'll admit, Bill, you make a good case. And you're probably
right -- it is an inconsistancy, and probably is unfair to
the others who suck up the cost.
IMO, it's a small thing, and taxes for everything are way
too high. I'm willing to live with, and argue for, just
about *any*thing that keeps taxes lower for someone. Don't
like my logic? Get yer own :-).
> >2. As a counter example I used funding of the arts. This is not
> >just a tax break, it is the active giving of taxpayers money to
> >artists. Those who want that artwork are an even smaller part of
> >the population than the church-goers. Furthermore, some of that
> >money goes to fund "art" which probably a majority of the population
> >finds offensive (eg. the "Piss Christ").
(Sidenote: I *loved* Piss Christ ("PC" for short -- things
that make you go "Hmmmm.") -- it offended me, it made me
chortle with laughter, IMO it's an extremely effective
piece. Not like Snuff-TV offends me, though.)
> Actually, I wonder why no one has raised a first amendment objection
> to that particular "work of art" - for as the first amendment forbids
> gubmint aid to religion, it equally gubmint funded opposition to
> religion.
Because it (the show) was about the artist, not the art.
There was a whole lot more to the show than that one piece,
and there's a whole lot more to the artist (whose name I
can't recall for the life of me) than that one piece.
Fortunately, the NEA hasn't been in the business of playing
"Good art; Bad art" recently.
> >My whole point was that just because an organization serves a
> >relatively small group such as the religious or cancer victims
> >should not disqualify them for a tax exemption.
>
> But, ya' notice that religious organizations are the _only_ organizations
> which are allowed to discriminate. The cancer society would not,
> for instance, be allowed, for a minute, to limit its benefits to
> cancer victims of a particular ethnic group or particular religious
> persuation. Were it to attempt such a tactic, it would be immediately
> sued and lose its tax exempt status as well. Yet a religious organization
> can (and often does) limit its benefits to those it considers "truly
> shriven" with nary a question raised.
Ok, Bill, I realize you don't get out much (duck!), but
churches, at least in my experience, don't discriminate. I
can say without reservation that I'm absolutely certain the
LDS church doesn't discriminate against anyone, and to boot,
treats its investigators with a great deal of respect.
It sounds like your beef is more with what and who the
church, as an organization, choses to do with its money. In
your perfect, statist, socailist whirled, perhaps
organizations would aid all people equally -- but that just
isn't how the real world works, or how it should work.
Taking LDS as an example again, it's a sect (Mormon) within
a religion (Christianity). Pretty darn specailized; one
would have to be a fool to think that money donated to the
LDS church would go for, say, polyoma research (an avian
disease). I donate money to Food For Lane County
frequently; I expect it to go for food for hungry Lane
county residents, not for hungry folks in Clackamas county.
> I would opine that the first amendment would -require- the gubmint
> to "butt out" of the question of as to whom a religious organization
> might wish to offer its benefits but, on the other hand, gubmint
> should not be giving it free fire protection at the same time either.
Then write a ballot measure. As you are often quick to
point out, gubmint (at least in theory) does what the people
want it to. It's really We the People who are "giving it
free" stuff.
The Cavalier Brat
On 5 Jun 1997, Hal Lillywhite wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.97060...@garcia.efn.org> The Cavalier Brat <sspa...@efn.org> writes:
> >I've always found the "three Rs" particularly telling:
> >Presumably, they refer to Reading 'Riting & 'Rithmatic.
> >IMO, that's fairly disgusting ... I mean, the "core
> >educational requirements" being misspelt like that.
>
> You can look at it that way. However I prefer to see it as
> a bit of humor in a field which at times takes itself far
> too seriously.
Point made!
> >[I snipped too much -- I would like to throw out, though,
> >that while you, Hal, may consider your church to be helpful
> >to "less fortunate people in the world" (I'm presuming you
> >mean missions)
>
> Not necessarily. Churches provide a lot of help right at home. As
> you say my post was rather long so I won't repeat the examples I
> gave but I think they are sufficient to indicate that a lot of
> churches help people in their own neighborhood and country.
You're right -- and that wasn't what I was getting at. I
should have specified foriegn missions in non-western
countries only.
[...]
> Why do we want to preserve native cultures anyway? Is it so we can
> entertain ourselves by looking at them? Not very nice in my
> opinion. I think we should not force them to change but neither
> should we preserve the grinding poverty which too often goes along
> with such cultures. Really we should to seek to preserve the best
> parts of those cultures but replace the bad aspects if the people
> are willing. People are important, cultures are secondary. Surely
> you would not want to preserve the tradition in many cultures which
> keeps women as second-class citizens or worse, often making them
> little more than animals owned by husbands or fathers?
Just as your opinions on (foriegn, non-western areas)
missions are influenced by folks who actively go on missions
and think they're a darn good thing to go on, mine are
influenced by folks who believe in non-interference at
nearly any cost (which really can't be achieved, but, hey,
one can be less disruptive or more disruptive).
Because it's theirs, not ours; it isn't our place to judge.
People, as individuals, can't be seperated out wholly from
their culture, they can't be picked up and moved somewhere
else and still be the same person. As for what I would like
to do and not do, first on my list would be to refrain from
labelling someone else's culture as "bad" *g*. I'll even
agree that there are a handful of places that don't have a
heavy western influence (I'm thinking central Africa, the
innerts of Austrailia, not places like Mexico) that do have
what I would call problems with sexism and poverty.
Most of the time, though, simply that there are things which
men do which women do not do, or vice versa, is not enough
evidence to consider either sex repressed or oppressed. I
would no sooner call an Australian religion (native Aus.
religion can't be seperated from culture, no, I'm not
harping on religion *that* much) sexist and oppressive
because women can't play the dijeridu than I would call the
LDS "culture" sexist and oppressive because women can't hold
the priesthood.
> >You're totally deluded if you think the NEA has funded a
> >significant portion of art in this country at any point in
> >time, or will ever do so. Two postage stamps (soon to be
> >alot less, if there can be a such thing as "alot less than
> >nearly nothing") does not equal the large amount of property
> >and service taxes which would become revenue were churches
> >taxed as everything else.
>
> I am having a hard time understanding the above paragraph. However
> my point is:
[snip -- I think I hit this through a post of Bill's]
My point: Piss Christ is a strawman when compared to
property taxes which would be incurred should churches be
taxed. The NEA has, and has always had, a very small
budget, a miniscule amount of money when compared to what
would be tax revenue should churches be taxes. I mean, have
you ever thought about just how high the property taxes on
all those old churches in downtown, skyscrapersville, areas
would amount to? I can see the dollar signs glinting off
BS's eyes.
The Cavalier Brat
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, talltom wrote:
I wrote:
> ... and could
> > easily see a reality where churches who do help the
> > community are required to pay property taxes on their food
> > and clothing banks, or even to license themselves as a
> > restuarant or retail store. Probably would be over-turned
> > in court as well, but at the expense of many folks who
> > needed help and didn't get it, not only materially but
> > psychologically.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. What part of "will make no law with respect to religion"
> do you not understand? Tax free status for churches is a law with respect to religion.
> Seems pretty simple to me. The 14th requires equal treatment. What's the problem?
Tom, I'm not sure what you're getting at ... Whether you
think my dark-future scenario is impossibly unlikely, or
whether you think churches should be taxed, or both ...
But, what part of "Peyote is illegal, ain't it!" do you not
understand? :-) (Peyote, a herb which is integral to the
Native American Church.)
Gubmint interferes with churches lots more than (us)
non-church-going folks realize, even us paranoid
non-church-going folks! I'd like to keep their hands out of
everything, and allowing churches to be taxed is, IMO, a
step backwards from the low, low taxes I'd like to see.
The Cavalier Brat
[lotsa snipping]
On 4 Jun 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> In a previous article, ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) says:
> >In article <5mln7c$6...@ednet2.orednet.org> bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
> writes:
>
> And, of course, should a child accepted by a private school prove
> to be a discipline problem or fail to achieve adequate academic
> progress (in the view of the private school) the private school
> is free to dismiss (or expel) that student. The public schools
> do not have that luxury of expelling these types of students in
> most instances and are _required_ to accept back any students
> dismissed from or expelled by private schools.
Public schools do suspend students, too -- mydol (?) leaps
immediately to mind. Certainly, that's not the norm -- a
coworker of mine's 8th grade son was suspended for two weeks
for calling his algebra teacher an *sshole, this is more
typical.
> Thus the concern of the public education establishment - that
> the private education sector will take large numbers of the
> "easy" students - the ones that are inexpensive to teach while
> leaving the public sector to deal with the special needs students -
> the ones that are expensive to teach. And, to the extent that
> any of the students actually accepted by the private sector
> actually turn out to be less than "easy", the private sector will
> either require the public sector to provide the expensive
> "extra" services required by its students or just dismiss those
> expensive students and return them to the public education process.
I think a closer examination of where public schools spend
their money, what students are more expensive, is in order.
In the early 80s, in Texas, my elementary school spent more
on myself and three other students (one of those evil test
score programs) than it did on any of the "handicapped"
students ("hyperactivity" being the way the administration,
IMO, isolated not-easy students those days) -- we got two
teachers, a couple of computers, free summer programs in
pottery, art, etc -- anything the "program" said it needed
it got. It later turned into a magnet school -- also,
*very* expensive. Perhaps Oregon is more progressive than
Texas ever thought about being, but from what I saw, then,
and later (opposing the magnet schools, with most of the
other kids, district-wide, who survived the program I was
in), the kids who actually needed the 2 students to 1
teacher ratio, the extra materials, space and time didn't
get it. I see no reason to believe they're getting what
they need now.
> Then would you favor a level playing field where private schools
> were _required_ to accept _any_ student who applied - including
> those with physical, mental or emotional handicaps?
You don't want that -- at least at this point. Private
schools don't have the resources of the district to draw on,
including other students with similar problems. There's
more to being sucessful with handicapped & "problem" kids
than extra staff, materials & space; they don't need to be
liminalized any more than they already are. In most private
schools, it would be a terrible thing for the kids.
What about schools like Interlocken -- a private, boarding,
music school in Michigan, where admission is based more on
playing ability than anything else? Would you require that
they accept beginners, or lower their standards, or would
very specialized private schools be special cases?
> What public school does not have two or three or even four teachers
> for any elementry grade? "Oh, you don't like Ms. Reilly? No problem,
> we'll put your daughter in Mr Corchran's (or Ms. Johnson's) class."
> (Ms. Reilly will end up with the kids whose parents just don't care.)
And if Ms. Reilly treats the kids like crap, or is a bad
teacher, this is OK with you?
> I made such requests three or four times during my daughters' elementary
> educations and they were honored each time. And my wife and I
> made those requests, not because the non-requested teachers were
> "bad" teachers but simply because we felt, rightly or wrongly, that
> a different teaching style would be better suited to the needs of
> our particular child.
One would have hoped that the professionals, who were with
your daughters in school all day, every day, would have been
able to see that as well.
> >Their pay is what they get based on time in
> >service and degrees. Neither is a good indicator of how well a
> >teacher actually performs in the classroom.
>
> And what is a good indicator?
Ask the students, they're the best indicator there is.
Beyond that, the progress each student has made as an
individual (not nesc. standardized tests -- behavioral
progress, social progress, etc are important too), the
ability of the teacher to include, retain, and help
"problem" students in their class, etc.
The Cavalier Brat
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:39:58 -0700, The Cavalier Brat
> <sspa...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >Do public primary & secondary school teachers not get
> >tenure? I thought it was only at the collegiate level, at
> >*all* public institutions but not all private institutions
> >(e.g. Yale School of Music faculty never get tenure, only
> >the dean does).
>
> Public primary and secondary school teachers *do* get tenure.
Oh, that's frightening! (I've never been a fan of tenure,
even at the universities.) Is this an Oregon thing, how
does it work, etc?
> >I agree with Hal ... (the only folks I trust less than
> >church folks being government folks, and all) ... and could
> >easily see a reality where churches who do help the
> >community are required to pay property taxes on their food
> >and clothing banks, or even to license themselves as a
> >restuarant or retail store. Probably would be over-turned
> >in court as well, but at the expense of many folks who
> >needed help and didn't get it, not only materially but
> >psychologically.
>
> Also figure that there are a lot of folks who would like to get rid of
> various church help to the poor...for varying motives, none of them
> good for the poor.
Is this a great country of what ... *snort*
talltom
The Cavalier Brat wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Oh, I don't know about that. What part of "will make no law with respect to religion"
> > do you not understand? Tax free status for churches is a law with respect to religion.
> > Seems pretty simple to me. The 14th requires equal treatment. What's the problem?
>
> Tom, I'm not sure what you're getting at ... Whether you
> think my dark-future scenario is impossibly unlikely, or
> whether you think churches should be taxed, or both ...
I think that to have a peaceful society all have to be treated equally, and that
includes taxes. Now if some are going to be taxed, all should be taxed at the
same rate, otherwise it's a violation of the 14th. Now if you don't want
churches to be taxed, that's fine too, but nobody else should be taxed either.
I prefer the later!:-)
> But, what part of "Peyote is illegal, ain't it!" do you not
> understand? :-) (Peyote, a herb which is integral to the
> Native American Church.)
Well, making peyote illegal may not be particularly smart, but it is illegal for all,
and therefor a particular church isn't being singled out. As a result it passes the
14th with no problem.
> Gubmint interferes with churches lots more than (us)
> non-church-going folks realize, even us paranoid
> non-church-going folks! I'd like to keep their hands out of
> everything, and allowing churches to be taxed is, IMO, a
> step backwards from the low, low taxes I'd like to see.
Well if you demand that the govt. be consistent, you'll get one or the other, and
I suspect that if none were taxed govt. would interfere a lot less!:-)
By their own rules they have to be consistent, and aren't doing it.
Don Homuth
>But, what part of "Peyote is illegal, ain't it!" do you not
>understand? :-) (Peyote, a herb which is integral to the
>Native American Church.)
The use of peyote in the rituals of the Native American Church has
been declared legal.
Bob Tiernan
On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Don Homuth wrote:
> The use of peyote in the rituals of the Native American Church has
> been declared legal.
And I suppose you think the Supreme Court or the Federal government
actually had any business saying one way or the other. Leave it
to someone like you to think that a bunch of corrupt legislators
had a "right" to declare a hundreds of years old ritual to be
illegal, or legal for that matter.
You can wait for such desisions. Some of don't.
BT
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, sspa...@efn.org (The Cavalier Brat) says:
>[lotsa snipping]
>
>On 4 Jun 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> And, of course, should a child accepted by a private school prove
>> to be a discipline problem or fail to achieve adequate academic
>> progress (in the view of the private school) the private school
>> is free to dismiss (or expel) that student. The public schools
>> do not have that luxury of expelling these types of students in
>> most instances and are _required_ to accept back any students
>> dismissed from or expelled by private schools.
>
>Public schools do suspend students, too -- mydol (?) leaps
>immediately to mind. Certainly, that's not the norm -- a
>coworker of mine's 8th grade son was suspended for two weeks
>for calling his algebra teacher an *sshole, this is more
>typical.
Oh, students can be _suspended_ from public schools but expelling
'em is a different matter. Actually, students _can_ be expelled
from public school (with some difficulty and an abundance of
due process) but that doesn't relieve the public school of the
obligation to provide a "suitable" education. Ya' can, eventually
kick 'em out of school but the public school may still have the
obligation to provide an "alternative school" or send a tutor
around to the kid's house, or hook 'em up to a "virtual classroom"
via cable tv. All very expensive propositions.
-snips-
>I think a closer examination of where public schools spend
>their money, what students are more expensive, is in order.
Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, public money they are
spending and the public should monitor and examine just
how the schools are spending that money. Just don't
let a belief that they are not spending it as efficiently
as possible lead to the conclusion that the solution is
to just give 'em less money (or more responsibilities with
the same money, which is the same thing).
>In the early 80s, in Texas, my elementary school spent more
-personal anecdote snipped-
But personal anecdotes are unlikely to contribute greatly to
finding more efficient was of spending education dollars.
Personal anecdotes are, alas, just that - personal.
>
>> Then would you favor a level playing field where private schools
>> were _required_ to accept _any_ student who applied - including
>> those with physical, mental or emotional handicaps?
>You don't want that -- at least at this point. Private
>schools don't have the resources of the district to draw on,
>including other students with similar problems. There's
>more to being sucessful with handicapped & "problem" kids
>than extra staff, materials & space; they don't need to be
>liminalized any more than they already are. In most private
>schools, it would be a terrible thing for the kids.
Yet public schools are _required_ to accept such students
and are _required_ to provide "appropriate instruction"
for them. And then people gripe about what public education
costs and claim that parochial education is educating _its_
students for 70% of what the public schools are paying.
'Tis easy to spend 30% less if you can reject the most
expensive kids.
>What about schools like Interlocken -- a private, boarding,
>music school in Michigan, where admission is based more on
>playing ability than anything else? Would you require that
>they accept beginners, or lower their standards, or would
>very specialized private schools be special cases?
The proposal was that folks who send their kids to private schools
oughta get to take their proportionate share of public school
monies with 'em to pay or help pay for private tuition - a
voucher system, if you will.
I care not a wit what Interlocken does so long as Interlocken
and Interlocken's parents are not expecting to be funded with
tax dollars. If Interlocken _is_ to be funded with tax dollars,
then it should be held to the same standards as we impose on the
schools which _are_ funded with tax dollars - namely the public
schools.
>> What public school does not have two or three or even four teachers
>> for any elementry grade? "Oh, you don't like Ms. Reilly? No problem,
>> we'll put your daughter in Mr Corchran's (or Ms. Johnson's) class."
>> (Ms. Reilly will end up with the kids whose parents just don't care.)
>And if Ms. Reilly treats the kids like crap, or is a bad
>teacher, this is OK with you?
Of course is is _not_ OK! I was just pointing out that the
the "market system" is not a particularly useful means of
either identifying or weeding out "bad teachers".
>> I made such requests three or four times during my daughters' elementary
>> educations and they were honored each time. And my wife and I
>> made those requests, not because the non-requested teachers were
>> "bad" teachers but simply because we felt, rightly or wrongly, that
>> a different teaching style would be better suited to the needs of
>> our particular child.
>One would have hoped that the professionals, who were with
>your daughters in school all day, every day, would have been
>able to see that as well.
Nonsense. The "professionals" were with my daughters roughly 180
days a year, six hours a day, in a class with between 22 and 33
other kids. We, as parents got most of the remainder of their
waking hours and in a decidedly "small group" situation.
"Teaching style" is mostly subjective and that is a decision
parents are uniquely qualified to make.
>> >Their pay is what they get based on time in
>> >service and degrees. Neither is a good indicator of how well a
>> >teacher actually performs in the classroom.
>> And what is a good indicator?
>Ask the students, they're the best indicator there is.
Nonsense again! Some (many?) students prefer fun and
games to the hard work of learning. And no matter how
ya' attempt to prettify it or provide "enrichment activities",
the fact remains that some learning is just plain hard
work and the students just gotta do it. The teacher
who foregoes the hard work for the fun and games may
get a better approval rating from his/her students but
that is no indicator of how the teacher is performing in
the classroom - at least if educating as opposed to
entertaining the students is our objective.
>Beyond that, the progress each student has made as an
>individual (not nesc. standardized tests -- behavioral
>progress, social progress, etc are important too), the
>ability of the teacher to include, retain, and help
>"problem" students in their class, etc.
I fear this approach is gonna require two professionals
to assess each teacher - there is a _lot_ hidden there
in the "etc" you so glibly toss off. Better we forego
the two professional assessors and just hire two additional
teachers. Just about _any_ teacher would be a superstar
in an elementary classroom of eight - which we could do
if we tripled the number of teachers.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, sspa...@efn.org (The Cavalier Brat) says:
>On 6 Jun 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> But, ya' notice that religious organizations are the _only_ organizations
>> which are allowed to discriminate. The cancer society would not,
>> for instance, be allowed, for a minute, to limit its benefits to
>> cancer victims of a particular ethnic group or particular religious
>> persuation. Were it to attempt such a tactic, it would be immediately
>> sued and lose its tax exempt status as well. Yet a religious organization
>> can (and often does) limit its benefits to those it considers "truly
>> shriven" with nary a question raised.
>Ok, Bill, I realize you don't get out much (duck!), but
>churches, at least in my experience, don't discriminate. I
>can say without reservation that I'm absolutely certain the
>LDS church doesn't discriminate against anyone, and to boot,
>treats its investigators with a great deal of respect.
Well, I certainly doubt that - given the experiences of Mormons
hiring Mormons outside the confines of the church. When
Applegarth was the Beaverton School Superintendent, the number
of Mormons hired for the Beaverton School Districts administrative
office was truly staggering. Perhaps they were simply the most
qualified but the numbers were a little suspicious.
So, next time you get out (and you'll have to do it for me as
I don't get out much anymore - <smiley>) how 'bout you check out how many
Mormons are teaching at the parochial school closest to you.
Or, the closest Christian academy. Bet ya' can't find _any_!
But, the basic point was that religious organizations are
exempt, by law, from the anti-discrimination laws for all positions
higher than janitor. Some religious organizations may not discrimanate
but all religious organizations are allowed to - a luxury denied
to most non-profit organizations - as the Elks are currently discovering
to their financial distress.
>> I would opine that the first amendment would -require- the gubmint
>> to "butt out" of the question of as to whom a religious organization
>> might wish to offer its benefits but, on the other hand, gubmint
>> should not be giving it free fire protection at the same time either.
>
>Then write a ballot measure. As you are often quick to
>point out, gubmint (at least in theory) does what the people
>want it to. It's really We the People who are "giving it
>free" stuff.
Hmmmm! I may do that although I think I'd prefer to take on the
Elks before taking on the churches. Would _you_ sign my petition?
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer bsha...@orednet.org -
- Cave ab homine unius libri! -
The Cavalier Brat
On 7 Jun 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >Then write a ballot measure. As you are often quick to
> >point out, gubmint (at least in theory) does what the people
> >want it to. It's really We the People who are "giving it
> >free" stuff.
>
> Hmmmm! I may do that although I think I'd prefer to take on the
> Elks before taking on the churches. Would _you_ sign my petition?
Most certainly I'd sign to get it to a vote, though I doubt
I would vote for it.
The Cavalier Brat
On 7 Jun 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> In a previous article, sspa...@efn.org (The Cavalier Brat) says:
>
> >I think a closer examination of where public schools spend
> >their money, what students are more expensive, is in order.
>
> Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, public money they are
> spending and the public should monitor and examine just
> how the schools are spending that money. Just don't
> let a belief that they are not spending it as efficiently
> as possible lead to the conclusion that the solution is
> to just give 'em less money (or more responsibilities with
> the same money, which is the same thing).
It's not the amount of money I would like to see lessened,
education really doesn't get enough funding, IMO. It's more
accountability, money being a wonderful tool for
"encouraging" responsibility, and all.
> The proposal was that folks who send their kids to private schools
> oughta get to take their proportionate share of public school
> monies with 'em to pay or help pay for private tuition - a
> voucher system, if you will.
Personally, I agree with vouchers, but you do raise good
points. If costs were broken down into "easy" and "hard"
students, and those receiving vouchers only got their "easy"
student refund, leaving the "hard" student monies to the
school, would you be more open to the idea of vouchers?
Would you be willing to allow parents who send their
children to private schools or homeschool them a tax cut
equal to the amount needed to send a Joe Average student to
public school, but keep them paying the additional
percentage which funds more costly students?
If I were writing the proposal, I would do away with the
idea that public schools must provide extra cirruc.
activities for private school students as well, since they
would no longer be funding it. Also, this should be left to
the individual parents; private schools should remain as
free as possible from public funds and the strings that go
along with them.
> >> >Their pay is what they get based on time in
> >> >service and degrees. Neither is a good indicator of how well a
> >> >teacher actually performs in the classroom.
>
> >> And what is a good indicator?
>
> >Ask the students, they're the best indicator there is.
>
> Nonsense again! Some (many?) students prefer fun and
> games to the hard work of learning. And no matter how
> ya' attempt to prettify it or provide "enrichment activities",
> the fact remains that some learning is just plain hard
> work and the students just gotta do it. The teacher
> who foregoes the hard work for the fun and games may
> get a better approval rating from his/her students but
> that is no indicator of how the teacher is performing in
> the classroom - at least if educating as opposed to
> entertaining the students is our objective.
Some do, most don't. Wait, I forgot, you're a democrat,
people bad, gubmint good, right? Cynic! :-) Ok, "Ask the
responsible students," which for your elementary school
example, is going to be most of them.
> >Beyond that, the progress each student has made as an
> >individual (not nesc. standardized tests -- behavioral
> >progress, social progress, etc are important too), the
> >ability of the teacher to include, retain, and help
> >"problem" students in their class, etc.
>
> I fear this approach is gonna require two professionals
> to assess each teacher - there is a _lot_ hidden there
> in the "etc" you so glibly toss off. Better we forego
> the two professional assessors and just hire two additional
> teachers. Just about _any_ teacher would be a superstar
> in an elementary classroom of eight - which we could do
> if we tripled the number of teachers.
That's not such a bad idea (a much lower ratio). A
teacher, or other educator, evaluating another teacher or
other educator certainly would be useful, however, I argue
that it shouldn't be the only measurement of a teacher's
ability. My "etc" is left intentionally open; I never
claimed to have all the answers, just some ideas.
So, what do YOU think is a good indicator?
Peace & Lazy Sunday Afternoons,
Scott Johnson
In article <3399a3ed...@hermes.rdrop.com>,
Laurel Halbany <myt...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, there was that church back in D.C. or Baltimore or someplace that
>>was serving meals to the poor and homeless on weekends, and then the
>>city stepped in to stop them because the local zoning restrictions
>>did not allow "food services" on that piece of property. Result?
>>Another non-government solution squashed by government (which then
>>says "Hey look! Hungry people! We must step in because the private
>>sector has failed."
>
>Although let's be fair--the city didn't step in because only the local
>politicos objected to the soup kitchen. *Somebody* objected, probably
>local businesspeople or residents, and wanted the church to knock it
>off. And I doubt there was any protest from the local residents
>insisting that the city lay off and change the zoning restrictions.
>Probably you have the same people objecting to the soup kitchens as
>objecting to government-funded services to the poor....
My guess it was neighbors who noticed that soup kitchens attracted the
homeless and otherwise destitute, and decided that they didn't want
homeless folk in the neighborhood.
I personally find the idea that gubmint sabotages private charity efforts
because it would rather spend Your Tax Dollars providing public
assistence to be ridiculous. I've never seen a shred of evidence to
support this particular evidence--the only thing even resembling an
argument is the occasional suggest that bureaucrats involved in this part
of gubmint are trying to protect their jobs; a suggestion which does not
in and of itself constitute proof of anything.
Scott
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Scott Johnson -- Professional (sometimes) SW Engineer and all-purpose Geek|
|I don't speak for nobody but myself, which everyone else is thankful for |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Bill Shatzer
Hmmm! Well, of course, the Aztecs had been cutting the hearts
outa their sacrifices for many hundreds of years when the Spaniards
showed up. And the African race had been enslaved in America for
hundreds of years when those "corrupt legislators" proposed and
passed the 13th amendment.
The fact that a "ritual" has endured for "hundreds of years" hardly
gives it any moral sanction, eh?
And deciding to do away with a hundreds of years old ritual is
hardly evidence of "corruption" - it might be evidence of
enlightenment.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 7 Jun 1997 06:40:39 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
snip
>>You don't want that -- at least at this point. Private
>>schools don't have the resources of the district to draw on,
>>including other students with similar problems. There's
>>more to being sucessful with handicapped & "problem" kids
>>than extra staff, materials & space; they don't need to be
>>liminalized any more than they already are. In most private
>>schools, it would be a terrible thing for the kids.
>
>Yet public schools are _required_ to accept such students
>and are _required_ to provide "appropriate instruction"
>for them. And then people gripe about what public education
>costs and claim that parochial education is educating _its_
>students for 70% of what the public schools are paying.
Bill, may I remind you that these disability programs are paid for in
part through Federal income tax dollars? We're talking *Federal
funds* here, bub.
And it wouldn't be such a big deal if the public schools didn't at
least indirectly try to get these kids in the public system by
restricting parochial school kid access to programs such as speech
therapy.
Either that or allow parochial school systems the same access to
Federal special education funding which the public schools get. Can't
have it both ways. If the only way a kid needing special ed services
(mandated by Federal law to be provided in the least restrictive
setting) can recieve the full amount of services s/he needs (and not
everyone has access to the money or insurance to finance special ed
services privately), by going to public schools, then the public
schools and their supporters have no good excuse for bellyaching about
parochial schools having a lower percentage of kids needing special
services.
You see, Bill, it's like this. I know very few folks with lots of
money sending their kids to parochial school. Most folks are
struggling or it's a tight squeeze. In some cases the one child in a
family that needs these services ends up in the public system, because
the parents can't finance the services. And the others stay in the
parochial school.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 7 Jun 1997 07:47:55 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
snip
>Well, I certainly doubt that - given the experiences of Mormons
>hiring Mormons outside the confines of the church. When
>Applegarth was the Beaverton School Superintendent, the number
>of Mormons hired for the Beaverton School Districts administrative
>office was truly staggering. Perhaps they were simply the most
>qualified but the numbers were a little suspicious.
>
>So, next time you get out (and you'll have to do it for me as
>I don't get out much anymore - <smiley>) how 'bout you check out how many
>Mormons are teaching at the parochial school closest to you.
>Or, the closest Christian academy. Bet ya' can't find _any_!
Uh, Bill, I don't know about Mormons, but we have had (and may still
have now) non-Catholics teaching at my son's parochial school.
Knowledge of Catholic doctrine is expressly required for religion
class, but as for the rest of it....
snip
>Hmmmm! I may do that although I think I'd prefer to take on the
>Elks before taking on the churches. Would _you_ sign my petition?
Your right to circulate; my right to decline to sign. Too damn many
petitions this year anyway. Think I'll go out and circulate a
petition to end paid petition circulators--back to volunteer
petitioners!
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, there was that church back in D.C. or Baltimore or someplace that
>>was serving meals to the poor and homeless on weekends, and then the
>>city stepped in to stop them because the local zoning restrictions
>>did not allow "food services" on that piece of property. Result?
>>Another non-government solution squashed by government (which then
>>says "Hey look! Hungry people! We must step in because the private
>>sector has failed."
>
>Although let's be fair--the city didn't step in because only the local
>politicos objected to the soup kitchen. *Somebody* objected, probably
>local businesspeople or residents, and wanted the church to knock it
>off. And I doubt there was any protest from the local residents
>insisting that the city lay off and change the zoning restrictions.
>Probably you have the same people objecting to the soup kitchens as
>objecting to government-funded services to the poor....
Lets not forget the folks who want to eliminate the downtown soup
kitchens as well here in PDX.
Or the folks who want to close St. Francis Dining Hall.
Not in my backyard syndrome...
jrw
Don Homuth
In a previous article, zu...@teleport.com (Bob Tiernan) says:
>
>On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Don Homuth wrote:
>>
>> The use of peyote in the rituals of the Native American Church has
>>> been declared legal.
>
>And I suppose you think the Supreme Court or the Federal government
>actually had any business saying one way or the other.
Well, of *course* I think the SC had any business saying so, one way
or another. There had been a law that declared peyote use illegal --
not just some, but all. This had been done about the same time that
the Native American Church actually came into existence as an
organization.
The NAC sued, stating that the law banning peyote use improperly
interfered with its Constitutionally protected Freedom of Religion.
The SC ruled that the NAC was right, and thereby protected the
Constitutional Rights of the NAC.
Um -- that's what the Supreme Court *does*, Bob. Why do you have this
problem with the SC interpreting the Constitution in ways of which you
should approve?
Oh yeah -- I forgot. You just don't even want the question to be
raised at all.
>Leave it
>to someone like you to think that a bunch of corrupt legislators
>had a "right" to declare a hundreds of years old ritual to be
>illegal, or legal for that matter.
Had little to do with the ritual, and in fact, I rather doubt that
when the legislators (whose corruption is mostly a figment of your
fevered imagination) even thought about the rituals of the NAC when
the law was passed. I rather imagine they were more concerned about a
bunch of College Kids using the cactus button in ways that had
essentially nothing to do with a "hundreds-of-years-old ritual."
But tell me, BT -- do you think that *all* such rituals should be
legal per se, simply because they have existed? If you do, I am
prepared to provide you with a list of a whole flock of "religious"
rituals for the Libertarian Party to declare its unqualified
(intereting term, that) support of.
Sheesh -- you're becoming as weird as some of the other L's around on
some issues.
>You can wait for such desisions. Some of don't.
The "us" you're referring to being your own personal worship in the
Native American Church?
Fact is -- the NAC followers engaged in Civil Disobedience while the
matter was being adjudicated, and some of those cases actually took
place right here in Oregon.
But they waited withal.
And the Libertarians, to be frank, really didn't do anything, one way
or another. They were not, to my knowledge, a party to any of the
legal actions, nor did they take any other action in support of the
NAC. But then, maybe they sent in a few contributions. Anonymously,
of course.
Yeah, right.
Hal Lillywhite
>Fortunately, the NEA hasn't been in the business of playing
>"Good art; Bad art" recently.
Why "fortunately?" When government provides money for road building
we want good roads as a result (and they have specs to try to get
them). If a scientist applies for a grant he is expected to provide
reason to believe he will use the money for good research. In fact
in all cases I can think of except art we expect taxpayers money to
be spent on good work, not a rotten job. (I know we don't always
get it but at least that is what we expect.) Why should we be more
willing to pay an incompetent artist than an incompetent scientist?
Hal Lillywhite
>But, ya' notice that religious organizations are the _only_ organizations
>which are allowed to discriminate.
I'm afraid not, Bill. Since I have a couple of kids in college and
another who will soon be looking for scholarships I've found that
because of their race they are not eligible for a lot of financial
aid. Many groups have set up scholarship funds for particular races
and my kids don't fit. Nobody complains about that (and I have no
objection either) but it is discrimination.
Even our various branches of government openly discriminate, for
example setting aside certain contracts for women or minorities.
They claim it is to redress past wrongs but the result is that
individuals who may have never discriminated get cut out of the
process while others who may have been born with a silver spoon
in their mouths get an advantage because of the color of their skin
or a Spanish surname. If we really wanted to help the downtrodden
we should find those who have a real disadvantage and help them,
not for example, give an advantage to someone who happens to have
a Spanish surname.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com
(Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>On 4 Jun 1997 06:16:14 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
>
>snip
>In a small private school the children eligible for this service are a
>small part of the population.
Don't kid yourself though that a "small part of the population"
equals a "cheap part of the population". Given that classroom teachers
generally work in classrooms of 22-30 students and specialists
general work with groups ranging between one student and maybe half
a dozen kids, students need specialists start out costing lots more.
Add to that the fact that specialists are generally more highly trained
and tend to cluster at the upper ends of the salary scale, and they
are more expensive yet.
>In fact, given the difference in size
>between Llewellyn School and St. Agatha School, the fact that
>Llewellyn, the bigger school, could not get adequate funding to
>support a full-time speech therapist the last year we were there just
>underlines the fact that the private school which was one-third of the
>size couldn't even hope to find someone to provide such services.
So, rather than hiring a speech therapist and sharing him/her with
say two or three other parochial schools, St. Agatha will just not
provide that service at all and, instead, ship its students needing
this service off to the public schools to get this service for free?
>Cheap way out? Hardly, Bill.
Yep - the cheap way out. Don't get me wrong - I've no objection to
public schools providing this service to parochial school students
(or home schoolers, fer that matter) - after all, well educated kids
is everyone's objective, hopefully. And whatever we can do to get
well educated kids is in everyone's interest.
But, I really get frosted with the folks that say, "public education
_must_ be wasting money - look at how much cheaper the parochial
schools are doing it", without acknowledging that part of the cost
of public schools is providing very expensive specialist services
to parochial school kids.
>Furthermore, more parochial schools are developing their own resource
>rooms. Additionally, the parents of the private school kids are
>already paying for the public school services both through property
>taxes and Federal income taxes. Title IX *is* a federally funded
>program, Bill. We're paying our own way.
Well. of course all public education is tax funded from one source
or another - yet I doubt you could support a claim that yer
paying your own way. Fer instance, property taxes for schools
are constitutionally limited it the post BM-5 environment to
$5 per thousand. Which means if you are living in a $300,000
house (we should all be so lucky, eh?), you are paying $1500
a year in property taxes. Now $1500 a year is nothing more than
a decent start on the cost of educating _one_ child - even at
a parochial school. If you've more than one kid or if you are
living in a more typical $120,000 house (with $700 a year in
school taxes) you're a long way from paying your own way.
And, ya might what to calculate the percentage of the federal
budget which goes to elementary education. Add in another
three or four percent of your federal income tax, add that to
your education component of your property taxes and then see
if you are _really_ "paying your way".
>>Rather they provide the "regular" class room instruction and
>>send the "difficult" cases over the the public schools for the
>>required specialized teaching or treatment - which the public
>>schools are _required_ to provide.
>*Required* by Federal law, Bill, paid for by Federal funds, and the
>last time I checked I was still paying my fair share (and more) of
>Federal taxes. In the least restrictive environment. Least
>restrictive environment is interpreted for public school kids as their
>own school and classrooms. Least restrictive environment for
>parochial school kids is interpreted as the nearest public school.
Nonsense! Parochial schools can provide for their "special needs
students" (assuming they deign to admit "special needs students"
at all!) as they see fit or not at all if they so desire, free of
_any_ state or federal rules. 'Tis only when the parochial schools
ship 'em out the door and dump 'em off at the doorstep of the
local public schools that the rules start to kick in.
Now this is generally a Good Thing - if parochial schools can't
or don't wish to devote sufficient resources to deal with these
special needs students, then _someone_ has gotta do it and, as
always, the public schools should "be there" if we wanna ultimately
have educated citizens.
But, still, this is one of the reasons why the costs comparisons
between public and parochial education make it appear that parochial
education is so darn much cheaper. And why a voucher system is
so darn unfair unless it recognizes and makes allowances for the
fact that all children are _not_ equal when it comes to the costs
of their education.
>Heck, why couldn't both facilities share the expertise and the price
>of the services? I know my school would be willing to have someone
>come on premises and do a share of some sort with the public system.
Well, the constitutional theory is that the special services are
being supplied to the parochial school student and _not_ the
parochial school. Which is, I think, the objection to the scheme
you suggest. Yet _nothing_ is stopping either the parochial school
or the parents of parochial school students receiving public school
services from just writing a check to the local school district in
the approximate amount of the value of the services rendered.
So far as I know, none have done so although I'd encourage those
that are so inclined to do so.
>That would certainly create more employment and better service if
>specialized teachers could make the rounds of all the local schools,
>not just the publics.
See the constitutional theory outlined above - occasionally
the constitution makes us adopt policies that are less than
optimal from the cost-efficiency standpoint. I think it is
better to maintain the first amendment, even at the cost of
some inefficiencies.
>I might add that such services are slowly and reluctantly provided in
>the Portland Public system. Meantime the principals are begging the
>parochial students to officially enroll so they have another student
>on the rolls...but they don't have to teach the warm body except for
>specialty services. A contradiction, for certain..but the difference
>between special services.
Well, ya' see, if they are enrolled, the school gets the state money for
an enrolled student - if they are not, they've still gotta provide
the special services but get no moneys. Thus, their obvious preference
for getting a few bucks or two for the services they are providing -
which might enable 'em to avoid laying off a teacher or two and maybe
provide better services to the warm bodies they _do_ have to teach.
Sounds like a rational choice to me - something I would do were
I a public school principal. After all, all things considered, some
money beats the heck outa _no_ money.
>snip
>Ever heard of Tucker-Maxon Oral School, Bill?
Nope, never.
>They mainstream a lot
>of their kids into Holy Family. No federal funds being used there,
>since Holy Family's a Catholic school. In many cases, the private
>school can and will accomodate special needs if possible, especially
>for parishioners.
Hmmmm! And _what_ would the tuition be a Tucker-Maxon Oral School?
Public or private, I can successfully educate just about all kids, to
a minimum competency level at least, if I can set my budget. And,
even I can't set my budget, given a reasonable level of funding, I
can successfully educate just about all kids _if_ I can pick the
kids I choose to educate.
Private schools, of course, get both to set their own budgets and
pick the kids they choose to educate - no wonder they are generally
successful (Loren Parks' recent fiasco being the exception which
proves the rule.) Public school, OTOH, have neither option.
>>And, of course, should a child accepted by a private school prove
>>to be a discipline problem or fail to achieve adequate academic
>>progress (in the view of the private school) the private school
>>is free to dismiss (or expel) that student. The public schools
>>do not have that luxury of expelling these types of students in
>>most instances and are _required_ to accept back any students
>>dismissed from or expelled by private schools.
>Maybe the public schools would have fewer problems if they had better
>discipline options, including explusion and various other punishments.
>Not physical discipline but other stuff.
Like?
>>Thus the concern of the public education establishment - that
>>the private education sector will take large numbers of the
>>"easy" students - the ones that are inexpensive to teach while
>>leaving the public sector to deal with the special needs students -
>>the ones that are expensive to teach. And, to the extent that
>>any of the students actually accepted by the private sector
>>actually turn out to be less than "easy", the private sector will
>>either require the public sector to provide the expensive
>>"extra" services required by its students or just dismiss those
>>expensive students and return them to the public education process.
>I might add that the parents requesting those expensive "extra"
>services have already paid for those services via Federal taxes. I
>might also add that we're talking 1/2 hour to maybe 2 hours a week max
>instead of having the child in the school full time.
Nonsense again! Take your total federal income tax. Multiply by
.04 - _that_ is the amount going to elementary and secondary education.
If your kid is receiving _any_ public school services, your federal
taxes _ain't_ paying for it. Everyone else's federal taxes may
be paying for it but you are not!
>snip
>Very simple. We have smaller classes which allows for some
>flexibility.
Ya' think public schools wouldn't like smaller classes? The
solution to this problem is _not_ to siphon even more public
moneys from the public schools to the private ones.
The recent experiment in California lends considerable credence to
the theory that smaller classes are almost _everything_. But
with Bill Sizemore on the lose, aided and abetted by Brady Adams
and cheered on by Don McIntyre, the average public school classroom
in Portland has increased by 20% over the last five years.
Thus, us public school types resist, quite strenuously, any suggestion
that a portion of what limited moneys remain available to the
public schools be diverted to support the private schools. We,
too, wanna get back to 15 or 17 kids in a K-3 classroom.
>snip
>>What public school does not have two or three or even four teachers
>>for any elementary grade? "Oh, you don't like Ms. Reilly? No problem,
>>we'll put your daughter in Mr Corchran's (or Ms. Johnson's) class."
>>(Ms. Reilly will end up with the kids whose parents just don't care.)
>Urban bias, Bill. Smaller rural schools don't have that option.
Urban bias, perhaps. Yet, I'd opine that 80+% of this state's kids
are being educated in a school with at least two teachers in every
grade. Thus, the suggested "free market" solution for dealing with
"bad" teachers is going to be ineffective in 80+% of the cases.
And, a solution which only has the possibility of working less than
20% of the time is really no solution at all.
Thus, I solicit a solution which would work for _all_ our kids.
Dick Winningstad
The Cavalier Brat <sspa...@efn.org> wrote in article
Pine.SUN.3.95.970609...@garcia.efn.org>...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> A piece where the artist is clearly incompetent -- can't
> draw a straight line when they intend to -- isn't what I'm
> getting at. My point is gubmint shouldn't be in the
> business of saying "Wow, that's offensive, therefore it's
> bad," and for the large part, the NEA hasn't been doing
> that.
>
> -Steph
> --
> sspa...@efn.org
>
Why not? Why shouldn't the NEA be able to decide if a project is offensive
and therefore bad and then refuse to fund it? You seem to be advocating the
funding of anything a particular artist desires as long as there is some
sort of critical support.
I am not advocating censorship as I do not think the government should
outlaw offensive art. It is only censorship if the government makes it
illegal. The government is not censoring anyone by merely refusing to fund
the activity.
The NEA should have the discretion to refuse to fund exhibits that are
offensive to the general public. If the artist wants to be on the fringe,
and/or offend people, he should be free to get funding elsewhere and not
expect funding from tax supported sources.
If the NEA continues to fund art that is offensive to the general public,
then it will continue to expose itself to defunding moves by congress. And
the more out on the fringe the NEA gets in its funding decisions, the more
likely defunding will occur sooner than later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Homuth
On 10 Jun 1997 00:41:05 GMT, "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>...Why shouldn't the NEA be able to decide if a project is offensive
>and therefore bad and then refuse to fund it?....
It is able to do so. It often does. After all, most grant
applications to the NEA don't get funded, for one reason or another.
>I am not advocating censorship as I do not think the government should
>outlaw offensive art. It is only censorship if the government makes it
>illegal. The government is not censoring anyone by merely refusing to fund
>the activity.
Quite right. And sometimes I wish the Arts Community would just shut
the hell up when it knee-jerks the "censorship" cry when a project
doesn't get funded. (But then, I wish the L's would do the same thing
when the nooze media don't print something exactly the way they want
it printed, too.)
>The NEA should have the discretion to refuse to fund exhibits that are
>offensive to the general public.
It does have that discretion. But it also has the discretion to fund
them. See -- that's kindasorta what that term "discretion" means.
Now, if you want to make it so the NEA automatically refuses to fund
exhibits that are "offensive to the general (whoeverthehell they are)
public," that's not "discretion." That's "requirement." And that
requires a determination of "offensive to the general public."
Therein lies a Great Deal of Weirdness.
>If the artist wants to be on the fringe,
>and/or offend people, he should be free to get funding elsewhere and not
>expect funding from tax supported sources.
Artists are always on the fringe. And sometimes things are done
artfully that are 'offensive" to some folks, but not to others. Who
gets the veto power, since there is no in between in your discussion?
It's a fund/not fund problem, yes?
>If the NEA continues to fund art that is offensive to the general public,
>then it will continue to expose itself to defunding moves by congress. And
>the more out on the fringe the NEA gets in its funding decisions, the more
>likely defunding will occur sooner than later.
Nah -- it'd get exposed to defunding moves incongruous even if all it
did was sponsor retrospectives of Norman Rockwell paintings, I
suspect.
It's really a tempest in a teapot, since there's not all that much
money in dispute. But overall, I'd as lief have the Arts Community
spend itw own money. Mostly I see the NEA as a subsidy to Republicans
for the costs of "theahtah" tickets, symphonies, etc.
And taking subsidies away from Republicans is an all-but-vanished art
itself.
Dick Winningstad
Don Homuth <dho...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in article
<339cb777...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
> On 10 Jun 1997 00:41:05 GMT, "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com>
> wrote:
>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >The NEA should have the discretion to refuse to fund exhibits that are
> >offensive to the general public.
>
> It does have that discretion. But it also has the discretion to fund
> them. See -- that's kindasorta what that term "discretion" means.
Yes discretion to fund or not to fund is the point. But there are limits to
that discretion as dictated by the congress' funding decisions.
> Now, if you want to make it so the NEA automatically refuses to fund
> exhibits that are "offensive to the general (whoeverthehell they are)
> public," that's not "discretion." That's "requirement." And that
> requires a determination of "offensive to the general public."
> Therein lies a Great Deal of Weirdness.
Agree here. It is a requirement to make a decision of what's offensive. I
would imagine an art project glorifying the killing of homosexuals would be
refused for example. I would suggest that the NEA be more concerned about
traditional values as well. A crucifix in a bottle of urine will offend a
lot of people. Funding a Shakespeare festival will tend to be less
offensive.
> >If the artist wants to be on the fringe,
> >and/or offend people, he should be free to get funding elsewhere and not
> >expect funding from tax supported sources.
>
> Artists are always on the fringe. And sometimes things are done
> artfully that are 'offensive" to some folks, but not to others. Who
> gets the veto power, since there is no in between in your discussion?
> It's a fund/not fund problem, yes?
Artists are not always on the fringe, if fringe is defined as how many
people are offended by their art. Tygres Heart Shakespeare Company is not
on the fringe of tastefulness, though they do some innovative things with
their subject matter. The Oregon Symphony is not on the fringe. And yes it
is a fund or not to fund decision by the NEA. As I said above, the artist
can always try to get funding elsewhere. By the way, I have no idea if the
above mentioned organizations are funded by the NEA.
> >If the NEA continues to fund art that is offensive to the general
public,
> >then it will continue to expose itself to defunding moves by congress.
And
> >the more out on the fringe the NEA gets in its funding decisions, the
more
> >likely defunding will occur sooner than later.
>
> Nah -- it'd get exposed to defunding moves incongruous even if all it
> did was sponsor retrospectives of Norman Rockwell paintings, I
> suspect.
I would disagree with you. To go to use you example, and have the NEA only
fund Norman Rockwell type art, yes there would be some in congress that
would still want to cut off the NEA. However the number of congressmen in
favor of defunding would be much smaller than they are today.
> It's really a tempest in a teapot, since there's not all that much
> money in dispute. But overall, I'd as lief have the Arts Community
> spend itw own money. Mostly I see the NEA as a subsidy to Republicans
> for the costs of "theahtah" tickets, symphonies, etc.
I agree the money is small. But this is not what has the enemies of the NEA
in congress mad. Their perception of a government funded attack on the
culture of the U.S. is what has them mad. Even that perception would not be
a big issue, I suspect, if those congressmen were not also made aware of
the issue by their constituents.
> And taking subsidies away from Republicans is an all-but-vanished art
> itself.
Nice dig, but not germane.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
On 9 Jun 1997 06:51:50 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
snip
>>In fact, given the difference in size
>>between Llewellyn School and St. Agatha School, the fact that
>>Llewellyn, the bigger school, could not get adequate funding to
>>support a full-time speech therapist the last year we were there just
>>underlines the fact that the private school which was one-third of the
>>size couldn't even hope to find someone to provide such services.
>
>So, rather than hiring a speech therapist and sharing him/her with
>say two or three other parochial schools, St. Agatha will just not
>provide that service at all and, instead, ship its students needing
>this service off to the public schools to get this service for free?
Hardly for free, Bill. We've already paid for this service through
our tax dollars...Federal Income Tax dollars.
And Property Tax dollars. Just like you do, just like everyone else
does in this country. You're advocating depriving children of
universally guaranteed services FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS simply because
of where they go to school.
That's discrimination, Bill. Socially acceptable in some circles
because it's against parochial school kids, but it's STILL
DISCRIMINATION.
>>Cheap way out? Hardly, Bill.
>
>Yep - the cheap way out. Don't get me wrong - I've no objection to
>public schools providing this service to parochial school students
>(or home schoolers, fer that matter) - after all, well educated kids
>is everyone's objective, hopefully. And whatever we can do to get
>well educated kids is in everyone's interest.
>
>But, I really get frosted with the folks that say, "public education
>_must_ be wasting money - look at how much cheaper the parochial
>schools are doing it", without acknowledging that part of the cost
>of public schools is providing very expensive specialist services
>to parochial school kids.
Oh come on, Bill!
Parochial school kids using specialist services are a VERY small part
of the special service population! Furthermore, the public schools
save money on these parochial school kids, because they would be
providing MORE services (in my son's case, at least 1 hour's worth of
services vis a vis 1/2 hour a week).
Plus there are a lot of parents who just plain would not make the
commitment required to participate in a parochial school. Wanna know
what makes a parochial school so cheap, besides a lack of bureaucracy?
*Mandatory* volunteer hours. 30 hours a kid or family, depending on
the school. Minimum.
*Mandatory* fundraising commitments. $200-$400 per kid/family,
depending on the school. Minimum.
I've had active, involved public school parents who are *staggered* by
the degree of work required of parents in a parochial school.
But *that's* the deep dark secret of cheap parochial school education,
that and subsidies by specific parishes through allowing use of land
and facilities.
>Well. of course all public education is tax funded from one source
>or another - yet I doubt you could support a claim that yer
>paying your own way. Fer instance, property taxes for schools
>are constitutionally limited it the post BM-5 environment to
>$5 per thousand. Which means if you are living in a $300,000
>house (we should all be so lucky, eh?), you are paying $1500
>a year in property taxes. Now $1500 a year is nothing more than
>a decent start on the cost of educating _one_ child - even at
>a parochial school. If you've more than one kid or if you are
>living in a more typical $120,000 house (with $700 a year in
>school taxes) you're a long way from paying your own way.
And how much of your own way did you pay when your kids were in
school, Bill? Of that $700 or so in property tax going to the school,
the school this year doesn't have to fork over one penny to serve my
son. Even if they did, lessee, by the time you figure out 1 1/2 hours
per month for 9 months (more like 8, by the time you subtract out
waiting for placement, school holidays and the like), that's
approximately 10 hours of specialty services provided for one kid.
Lessee, at $700 or so in taxes that means those speech specialists
would have to be earning $70 an hour for me to be drawing more
services than I'm paying for through PROPERTY TAXES. That also
doesn't add in the fact that I'm paying for those services through
Income Taxes.
So yeah, Bill, I'm *really* paying my way. And last year's principal
got to count my kid in as an enrolled kid, while only having to
provide about 1 1/2 hours a month worth of services (which is what it
really works out to be).
snip
>Nonsense! Parochial schools can provide for their "special needs
>students" (assuming they deign to admit "special needs students"
>at all!) as they see fit or not at all if they so desire, free of
>_any_ state or federal rules. 'Tis only when the parochial schools
>ship 'em out the door and dump 'em off at the doorstep of the
>local public schools that the rules start to kick in.
Bill, SPECIAL SERVICES ARE REGULATED BY FEDERAL LAW. THE LOCAL PUBLIC
SCHOOLS ARE MANDATED UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES TO
EVERYONE, INCLUDING SEVERELY HANDICAPPED KIDS WHO IN ANOTHER ERA WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, PERIOD! THE LOCAL
PUBLIC SCHOOL GET FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY FOR THESE SERVICES.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEM TO EVERYONE, REPEAT EVERYONE.
Cripes! Read for fucking comprehension without a bias, will you?
Of course, what this is sounding like more and more to me is that you
consider parochial school students as not being eligible for the
rights guaranteed them under Federal law. Sounds like a clear case of
discrimination to me, bub.
snip
>Well, the constitutional theory is that the special services are
>being supplied to the parochial school student and _not_ the
>parochial school. Which is, I think, the objection to the scheme
>you suggest. Yet _nothing_ is stopping either the parochial school
>or the parents of parochial school students receiving public school
>services from just writing a check to the local school district in
>the approximate amount of the value of the services rendered.
Why? Bill, what you refuse to get through your congenitally thick
skull is that these services are mandated by Federal law. These
services are provided through Federal funds.
Again, you're participating in a socially acceptable form of
discrimination.
Go back and read the equation above. I still argue I'm paying my way
above and beyond what I pay in taxes.
And if the speech therapists are pulling down $70 an hour for their
services, then all I've gotta say is that there's a lot of folks in
the wrong profession.
snip
>
>>Ever heard of Tucker-Maxon Oral School, Bill?
>
>Nope, never.
Nice little private school on Holgate. They teach deaf kids to speak,
starting from preschool and going on through high school. We're
talking severe disability, and parents who have relocated to send
their kids there.
>
>>They mainstream a lot
>>of their kids into Holy Family. No federal funds being used there,
>>since Holy Family's a Catholic school. In many cases, the private
>>school can and will accomodate special needs if possible, especially
>>for parishioners.
>
>Hmmmm! And _what_ would the tuition be a Tucker-Maxon Oral School?
Haven't the faintest, as my kid's preschool only shared space with
Tucker. Lots of financial aid available, but no Federal funds that I
know of (I've contributed to their fundraisers).
>Public or private, I can successfully educate just about all kids, to
>a minimum competency level at least, if I can set my budget. And,
>even I can't set my budget, given a reasonable level of funding, I
>can successfully educate just about all kids _if_ I can pick the
>kids I choose to educate.
>
>Private schools, of course, get both to set their own budgets and
>pick the kids they choose to educate - no wonder they are generally
>successful (Loren Parks' recent fiasco being the exception which
>proves the rule.) Public school, OTOH, have neither option.
Oh yeah, it's easy to pick your budget, the problem is actually
raising the money, Bill. You seem to think it's so simple.
As for Parks' his fiasco is obvious. He didn't get the results he
wanted fast enough. Couldn't prove his own case.
>Like?
Discipline options: Exclusion from assemblies and field trips if
warrented. Strict behavior code which requires temporary expulsion
for misbehavior, with no ifs ands or buts, even at the elementary
school level. Apology letters to teachers for misbehavior. Writing
sentences for misbehavior. Performing community service time around
the school to remedy misbehavior. Low tolerance for misbehavior.
Behavior contracts. Sitting on a punishment bench. Detention after
school.
But you've gotta start this from day one, and be consistent.
snip
>
>Ya' think public schools wouldn't like smaller classes? The
>solution to this problem is _not_ to siphon even more public
>moneys from the public schools to the private ones.
The current public school consolidation bill is a case in point
against this argument, Bill. Those small rural schools should never
have been closed.
For that matter, the move to make neighborhood public schools bigger
shouldn't have happened, either. Until the public education folks
realize that you can't warehouse education, you're gonna have those
big classes.
>The recent experiment in California lends considerable credence to
>the theory that smaller classes are almost _everything_. But
>with Bill Sizemore on the lose, aided and abetted by Brady Adams
>and cheered on by Don McIntyre, the average public school classroom
>in Portland has increased by 20% over the last five years.
I hate to say it, Bill, but in Portland at least the schools helped
contribute to their own downfall. Even before I had a kid, when I
knew teachers in the system, the complaint was that the bureaucracy
was enormous. I have friends who are very active in their rural
schools right now, and they don't like what is going to happen with
their systems because of the rural school consolidation stuff. The
current trend in public schooling is toward bureaucracy and big
systems. Not good, not healthy for education.
>Thus, us public school types resist, quite strenuously, any suggestion
>that a portion of what limited moneys remain available to the
>public schools be diverted to support the private schools. We,
>too, wanna get back to 15 or 17 kids in a K-3 classroom.
Again, as if the parochial school kids are gonna be a big drain.
Bill, I went to public schools. My mother was a teacher in a public
school system. My husband is the product of a small public rural
school system.
But in the time since I had my kid, circumstances have convinced me,
given his temperment, his language problem, and the nature of the
school system here in Portland, that he's better off and will get a
better education in the parochial school system. It's far from
perfect. He's not getting the same level of music ed, for example,
but I'm not about to demand those services from the public school.
For one thing, they aren't mandated by Federal law.
You see, Bill, what this little discussion of ours has shown me is
that public school advocates like you are so afraid of parochial
schools that you will even deny kids their rights to special services
guaranteed under Federal law.
You and other public school advocates have lost people like me. And
your arrogant attitudes don't do you any good, either.
jrw
talltom
To those that would have us believe public schools are the answer, get a
load of this. The clown in the whitehouse it trumpeting the fact that
US edu. has finally made it up to just above the MEDIAN for ALL nations,
yes, underdeveloped ones, ones with no school system whatsoever included.
Hell of an accomplishment for the supposedly most advanced country on
earth.
Makes it pretty obvious that many are doing much better...
Now either Americans are inherently dumb, the system doesn't work, or
both. Time for a new system either way.(We used to be at the top, and
to me that rules out inherently dumb.)
Clinton Hails Test Improvements
After years of embarrassing test scores by American students,
President Clinton Tuesday hailed new evidence that
schoolchildren are performing above the international average in
math and science. ``Today is a good day for American
education,'' he said at a White House Rose Garden ceremony
announcing results of the Third International Math and Science
Study. The private study said U.S. students scored above the
international average scores in science and math. The president
has declared improving U.S. education a priority and has
proposed a large increase in education funding in a plan to
balance the budget by 2002.
talltom
I believe that there's a good book out on the subject of schooling.
Last I checked it was still in the publishing process, but it is
written by the New York State Teaacher of the year(90?-91?). He taught
in some financially depressed area of NY, and offers some real objective
views on education.
Anyhow if you're looking for a good read on education, check out
books by John Taylor Gatto. I've heard him speak and he points out
conclusively that there is little connection between dollars spent
and education recieved, much as the local supposed intelectuals
would like you to believe. For me, any teacher that posits a line like
that isn't qualified to teach.
Don Homuth
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:43:23 -0700, talltom
<"talltom(SPAMBLOCKER)"@ipns.com> in his usual Blast of Cluelessness,
wrote:
>To those that would have us believe public schools are the answer, get a
>load of this. The clown in the whitehouse it trumpeting the fact that
>US edu. has finally made it up to just above the MEDIAN for ALL nations,
Well, no, TT2. Once again, you have managed to misread the material
in front of you.
a. Get hold of an elementary textbook on statistics, and consider the
very real difference between the following terms: Mean, Average,
Median and Mode. You managed to pick exactly the wrong term -- and
the nooze article you quoted didn't use it.
b. The study was not for "ALL" nations.
c. The difference(s) in scores for US students varied according to
the nature of the questions involved. In some areas, US students
really did quite well.
d. If/when you look at the list of those nations that did score above
the US student average, for example, in Science (Korea and Japan), you
might consider whether those are the Libertarian Paradises you might
consider living in, or whether you think the US should adopt their
education system. You might also note the top scores in Math
(Singapore, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Csech Republic,
Austria, Slovenia, Ireland, Hungary, Australia) and ask yourself which
of those gubmental systems work better for your Libertarian
perception. Inquiring minds...
>yes, underdeveloped ones, ones with no school system whatsoever included.
Well, as it turns out, kids were tested in 41 nations, and 26 took
part in the study -- so you were incorrect in describing it as
comparing "ALL" nations. And none, repeat none, of what you described
as "underdeveloped" nations, "with no school system whatsoever" were
anywhere near the average scores involved. You might want to correct
that (ahem) overstatement.
>Hell of an accomplishment for the supposedly most advanced country on
>earth.
It's more than apparent, even here on the group, that there are those
in this country who remain Clueless, despiute the best hopes, efforts
and intentions of those around them to give them a leg up.
>Makes it pretty obvious that many are doing much better...
Welll...no, not all that "many", at least according to this study.
>Now either Americans are inherently dumb...
Sad to say, some are.
>...the system doesn't work...
The "system" seems to work fine, if this study is any indication.
OTOH, there seem to be some students who don't work.
>or both.
Or perhaps even something else, maybe?
>Time for a new system either way.
This study does not seem to justify that conclusion. But even if it
did, do you think that adopting the Singapore/Korean/Japanese "system"
would be A Good Idea?
>(We used to be at the top...
No -- we never were at "the top," so long as these sorts of studies
have been made.
>...and to me that rules out inherently dumb.)
I would imagine there are students in Singapore, Korea and Japan who
can accurately describe a statistical distribution, and who know the
difference between Median, Mean and Mode. They probably even know why
the differences are important, doncha think?
talltom
Don Homuth wrote:
>
> talltom <"talltom(SPAMBLOCKER)"@ipns.com> wrote:
>
> >...US edu. has finally made it up to just above the MEDIAN for ALL nations,
> >yes, underdeveloped ones, ones with no school system whatsoever included.
>
> stoonts performed just above the average, and not the "MEDIAN."
>
> You might wanna clarify that, doncha think?
Not really.
> > Clinton Hails Test Improvements
> > After years of embarrassing test scores by American students,
> >President Clinton Tuesday hailed new evidence that
> >schoolchildren are performing above the international average in
> >math and science. ... The private study...
>
> Well, it coulda been a Statist Whitewash -- you know how them gubmint
> folks lie about stuff.
Yes, and it looks like your trying to provide an example of that.
> >...said U.S. students scored above the
> >international average scores in science and math.
>
> It'd be interesting to know precisely which groups of stoonts took the
> test, and which countries were doing the testing, and how the scores
> were standardized, etc.
>
> I mean, you said kids were tested in nations that had no school
> systems at all???
>
> Clues, TT2?
If you want to argue with the conclusions of the article take it up with
the writer.(Reuters) My statements were based on "international average"
which implys all of the countrys, and if that's not the case, see above.
As to nations wihtout school systems, I'm sure there's one or more out there
somewhere.
--
xx
xx
talltom
Don Homuth wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:43:23 -0700, talltom
> <"talltom(SPAMBLOCKER)"@ipns.com> in his usual Blast of Cluelessness,
> wrote:
>
> >To those that would have us believe public schools are the answer, get a
> >load of this. The clown in the whitehouse it trumpeting the fact that
>
> in front of you.
No Don, just because I don't quote exactly the text doesn't mean I misread it.
It is possible that I chose to express it a different way.
> a. Get hold of an elementary textbook on statistics, and consider the
> very real difference between the following terms: Mean, Average,
> Median and Mode. You managed to pick exactly the wrong term -- and
> the nooze article you quoted didn't use it.
> b. The study was not for "ALL" nations.
Ah, scuse me, but the article I quoted didn't state that, and in fact implied
that in fact it was for all nations.
> c. The difference(s) in scores for US students varied according to
> the nature of the questions involved. In some areas, US students
> really did quite well.
Well you're trying to introduce something from somewhere, nothing like this was
stated in the article I quoted, so whatever conclusions you chose to jump to
in reguards to whatever this is you've dug up, go ahead, but none of which
affects my statements.
> d. If/when you look at the list of those nations that did score above
> the US student average, for example, in Science (Korea and Japan), you
> might consider whether those are the Libertarian Paradises you might
> consider living in, or whether you think the US should adopt their
> education system. You might also note the top scores in Math
> (Singapore, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Csech Republic,
> Austria, Slovenia, Ireland, Hungary, Australia)
None of this was mentioned in the article I quoted, so while any of this may
or may not be true, it has nothing to do with my statements.
and ask yourself which
> of those gubmental systems work better for your Libertarian
> perception. Inquiring minds...
Inquiring minds want to know how you got from education to gubmental systems
to perceptions, libertarian or otherwise? Thanks for one of the better non
sequitors yet.
> >yes, underdeveloped ones, ones with no school system whatsoever included.
> Well, as it turns out, kids were tested in 41 nations, and 26 took
> part in the study -- so you were incorrect in describing it as
> comparing "ALL" nations.
Well if you're even talking about the same test, and if indeed that's true,
then I'd suggest that reexamine the article I quoted, as it suggests otherwise.
And none, repeat none, of what you described
> as "underdeveloped" nations, "with no school system whatsoever" were
> anywhere near the average scores involved. You might want to correct
> that (ahem) overstatement.
Well you might want to address just exactly how it is that you come up
with all this stuff that's supposed to be relevant to the post I made,
along with your several overstatements.
> >Hell of an accomplishment for the supposedly most advanced country on
> >earth.
>
> It's more than apparent, even here on the group, that there are those
> in this country who remain Clueless, despiute the best hopes, efforts
> and intentions of those around them to give them a leg up.
And thank you for always being willing to provide the example of such.
> >Makes it pretty obvious that many are doing much better...
>
> Welll...no, not all that "many", at least according to this study.
I've seen nothing to show you know what study this is.
> >Now either Americans are inherently dumb...
>
> Sad to say, some are.
So you admit it.
> >...the system doesn't work...
>
> The "system" seems to work fine, if this study is any indication.
> OTOH, there seem to be some students who don't work.
Oh, by your obviously all knowing ability to misquote, and it seems get
pretty creative with supposed facts we're all supposed to believe your summation
of the education system. I'll pass thank you.
> >or both.
>
> Or perhaps even something else, maybe?
>
> >Time for a new system either way.
>
> This study does not seem to justify that conclusion. But even if it
> did, do you think that adopting the Singapore/Korean/Japanese "system"
> would be A Good Idea?
Hate to tell you but, the education system here being disfunctional does
not translate to me having to prefer some other govt., govt. system, or
govt. edu. system. That's called a non-sequitor when you jump to ridicoulous
conclusions.
>
> >(We used to be at the top...
>
> No -- we never were at "the top," so long as these sorts of studies
> have been made.
I'd like to see you establish that whatever you're talking
about is relevant to what I posted.
xx
xx
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) says:
>>Hmmm! I thought they were permitting 'em to stay in the dormitories -
>>not the classrooms. The same dormitories which usually sit vacant
>
>I believe it was the /classrooms/, but I wouldn't put it past them to have
>to tried to marshal all their resources to make war with the motels in the
>Ashland vicinity. (You did read recently of one of those places filing
>for bankruptcy in the past month or two, didn't you?) I've been to
>Ashland. Hardly what you would call a high-output agricultural area, let
>alone a manufacturing site. You'd think the state would let honest folks
>try to eke out a living without having to buckle under to it.
So, what _should_ gubmint do with those vacant dormitory rooms
during the summer season?
Leave 'em empty? Or, try and turn a buck for the benefit of the
taxpayers?
Maybe we should shut down the state parks 'cause they are "unfairly"
competing with all those KOA campgrounds?
I'm not sure of your point - nor, I suspect, is anyone else.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com
(Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>On 9 Jun 1997 06:51:50 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
-snip-
>>So, rather than hiring a speech therapist and sharing him/her with
>>say two or three other parochial schools, St. Agatha will just not
>>provide that service at all and, instead, ship its students needing
>>this service off to the public schools to get this service for free?
>Hardly for free, Bill. We've already paid for this service through
>our tax dollars...Federal Income Tax dollars.
>And Property Tax dollars. Just like you do, just like everyone else
>does in this country. You're advocating depriving children of
>universally guaranteed services FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS simply because
>of where they go to school.
>That's discrimination, Bill. Socially acceptable in some circles
>because it's against parochial school kids, but it's STILL
>DISCRIMINATION.
Ah, well, I express myself poorly apparently as you miss my point.
The original suggestion was (made by yourself, I believe, but
perhaps I misremember) was that 'cause private schools are
"relieving the load" on public schools, we oughta give 'em
public (tax) moneys (or give their students public moneys
which amounts to the same thing.)
Now I've no objection to the current scheme where private schoolers
(and homeschoolers) can call on the public schools for special
services if needed - see my comments previously posted.
But, if we are going to follow your suggestion that we ship off
money to private schools and then they turn around and ship
their "special needs kids" back to the public schools for special
services without paying for them, they _are_ getting those services
for "free", dontcha see?
Thus my original point about the level playing field. Public schools
get about $5,000 a kid per year to educate a kid. And they must
provide "suitable and appropriate" education to any kid that shows
up at the front door. Now if we are going to ship that $5,000 a
year off to a parochial school or a private school, they should meet
the same standards -they should have to provide "suitable and
appropriate" instruction to any kid that shows up at the door -
and not be taking only the kids that cost less than average to
educate and not be shipping any kids back to public schools for
special services - 'least not without paying for 'em.
>>>Cheap way out? Hardly, Bill.
>>
>>Yep - the cheap way out. Don't get me wrong - I've no objection to
>>public schools providing this service to parochial school students
>>(or home schoolers, fer that matter) - after all, well educated kids
>>is everyone's objective, hopefully. And whatever we can do to get
>>well educated kids is in everyone's interest.
And here I noted that the current system whereby the public schools
provide special services on request but we don't pay folks for
sending their kids to private schools either.
>>But, I really get frosted with the folks that say, "public education
>>_must_ be wasting money - look at how much cheaper the parochial
>>schools are doing it", without acknowledging that part of the cost
>>of public schools is providing very expensive specialist services
>>to parochial school kids.
>Oh come on, Bill!
>Parochial school kids using specialist services are a VERY small part
>of the special service population! Furthermore, the public schools
>save money on these parochial school kids, because they would be
>providing MORE services (in my son's case, at least 1 hour's worth of
>services vis a vis 1/2 hour a week).
THAT'S because parochial schools accept very few special needs kids
into their student population! How many SED (severely emotionally
disturbed) kids you got in your school? My local public elementary
school has got a whole classroom of 'em and I would presume that is
not atypical. How many multiple physically handicapped kids does your
school have? The Portland School district has an entire _school_
for multiple handicapped kids. How many kids come from homes in
which English is not spoken? Approximately 15% of Beaverton's
kids come from non-English speaking homes.
And those are the kids who cost considerably more than $5000 a
year to educate. If those kids aren't accepted by private
schools or, perhaps more commonly, are "discouraged" from
applying, then of course your need for specialized education
is less.
>Plus there are a lot of parents who just plain would not make the
>commitment required to participate in a parochial school. Wanna know
>what makes a parochial school so cheap, besides a lack of bureaucracy?
>*Mandatory* volunteer hours. 30 hours a kid or family, depending on
>the school. Minimum.
Oh, absolutely! Parent involvement is perhaps the number one
indicator of a kid's success in school. No doubt about it.
BUT, do ya' punish the kid just because he/she picked the wrong
set of parents? Public schools encourage parental involvement
as well but if they don't get it, they still gotta do they best
they can to educate the kids they get. Your parochial school
would, I gather, kick out the kid whose parents wouldn't or
couldn't contribute the time? Thus keeping the kids most likely
to succeed and who are the cheapest to educate and throwing back on the
public schools the kids less likely to succeed and more likely to
be more expensive to educate?
-snipped-
>Lessee, at $700 or so in taxes that means those speech specialists
>would have to be earning $70 an hour for me to be drawing more
>services than I'm paying for through PROPERTY TAXES. That also
>doesn't add in the fact that I'm paying for those services through
>Income Taxes.
OK, point taken and accepted.
>So yeah, Bill, I'm *really* paying my way. And last year's principal
>got to count my kid in as an enrolled kid, while only having to
>provide about 1 1/2 hours a month worth of services (which is what it
>really works out to be).
>snip
>
>>Nonsense! Parochial schools can provide for their "special needs
>>students" (assuming they deign to admit "special needs students"
>>at all!) as they see fit or not at all if they so desire, free of
>>_any_ state or federal rules. 'Tis only when the parochial schools
>>ship 'em out the door and dump 'em off at the doorstep of the
>>local public schools that the rules start to kick in.
>Bill, SPECIAL SERVICES ARE REGULATED BY FEDERAL LAW. THE LOCAL PUBLIC
>SCHOOLS ARE MANDATED UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES TO
>EVERYONE, INCLUDING SEVERELY HANDICAPPED KIDS WHO IN ANOTHER ERA WOULD
>NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, PERIOD! THE LOCAL
>PUBLIC SCHOOL GET FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY FOR THESE SERVICES.
>THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEM TO EVERYONE, REPEAT EVERYONE.
No need to shout, jrw. You point is valid but these services
are _not_ 100% funded by the feds - local moneys are needed as
well. And, of course, more federal moneys do not somehow magically
appear just be cause a private school student with special needs shows up
on the public school house door. Federal Chapter I monies,
for instance, are allocated according to the number of students
qualifying for free or reduced lunches. As the private school
students are, presumably, not eating lunch, free or otherwise,
at the public school, they would _not_ generate any chapter I
monies for the public school.
>Cripes! Read for fucking comprehension without a bias, will you?
No need to engage in vulgarities, either, jrw.
-snips
>>Well, the constitutional theory is that the special services are
>>being supplied to the parochial school student and _not_ the
>>parochial school. Which is, I think, the objection to the scheme
>>you suggest. Yet _nothing_ is stopping either the parochial school
>>or the parents of parochial school students receiving public school
>>services from just writing a check to the local school district in
>>the approximate amount of the value of the services rendered.
>Why? Bill, what you refuse to get through your congenitally thick
>skull is that these services are mandated by Federal law. These
>services are provided through Federal funds.
See above - these services are only _partially_ funded by federal funds.
>And if the speech therapists are pulling down $70 an hour for their
>services, then all I've gotta say is that there's a lot of folks in
>the wrong profession.
Well, probably not far off that if you are counting student contact
time. Lemme see, let's pay 'em $40,000 a year, salary and benefits -
they are all gonna have at least a master's degree and a special
teaching certificate after all. There are, what, 180 school days
a year and, what, 5 hours a day of student contact time max. That's
$40,000 divided by 900 hours = $45 an hour of actual student contact
time (they work longer than 5 hours but they are only actually teaching
students that long.) Add in an allowance for administrative
overhead, the maintenance of the school building, heating it in the
winter, and that sort of thing and it kinda adds up - maybe not to
$70 an hour but to significant numbers.
>>Hmmmm! And _what_ would the tuition be a Tucker-Maxon Oral School?
>Haven't the faintest, as my kid's preschool only shared space with
>Tucker. Lots of financial aid available, but no Federal funds that I
>know of (I've contributed to their fundraisers).
OK, I applaud Tucker-Maxim. It sounds like they are providing a
useful service and doing it well.
>>Public or private, I can successfully educate just about all kids, to
>>a minimum competency level at least, if I can set my budget. And,
>>even I can't set my budget, given a reasonable level of funding, I
>>can successfully educate just about all kids _if_ I can pick the
>>kids I choose to educate.
>>Private schools, of course, get both to set their own budgets and
>>pick the kids they choose to educate - no wonder they are generally
>>successful (Loren Parks' recent fiasco being the exception which
>>proves the rule.) Public school, OTOH, have neither option.
>Oh yeah, it's easy to pick your budget, the problem is actually
>raising the money, Bill. You seem to think it's so simple.
That is a problem - for any school. However, the inability to
pick a school's students is a problem unique to the public schools.
>As for Parks' his fiasco is obvious. He didn't get the results he
>wanted fast enough. Couldn't prove his own case.
Exactly. Or get results at all - with an average class size of
_seven_! What public (OR parochial) school teacher won't think
they had died and gone to heaven with a _seven_ student classroom?
>>Like?
>
>Discipline options: Exclusion from assemblies and field trips if
>warrented. Strict behavior code which requires temporary expulsion
>for misbehavior, with no ifs ands or buts, even at the elementary
>school level.
This is done and is done fairly regularly. The problem with
suspending a kid however is that many kids that ya' might wish
to suspend don't necessarily have a mother or father at home
that'll watch over 'em at home while they are sitting out their
suspension - if ya' just suspend 'em, then they'll be out on the
streets, hangin' out. Therefore ya' gotta put together some other
place they gotta go other than school - and that starts costing
bucks.
>Apology letters to teachers for misbehavior. Writing
>sentences for misbehavior. Performing community service time around
>the school to remedy misbehavior. Low tolerance for misbehavior.
>Behavior contracts. Sitting on a punishment bench. Detention after
>school.
>But you've gotta start this from day one, and be consistent.
>snip
Don't know about the writing sentences bit - we don't usually
assign this sort of thing a punishment as writing is normally
something we want kids to do in school as a learning activity.
It's not good education philosophy to associate learning activities
with punishment. The others are used.
>>Ya' think public schools wouldn't like smaller classes? The
>>solution to this problem is _not_ to siphon even more public
>>moneys from the public schools to the private ones.
>The current public school consolidation bill is a case in point
>against this argument, Bill. Those small rural schools should never
>have been closed.
Huh? All the consolidation bill does is require districts which
don't have high schools to consolidate with districts that do.
The smaller districts are _already_ sending their kids to the
bigger district's high school. Consolidation doesn't change the
classroom size a wit.
>For that matter, the move to make neighborhood public schools bigger
>shouldn't have happened, either. Until the public education folks
>realize that you can't warehouse education, you're gonna have those
>big classes.
Within certain limits, the size of the _school_ is not particularly
relevant to educational outcome - it's the size of the _classroom_.
A school with six third-grade class rooms of 15 children each is
a better educational situation than a school with one third-
grade classroom with 30 children in it, even though the first
school is three times as large as the second.
>>Thus, us public school types resist, quite strenuously, any suggestion
>>that a portion of what limited moneys remain available to the
>>public schools be diverted to support the private schools. We,
>>too, wanna get back to 15 or 17 kids in a K-3 classroom.
>Again, as if the parochial school kids are gonna be a big drain.
They are if they take the money and take only the "easiest" kids
and/or ship the less easy kids back to public schools for special
services.
>Bill, I went to public schools. My mother was a teacher in a public
>school system. My husband is the product of a small public rural
>school system.
>But in the time since I had my kid, circumstances have convinced me,
>given his temperment, his language problem, and the nature of the
>school system here in Portland, that he's better off and will get a
>better education in the parochial school system. It's far from
>perfect. He's not getting the same level of music ed, for example,
>but I'm not about to demand those services from the public school.
>For one thing, they aren't mandated by Federal law.
And I applaud you for doing what you feel is best for your child.
That's the way it should be and the world would be a better place
if all parents showed a similar level of concern. But the world
would not be a better place were we to distribute education tax
moneys to all schools, public and private, on a per student capita
basis while allowing _some_ schools (the private ones only) to
pick and choose what students they would admit and what services
they would offer.
>You see, Bill, what this little discussion of ours has shown me is
>that public school advocates like you are so afraid of parochial
>schools that you will even deny kids their rights to special services
>guaranteed under Federal law.
No, non, nien! Please read what I said in my original posting -
which was repeated above! I've no problem at all with the current
system which provides these services to all kids who need them.
Public, private, parochial, home schoolers.
What I was objecting to was the proposal to ship the money to the
private schools but not require 'em to either provide these
services or accept the students which might require these services
>You and other public school advocates have lost people like me. And
>your arrogant attitudes don't do you any good, either.
OK, jrw, you show me the arrogant part! Ya' know, disagreement
is not arrogance, it's disagreement. And at least disagree with
what I write - not with what you think I write, OK?
I'll repeat it once again so there is no misunderstanding:
"I've no problem at all with the current
system which provides these services to all kids who need them."
If we are gonna fight, let's at least fight over the things
we disagree on - not the things we agree about.
peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, jrwremove.t...@remove.this.to.mail.aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>One more thing, Bill.
>
>If you're such a public school advocate, then why did you send your
>kids to private high schools, pray tell?
>
>After all, if the public schools are good enough for them in the
>elementary years, why not for high school?
A personal question, jrw, and not suitable for public discussion.
I trust the question was answered satisfactorily by my e-mail?
Peace and justice,
Matthew Montchalin
>>I believe it was the /classrooms/, but I wouldn't put it past them to have
>>to tried to marshal all their resources to make war with the motels in the
>>Ashland vicinity. (You did read recently of one of those places filing
>>for bankruptcy in the past month or two, didn't you?) I've been to
>>Ashland. Hardly what you would call a high-output agricultural area, let
>>alone a manufacturing site. You'd think the state would let honest folks
>>try to eke out a living without having to buckle under to it.
>
>
>So, what _should_ gubmint do with those vacant dormitory rooms
>during the summer season?
Maybe divest as much of their property as possible? Maybe the college is
too big for its own good if so much of its property has no practical use
or application?
What /should/ become of the state when it gets too big? Or is it the
natural order of things for the state to try to drive private businesses
into bankruptcy?
--
Just a little spark on the wire...
Matthew Montchalin
>>Funding a Shakespeare festival will tend to be less offensive.
>
>Dick -- have you *looked* at their material??? It's *shocking*, I tell
>you -- shocking!!! A veritable affront to "traditional values." It
>involves strange mystic cults, parental murder, teenage sex,
>revolution against Established Order, drug use and several other
>perversions too disgusting to list.
I'm of the opinion that the government should not be spending money on
bussing non-students down to Ashland to see the Shakespearean festival in
Ashland. That was the meat & potatoes behind a lawsuit back in 1987,
wasn't it? Worse, when the government tries to drive motels and hotels
out of business by permitting Shakespearean celebrants to camp out in
empty classrooms at S.O.S.C.!
<snip snip>
>
>I once saw a nude Shakespeare production. I thought it was silly.
>Dunno if it was offensive, and I don't find really ectomorphic actors
>all that interesting anyway. But it sure was innovative, withal.
Like that nude Hamlet in "The Magic Christian" movie?
Matthew Montchalin
>>wasn't it? Worse, when the government tries to drive motels and hotels
>>out of business by permitting Shakespearean celebrants to camp out in
>>empty classrooms at S.O.S.C.!
>
>Hmmm! I thought they were permitting 'em to stay in the dormitories -
>not the classrooms. The same dormitories which usually sit vacant
I believe it was the /classrooms/, but I wouldn't put it past them to have
to tried to marshal all their resources to make war with the motels in the
Ashland vicinity. (You did read recently of one of those places filing
for bankruptcy in the past month or two, didn't you?) I've been to
Ashland. Hardly what you would call a high-output agricultural area, let
alone a manufacturing site. You'd think the state would let honest folks
try to eke out a living without having to buckle under to it.
PRIMUM cave hominem qui largitiam petit,
SECUNDUM diffide hominem qui quandam impertit!
Matthew Montchalin
>Well, the dormitories _do_ have a quite practical use and application
>for roughly nine months a year - the SOC students live in 'em.
Do they live in them /at cost/?
>Any motel operator who looses business to a college dormitory
>_deserves_ to go bankrupt.
Any state agency that can't perform efficiently /deserves/ to be zero funded.
--
----------------------------------------------
PRIMUM cave hominem qui largitiones petit,
SECUNDUM diffide hominem qui quasdam impetrit!
Matthew Montchalin
>>What /should/ become of the state when it gets too big? Or is it the
>>natural order of things for the state to try to drive private businesses
>>into bankruptcy?
>
>It wouldn't seem like a college dorm would be in competition with
>many motels - a college dorm would seem to cater to a whole different
>crowd than the folks that stay at the Hyatt Regency - no in-room
>cable tv, no swimming pool, no suana, no jacuzzi, hell, no ice
>machine.
Since when was a desolate wasteland like Ashland replete with jacuzzis,
swimming pools, and saunas? If the state must prop up the industry in
Ashland, why not give MORE money to the fine coffee shops down there?!
There are plenty of fine gourmet coffee shops down there, or so it
seemed to me. Something has to be done about the high prices of coffee... I
mean, either that, or invade some third world country to ensure lower
prices for coffee beans... You'd think George Bush would have been a
visionary when he had a chance, but no.... he had to wussy out on America...
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) says:
>>So, what _should_ gubmint do with those vacant dormitory rooms
>>during the summer season?
>
>Maybe divest as much of their property as possible? Maybe the college is
>too big for its own good if so much of its property has no practical use
>or application?
Well, the dormitories _do_ have a quite practical use and application
for roughly nine months a year - the SOC students live in 'em.
Now, during the summer months, the number of students attending
summer school is greatly reduced compared to the number of students
during the rest of the year. Thus student dormitory occupancy
is much lower during the summer months. (But you knew that, right?)
And as it ain't really practical to tear 'em down each June and
rebuild 'em each September, there is gonna be some vacant dorm
rooms over the summers. So, the question remains, what would
ya' have the college do with those vacant dorm rooms.
>What /should/ become of the state when it gets too big? Or is it the
>natural order of things for the state to try to drive private businesses
>into bankruptcy?
It wouldn't seem like a college dorm would be in competition with
many motels - a college dorm would seem to cater to a whole different
crowd than the folks that stay at the Hyatt Regency - no in-room
cable tv, no swimming pool, no suana, no jacuzzi, hell, no ice
machine.
Any motel operator who looses business to a college dormitory
_deserves_ to go bankrupt.
But, I suppose your point is that gubmint shouldn't be building
college dorms at all - indeed, gubmint shouldn't even be building
colleges. And, that ain't gonna happen!
dR.DavE
bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes:
>(Joyce Reynolds-Ward) says:
>>If you're such a public school advocate, then why did you send your
>>kids to private high schools, pray tell?
>A personal question, jrw, and not suitable for public discussion.
Typical.
--
**dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) says:
>>Well, the dormitories _do_ have a quite practical use and application
>>for roughly nine months a year - the SOC students live in 'em.
>
>Do they live in them /at cost/?
>
>>Any motel operator who looses business to a college dormitory
>>_deserves_ to go bankrupt.
>
>Any state agency that can't perform efficiently /deserves/ to be zero funded.
This is political yahooism and gubmint by bumper sticker!
How do ya' know SOSC isn't operating quite "efficiently"?
(we'll leave aside, for the nonce, the question of how we determine
efficiency anyway.)
And, as it is obviously _more_ efficient to utilize buildings 12
months a year than to leave 'em vacant all summer, just what
are you arguing for, anyway?
It does seem by whining about year-around use of the residence halls,
you are demanding _less_, not greater gubmint efficiency.
Matthew Montchalin
>>>Any motel operator who looses business to a college dormitory
>>>_deserves_ to go bankrupt.
>>
>>Any state agency that can't perform efficiently /deserves/ to be zero funded.
>
>This is political yahooism and gubmint by bumper sticker!
Why do you prefer publicly financed activities over privately financed ones?
Matthew Montchalin
>How do ya' know SOSC isn't operating quite "efficiently"?
How do you know it is?
>(we'll leave aside, for the nonce, the question of how we determine
> efficiency anyway.)
Efficiency is the heart of the issue, isn't it? In the private sector,
businesses that aren't efficient shall fall by the wayside. They go belly
up. Is there any universal law that defines efficiency for a public
agency? Or, it seems, you would prefer that people never inquire into the
efficiency of their public servants?
Now, as for using land that is not being used efficiently, and if we are
going to confine our discussion to empty classrooms, how about cutting the
tuition rates so that college kids can decide for themselves whether they
should attend in the summer, at half the price they would have to pay in
the winter? At the very least, kids wouldn't have to go so deep in debt
just to get a college education!
Bob Tiernan
On 11 Jun 1997, Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> Worse, when the government tries to drive motels and hotels
> out of business by permitting Shakespearean celebrants to camp
> out in empty classrooms at S.O.S.C.!
Is there a Conflict of Interest here? Are you not one of the
Montchalins who operates a motel down the Oregon Coast somewhere?
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Don Homuth wrote:
> > ...Why shouldn't the NEA be able to decide if a project is
> > offensive and therefore bad and then refuse to fund it?....
>
> It is able to do so. It often does. After all, most grant
> applications to the NEA don't get funded, for one reason or another.
Simple solution to the whole thing is to cut off funding
altogether. But instead, we go along with Don's way and
have tons of "agents" and lawyers obtaining grants (taxpayers'
dollars) for clients while collecting a percentage of the grant
as fees. Another government grab bag. There is power in being
able to dole out money. There is *no* power in not spending this
returning it to taxpayers.
I'd ask Don H. what the authorization is for the US gov't to have the
NEA, but he'll probably trot out that old "it's for the good of the
people" nonsense. I have yet to find that in the Constitution.
Bob T.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) says:
>Since when was a desolate wasteland like Ashland replete with jacuzzis,
>swimming pools, and saunas?
Smile when ya' say that, Pilgrim! Some of the locals of that
"desolate wasteland" might take offense.
And hell yes, the motels in Ashland come with swimming pools, suanas,
and Jacuzzi's - hell, half the _bed and breakfasts_ have suanas or
Jacuzzi's, even.
>If the state must prop up the industry in
>Ashland, why not give MORE money to the fine coffee shops down there?!
>There are plenty of fine gourmet coffee shops down there, or so it
>seemed to me. Something has to be done about the high prices of coffee... I
>mean, either that, or invade some third world country to ensure lower
>prices for coffee beans... You'd think George Bush would have been a
>visionary when he had a chance, but no.... he had to wussy out on America...
An interesting Weldbild displayed there.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) says:
>
>>>>Any motel operator who looses business to a college dormitory
>>>>_deserves_ to go bankrupt.
>>>
>>>Any state agency that can't perform efficiently /deserves/ to be zero funded.
>>
>>This is political yahooism and gubmint by bumper sticker!
>
>Why do you prefer publicly financed activities over privately financed ones?
Just an unrepentent statist at heart, I guess.
Actually, assuming your question is serious and not just another bumper
sticker, the answer is that private, for-profit bizness does some
things well and some things not so well - just as gubmint does
some things well and some things not so well.
One of the things gubmint does well and private for-profit bizness
does not so well is build and operate college dormitories. Ya'
might notice that even most non-gubmint colleges and
universities have ended up building and operating their own college
dormitories.
So given that gubmint is going have to build and operate dormitories
if SOSC is gonna have dormitories at all, it makes sense to use
'em 12 months a year rather than 9. Gubmint efficiencies and
all.
Matthew Montchalin
>Actually, assuming your question is serious and not just another bumper
>sticker, the answer is that private, for-profit bizness does some
>things well and some things not so well - just as gubmint does
>some things well and some things not so well.
>
>One of the things gubmint does well and private for-profit bizness
>does not so well is build and operate college dormitories. Ya'
Another thing that the state does better than private enterprise does is
defend national interests. Hence the tongue-in-cheek comments about
invading a third-world country to hold down the price of coffee beans.
>might notice that even most non-gubmint colleges and
>universities have ended up building and operating their own college
>dormitories.
Some businesses have made noble efforts to look after their own. See the
childcare facility for Fred Meyer executives around 23rd and Powell, near
the recycling center. I am curious, however, whether other huge behemoth
corporations have made efforts in that direction.
>So given that gubmint is going have to build and operate dormitories
>if SOSC is gonna have dormitories at all, it makes sense to use
>'em 12 months a year rather than 9. Gubmint efficiencies and
>all.
I have yet to agree that the state /must/ build dormitories for the
students. Free enterprise can accommodate the demand for lodging, so
long as zoning regulations don't shut competitors out of the market. The
dormitories would hardly be able to keep going without massive amounts of
state funding, and these funds take their form mostly in the nature of
student loans (and private or quasi-private grants). Perhaps ordinary
wayfarers (vacationers, traveling salesmen, &c.) should be able to take out
these kinds of loans to prop up the motels in the area? That way the motels
could compete on a level playing field. All that would be necessary would
be a convenient stack of papers on the front desk of the motel under a
sign that said "Day Lodging Loans Available Here" ??
Now, I'll admit that there is probably one problem with lodging in Ashland:
leases on the order of 9+ months that count as year-to-year leases, that
the tenant gets trapped into the moment he completes the first lease and
goes on to a second term. Students should have the right to terminate
their leases at will (providing they don't waste the premises), just as
landlords should be able to terminate leases at will, too. Perhaps you can
comment on the nature of the leases that students get suckered into down in
Ashland, where the market is so tight that there are virtually no other
choices available? -In such a situation, are Ashland dormitories really
vacant?
Matthew Montchalin
I and all my brothers were born in Oregon. Were you? I have a right to speak
out on the economy, especially as it is mismanaged by the state. Unlike
you, I am not rich, and am on the poverty line.
talltom
Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> Consider General Motors. In the last 25 years, it has produced the
> infamous Chevy Vega (which rusted to pieces around 30,000 miles),
Not hardly, they had problems, but that wasn't one of them.
> the infamous Oldsmobile diesel (which self-destructed around the
> same mileage),
They usually went 50-60,000. My neighbor has a 77 GMC diesel pickup with
that eng and it runs fine. Has 110-120,000 miles on it. Admitedly, GM
bought him a new engine and paid for it completly, but it does run good
and being as the new engine is the DX block with improved head bolts
and roller lifters we expect it to be good for many more years.
Severly overloaded it pulls pike's peak, on cruise, can't be all that bad.
the infamous Chevy Monza (which required the steering
> gear to be disconnected and the engine partially removed to change
> the spark plugs),
BS. I've changed lots of them as a line mechanic at the dealer that sold them.
Idiots commonly said the same about the old FE block mustangs and cyclone's,
and they were full of it there too. And yes there is a 428 Cobra jet locally
I can prove it on.
the infamous late '70's-early '80's Buick which
> required the removal of the rear bumper to change a burned out
> tail light),
So what's new? That's been common in many cars since at least the early 60's.
the infamous Cadillac Cimmaron (the $30,000 Chevy
> Cavalier with leather upholstery and a Cadillac name plate that
> no one wanted to buy)
Gee, you mean that it is possible for people to actually look at what they buy and
decide for themselves whether they want it or not??? Without govt. interference??
Now if nobody wanted to buy it that kinda tends to indicate that that was Cadillac's
just reward. No big deal, sounds great to me. I didn't have to pay some govt.
nerd to render his blessed worthless opinion about it, and those that liked them
bought them. Sounds cool to me.
and the infamous Cadillac 4-6-8 engine (which
> never worked right and tended to just flatout _die_ at the most
> inconvenient times).
It did to work right. Matter of fact, it worked damn nice when it was right,
it's just that it generally wasn't right from the factory, and few could or
would fix them. Admitedly fixing them was not usually any simple endeavor,
but it could be and was done.
> No need, I suppose, to mention the fact that GM is currently paying
> approximately 25,000 UAW members _not_ to work?
Is that supposed to be unusual?
> Was any of this "efficient"? Not hardly. But which company is the
> largest vehicle manufacturer in North America today. Ya' got it -
> it's good ol' GM!
And so what? If people want to buy Cadillac Cimmaron's that's their perogative.
If the public in general is willing to settle for that kind of crap, that's
what they'll get, hardly anything new. Works the same in politics, look at the junk
we have there.
As to efficiency, the level of efficiency each individual citizen is comfortable
with is up to the citizen with private industry, and they make the voluntary choice
to contribute to things like Cimmaron's, but hat doesn't force the rest of us
to waste our money as govt. waste does. That's why there should be very little
public property, because everybody has a different idea about how it should be used
and there will always be those that are getting hosed. Private industry will either
be supported by market demand or fold, and those served will bear the load of their
ideals, and those opposing those can do buisness elsewhere. Govt. forces all to
subsidize the ideas of some, which is why it's a inherently flawed concept.
> And what does that say for economic Darwinism?
People get what they deserve. If they are unwilling to look out for their own
interests, it's hardly somebody else's obligation, or govt.'s for that matter
to do what they won't do for themselves.
talltom
Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> I and all my brothers were born in Oregon. Were you? I have a right to speak
> out on the economy, especially as it is mismanaged by the state. Unlike
> you, I am not rich, and am on the poverty line.
Well then I'd suggest that you get ahold of some of your family and find out
what you're talking about, because Marshall Montchallin knows Bob Tiernan,
and certainly knows better than to come off with anything like the above.
Matthew Montchalin
> As to efficiency, the level of efficiency each individual citizen is
> comfortable with is up to the citizen with private industry, and they
> make the voluntary choice to contribute to things like Cimmaron's, but
> that doesn't force the rest of us to waste our money as govt. waste does.
> That's why there should be very little public property, because everybody
> has a different idea about how it should be used and there will always be
> those that are getting hosed. Private industry will either be supported
> by market demand or fold, and those served will bear the load of their
> ideals, and those opposing those can do buisness elsewhere. Govt. forces
> all to subsidize the ideas of some, which is why it's a inherently
> flawed concept.
That is a very good point. Can you think of simple mathematical formulas
on what efficiency really means, assuming you have a handful of variables,
such as throughput, delay, man-hours, raw material, finished goods, &c.?
talltom
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> I've never seen Bill S. put away so often and so quickly as this.
>
> Bob T.
Thanks!:-) I suspect most anybody can do it that knows what they're
talking about because Shatzer's bs doesn't hold up in the real
world.
Just for grins, I figuire I was the first guy in the portland area to work on
the Olds diesel he brought up, I was the engine man at Brown Olds. And as
an ex dealer line mechanic, Shatzer's full of shit.
Scott Johnson
In article <5nq1um$l...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Aaron Varhola <avar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
>
>>So, what _should_ gubmint do with those vacant dormitory rooms
>>during the summer season?
>
>pot smokers in Oregon that we need to lock up EVERY LAST ONE of them.
>Remember, people are inherently evil. </JohnMinnis>
It would likely constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and therefore be
unconstitutional, to incarcerate convicts in college dormitory rooms.
The ACLU would have a field day with that one... :)
Scott
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Scott Johnson -- Professional (sometimes) SW Engineer and all-purpose Geek|
|I don't speak for nobody but myself, which everyone else is thankful for |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Scott Johnson
In article <5nn1ik$n...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
>>>I believe it was the /classrooms/, but I wouldn't put it past them to have
>>>to tried to marshal all their resources to make war with the motels in the
>>>Ashland vicinity. (You did read recently of one of those places filing
>>>for bankruptcy in the past month or two, didn't you?) I've been to
>>>Ashland. Hardly what you would call a high-output agricultural area, let
>>>alone a manufacturing site. You'd think the state would let honest folks
>>>try to eke out a living without having to buckle under to it.
>>
>>
>>during the summer season?
>
>too big for its own good if so much of its property has no practical use
>or application?
What...sell it after commencement every year, and buy it back the
following fall? I assure you--the dorms only are empty during summer
term, when there is a considerable lack of students on campus. They fill
up quite nicely during "normal" school months?
>What /should/ become of the state when it gets too big? Or is it the
>natural order of things for the state to try to drive private businesses
>into bankruptcy?
If you've got a single shread of evidence that the state, or anyone for
that matter, was trying to drive Ashland-area hotels and motels out of
business, I'd like to see it. Simply making space availble does not
constitute ANY evidence of such intent.
Scott
>--
>Just a little spark on the wire...
talltom
>
> >I've never seen Bill S. put away so often and so quickly as this.
>
> diesel I'd sell ya' - or I would have a great Oldsmobile diesel
> I'd sell ya' if there were any still left around in running condition.
There are, and if somebody's got the money they're for sale. Got a real nice
running 79 Seville diesel.(Not for Bill, he deserves something more similar
to himself, all brag, doesn't work, and costs a lot.)
Course it couldn't be that some of the reason that there aren't many
around is that some govt. geek of about the expertise level of Shatzer
has come around and declared them abandoned or inoperable vehicles and
had them stolen could it?? I had the city of `portland declare my motorhome
inoperable, and I'd just finished driving it here from Phoenix!(and it passed
emmissions on the way in, came over Mt. Hood and by the inspection place
on powell. Had rejetted it in Reno.) Real experts these guys!:-) They tried to
steal it too.
> (Hmmm - if these engines were so great, howcum the fella in thomas'
> anecdote got a free new engine from GM at 50,000 miles?
I never said they were great Mr. spin artist, I simply corrected your lies,
which stated they all quit at 30,000.
Howcum
> GM repurchased a substantial number of these cars from their
> purchasers to head off a class action lawsuit?)
I never said they didn't, just that you were and are full of shit and lie.
> And, for the "great" Cadillac 4-6-8 engine, see pages 273 and
> 278 of the 1997 Consumer Reports Buying Guide.
Hey Mr. Dislexic, quote the whole thing, not your usual like here.
The part your quoting said that they ran great when they were right,
not that they were a great engine, there is considerable difference.
Dispite thomas'
> anecdotal testimony,
Don't like ancedotal testimony do ya! To Bad! I've got a good running olds
diesel currently for sale, which makes it a current fact, and considerably more
than "anecdotal". I do understand why you don't like anecdotal evidence, or
fact, it's contrary to your propaganda religion.
CR ain't convinced that this is an engine
> anyone who doesn't want to go into auto repair for a fulltime hobby
> should buy. Probably some of them do work - many of 'em don't.
Which is contrary to your own original statement. You can't even keep
your own blather consistent. Thanks for admiting that you were wrong in your
last post, and that I was right, as usual.
> Yet GM built 'em and foisted 'em on the public and, unlike the
> Oldsmobile diesel, hasn't yet offered to buy 'em back from its
> unsuspecting victims.
Foisted em off?? Hate to tell you, but if somebody offers you a prime piece of
eastern Oregon property for 5 billion an acre, and has a history of lying,(like you)
and you buy it, who's fault is that??? Why should anybody else be obligated
to chip in to prevent your stupidity?? They're doing it again, right now, with
the Catera, and some people will buy them, and they'll have problems, and they
know it and it's fine by them. If economy and reliability were the only
factors in everybody's decisions, we'd all be driving 62 plymouth valients,
with an occasional 56 Checker thrown in.
But different folks have different wants and needs, which is why the catera will
sell some, a few million dollar unreliable jaguar's will sell, various fords
with soft cranks and extermely low head gasket longevity will sell, etc.
As for the "unsuspecting victim", just why is it that this person is unsuspecting???
Could it be that they've been brainwashed into some idea that the govt. will
protect them and therefor they can do anyold stupid thing and govt. will fix
it??? Could it be that people like Shatzer are the cause of this on account
that they've convinced the gullible of it reguardless of evidence of the fallacy of
it???
> Doesn't sound to me like a very efficient functioning of economic
> Darwinism if a corporation can make blunders of this magnitude and
> _still_ remain the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world.
Well as long as people swallow the stuff you spew, that's the way it's going to
be, because your ideals don't work, and this is proof.
I agree that many of the large manufacturers produce junk I wouldn't want,
but the reason they can do that is because consumers refuse to demand higher
standards when spending their money. Instead they rely on govt. to cure the
problems, and that doesn't work, and manufacturers know it and that's why
it stays that way.
Heck, Chrysler failed to warrantee a window lift motor on a rig of mine,
and so far that's cost them the sale of 4 new rigs over the last 9 years.
talltom
Matthew Montchalin
>><JohnMinnis> Turn them into jails, of course. We have soooo many criminal
>>pot smokers in Oregon that we need to lock up EVERY LAST ONE of them.
>>Remember, people are inherently evil. </JohnMinnis>
>
>It would likely constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and therefore be
>unconstitutional, to incarcerate convicts in college dormitory rooms.
Although it would certainly be ironic requiring the convicts to listen to
a bunch of pot-smoking professors inside the very same rooms they have to
spend their jailtime... Oh, no... That must not have been what you
intended! ;)
>The ACLU would have a field day with that one... :)
Still, it does take into account the necessity of safeguarding society,
and the dangers presented by those who would otherwise be free to roam our
streets...
Scott Johnson
In article <5o1m4n$l...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
>>><JohnMinnis> Turn them into jails, of course. We have soooo many criminal
>>>pot smokers in Oregon that we need to lock up EVERY LAST ONE of them.
>>>Remember, people are inherently evil. </JohnMinnis>
>>
>>It would likely constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and therefore be
>>unconstitutional, to incarcerate convicts in college dormitory rooms.
>
>Although it would certainly be ironic requiring the convicts to listen to
>a bunch of pot-smoking professors inside the very same rooms they have to
>spend their jailtime... Oh, no... That must not have been what you
>intended! ;)
Naaahhh... one does not normally listen to college profs, stoned or
otherwise, in the dorms (unless one tapes lectures rather than taking
notes). I'm referring to the general shoddy maintenance of most residence
halls, and to the deplorable food served in residence hall cafeterias.
Sorta like being in the Army, except without guns. :)
>>The ACLU would have a field day with that one... :)
>
>Still, it does take into account the necessity of safeguarding society,
>and the dangers presented by those who would otherwise be free to roam our
>streets...
Even back in the days when colleges concerned themselves with the social
habits of their students, and attempted to restrict access to dorms at
night...folks managed to sneak in and out. You want inmates in such an
insecure facility? An inmate in a dorm wouldn't have to tunnel 120 feet
to freedom--he could likely kick a hole in the nearest wall.
Scott
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, "talltom"@ipns.com (talltom) says:
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> (Hmmm - if these engines were so great, howcum the fella in thomas'
>> anecdote got a free new engine from GM at 50,000 miles?
>
>I never said they were great Mr. spin artist, I simply corrected your lies,
>which stated they all quit at 30,000.
Hmmm! Some self-destructed at 30K, some destructed at 50K and some
managed to hand around til 70K. Your point? The Oldsmobile diesel
was a _good_ engine? That GM was operating efficiently when it foisted
this particular goodie on the Merican public?
How cum you're so all fired defensive of GM's screw ups and won't
tolerate a single gubmint screw up? I'd opine that over the past
30 or so years, the record of gubmint screwups is considerably better
than the record of GM screw ups. YMMV of course.
> Howcum
>> GM repurchased a substantial number of these cars from their
>> purchasers to head off a class action lawsuit?)
>
>I never said they didn't, just that you were and are full of shit and lie.
Ah, you're frothing here. Tell me - had you been the purchaser of
an Oldsmobile diesel engine, would you have been particularly
placated had your engine lasted 50K rather than 30K? Wouldn't
ya' think that a decent engine would, with reasonable maintenance,
last well over 100,000 miles? I'm perfectly willing to quibble the
details with ya' but the folks that actually bought these cars are,
perhaps, less tolerant. A hell of a lot of 'em ended up suing
GM. And, and appreciable portion of those folks ended up with
GM buying back their cars from 'em.
Or, was the Oldsmobile diesel a _real_ mistake by private enterprize?
Perhaps the cost to the public roughly exceeded the Jane Cease
DMV computer problems? Or, is gubmint the only entity which
can screw up, in spades?
>> And, for the "great" Cadillac 4-6-8 engine, see pages 273 and
>> 278 of the 1997 Consumer Reports Buying Guide.
>
>Hey Mr. Dislexic, quote the whole thing, not your usual like here.
>The part your quoting said that they ran great when they were right,
>not that they were a great engine, there is considerable difference.
Ah! Most certainly _not_ politically correct, thomas. Ya' are
not allowed to disparage us learning disabled types.
I suppose next you'll get your jollies mocking the folks in wheel
chairs, eh?
But, still, I once owned an MG. It ran peachy keen as long as
I visited Colin and Nigel once a month or so. My opinion was
that I should _not_ be required to visit Colin and Nigel once
a month - the damn car should run. pretty much unassisted between
the scheduled maintenance stops.
> Dispite thomas'
>> anecdotal testimony,
>
>Don't like ancedotal testimony do ya! To Bad! I've got a good running olds
>diesel currently for sale, which makes it a current fact, and considerably more
>than "anecdotal". I do understand why you don't like anecdotal evidence, or
>fact, it's contrary to your propaganda religion.
Betcha don't have a lot of luck selling it - or at least selling it
at a price anywheres close to what a gas powered edition would
bring.
I wouldn't buy it!
-blathering and general silliness snipped-
>> Yet GM built 'em and foisted 'em on the public and, unlike the
>> Oldsmobile diesel, hasn't yet offered to buy 'em back from its
>> unsuspecting victims.
>
>Foisted em off?? Hate to tell you, but if somebody offers you a prime piece of
>eastern Oregon property for 5 billion an acre, and has a history of lying,(like you)
>and you buy it, who's fault is that??? Why should anybody else be obligated
>to chip in to prevent your stupidity?? They're doing it again, right now, with
>the Catera, and some people will buy them, and they'll have problems, and they
>know it and it's fine by them. If economy and reliability were the only
>factors in everybody's decisions, we'd all be driving 62 plymouth valients,
>with an occasional 56 Checker thrown in.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
Actually, thomas, I once owned a '63 valiant and the 225 chrysler engine
in that car proved quite reliable - I sold that baby with 150,000+
on the odometer and it was still ticking along nicely - unlike any
Oldsmobile diesel I've ever heard of. Perhaps a couple GM diesels
made it to 150,000 miles but that would, I think, be most unusual.
-more blatherings snipped-
>> Doesn't sound to me like a very efficient functioning of economic
>> Darwinism if a corporation can make blunders of this magnitude and
>> _still_ remain the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world.
>
>Well as long as people swallow the stuff you spew, that's the way it's going to
>be, because your ideals don't work, and this is proof.
Tee-hee! You, sir, wouldn't recognize a "proof" if it hit you over
the head with a two by four!
Tee-hee! 50,000 miles on an engine equals a "good' engine? Gimme
a break!
> I agree that many of the large manufacturers produce junk I wouldn't want,
>but the reason they can do that is because consumers refuse to demand higher
>standards when spending their money. Instead they rely on govt. to cure the
>problems, and that doesn't work, and manufacturers know it and that's why
>it stays that way.
Parse this through with me, thomas. The Oldsmobile diesel self-destructs
around 30K miles - roughly two and one half years after the initial
purchase. OK, if you are right, it self-destructs around 50K miles -
roughly four years after the initial purchase. Now just how is the
initial purchaser supposed to devine that the engine GM is selling is
gonna self-destruct some 2 and 1/2 or 4 years down the road?
> Heck, Chrysler failed to warrantee a window lift motor on a rig of mine,
>and so far that's cost them the sale of 4 new rigs over the last 9 years.
Yet, Chrysler hangs around, does it not? And, indeed, it does not
seem particularly regretful of losing your four sales. Chrysler
continues to make money hand over fist and is not particularly interested
in your personnal kvetching!
Perhaps gubmint should require 'em to address your concerns vis-a-vis
the window lifts? 'Cause it does seem your kvetching on the window
lifts ain't been particularly effective in showing Chrysler the
error of its ways. And you've still got defective window lifts
and Chrysler has still got lots of profits!
Well, whatever! Most folks prefer to get the window
lifts fixed over ideological purity. YMMV, of course, although
I remain amazed over the folks who would rather get screwed than
accept the assistance of gubmint. To each his own poison, I suppose.
'Course, the majority of the merican public would prefer _not_
to get screwed and are willing to accept gubmint assistance. Yet,
if you prefer to deal with your defective window lifts on your
own - go for it. There ain't no one requiring you to adjust your
bitches through the gubmint process.
Take 'em on yourself if ya' think that the way to go.
Peace and justice
talltom
Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> In a previous article, "talltom"@ipns.com (talltom) says:
>
> >Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> >> (Hmmm - if these engines were so great, howcum the fella in thomas'
> >> anecdote got a free new engine from GM at 50,000 miles?
> >
> >I never said they were great Mr. spin artist, I simply corrected your lies,
> >which stated they all quit at 30,000.
>
> Hmmm! Some self-destructed at 30K, some destructed at 50K and some
> managed to hand around til 70K. Your point?
The point is your previous post said 30,000, and as usual you're full of shit.
Now by your own word, as worthless as that is.
The Oldsmobile diesel
> was a _good_ engine?
I never said that, your just trying to invent something to get out of the mess you got
yourself into.
That GM was operating efficiently when it foisted
> this particular goodie on the Merican public?
Show where I said that either.
> How cum you're so all fired defensive of GM's screw ups and won't
> tolerate a single gubmint screw up?
Because GM's screwups weren't forced on me, all I had to do to avoid them
was do a little looking into them, govt. screws up and bills me reguardless.
I'd opine that over the past
> 30 or so years, the record of gubmint screwups is considerably better
> than the record of GM screw ups. YMMV of course.
Well that would be a long argument, as guys like you would be saying garbage like
steering gears had to be removed when they didn't and wanting to call that a
screwup, or sniveling that bumpers had to come off and calling that one.
Given a reasonable definition of screwup(which I don't think you're capable of)
my money would be on govt. screwing up much more.
> > Howcum
> >> GM repurchased a substantial number of these cars from their
> >> purchasers to head off a class action lawsuit?)
> >
> >I never said they didn't, just that you were and are full of shit and lie.
>
> Ah, you're frothing here.
No I'm not, it's a statement of fact.
Tell me - had you been the purchaser of
> an Oldsmobile diesel engine, would you have been particularly
> placated had your engine lasted 50K rather than 30K?
I wouldn't have been an Olds diesel owner until I'd seen that they were
worthwhile. Anybody with any sense of history knows better than to buy the
first production run from most any manufacturer if they value dependability.
Wouldn't
> ya' think that a decent engine would, with reasonable maintenance,
> last well over 100,000 miles? I'm perfectly willing to quibble the
> details with ya' but the folks that actually bought these cars are,
> perhaps, less tolerant.
Well the first Olds diesel in town was a yellow wagon for the cab co.,
and I worked on it, so I don't really think you have any standinfg to be
telling me about how the owners felt being as I worked with them and I rather
doubt you did. And yes a utilitarian vehicle eng should last over 100,000mi.
A hell of a lot of 'em ended up suing
> GM. And, and appreciable portion of those folks ended up with
> GM buying back their cars from 'em.
Is that something like the state and the kicker fund, but the state
just steals it, unlike GM!:-)
The state makes GM look like saints, and that is quite a stretch!:-)
> Or, was the Oldsmobile diesel a _real_ mistake by private enterprize?
> Perhaps the cost to the public roughly exceeded the Jane Cease
> DMV computer problems?
Oh??? When am I getting my money back from the state???? Ya see, GM can
sometimes be held accountable for their actions despite the legal system,
unlike the state. If I had my way, both would be rode hard and put up wet.
Or, is gubmint the only entity which
> can screw up, in spades?
Certainly it's the only that can do it without recourse.
> >> And, for the "great" Cadillac 4-6-8 engine, see pages 273 and
> >> 278 of the 1997 Consumer Reports Buying Guide.
> >
> >Hey Mr. Dislexic, quote the whole thing, not your usual like here.
> >The part your quoting said that they ran great when they were right,
> >not that they were a great engine, there is considerable difference.
>
> Ah! Most certainly _not_ politically correct, thomas. Ya' are
> not allowed to disparage us learning disabled types.
Hang it in your ass.
> I suppose next you'll get your jollies mocking the folks in wheel
> chairs, eh?
>
> But, still, I once owned an MG. It ran peachy keen as long as
> I visited Colin and Nigel once a month or so. My opinion was
> that I should _not_ be required to visit Colin and Nigel once
> a month - the damn car should run. pretty much unassisted between
> the scheduled maintenance stops.
Well theen buy something you like, and don't come looking to me for sympathy
when you screwup. By the way, my mg worked great.(51 tc, KOOL, fold down windscreen
and all!:-)
>
> Betcha don't have a lot of luck selling it - or at least selling it
> at a price anywheres close to what a gas powered edition would
> bring.
>
> I wouldn't buy it!
I'm not trying to sell it, the point is that it's there, it runs great, and
if enough money is offered could probably be bought. To hear your foaming
at the mouth it couldn't exist. And you're probably right, you wouldn't buy
it, because I discriminate, and for people like you the price gets adjusted a lot.
> >> Yet GM built 'em and foisted 'em on the public and, unlike the
> >> Oldsmobile diesel, hasn't yet offered to buy 'em back from its
> >> unsuspecting victims.
> >
> >Foisted em off?? Hate to tell you, but if somebody offers you a prime piece of
> >eastern Oregon property for 5 billion an acre, and has a history of lying,(like you)
> >and you buy it, who's fault is that??? Why should anybody else be obligated
> >to chip in to prevent your stupidity?? They're doing it again, right now, with
> >the Catera, and some people will buy them, and they'll have problems, and they
> >know it and it's fine by them. If economy and reliability were the only
> >factors in everybody's decisions, we'd all be driving 62 plymouth valients,
> >with an occasional 56 Checker thrown in.
>
> Does this make any sense to anyone?
>
> Actually, thomas, I once owned a '63 valiant and the 225 chrysler engine
> in that car proved quite reliable - I sold that baby with 150,000+
> on the odometer and it was still ticking along nicely - unlike any
> Oldsmobile diesel I've ever heard of. Perhaps a couple GM diesels
> made it to 150,000 miles but that would, I think, be most unusual.
And he says my stuff is nonsense and blather.
> -more blatherings snipped-
>
> >> Doesn't sound to me like a very efficient functioning of economic
> >> Darwinism if a corporation can make blunders of this magnitude and
> >> _still_ remain the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world.
> >
> >Well as long as people swallow the stuff you spew, that's the way it's going to
> >be, because your ideals don't work, and this is proof.
>
> Tee-hee! You, sir, wouldn't recognize a "proof" if it hit you over
> the head with a two by four!
>
> Tee-hee! 50,000 miles on an engine equals a "good' engine? Gimme
> a break!
Gee after all the evidence to the contrary, Bill sums up his argument with
erroneous stuff he invented and is irrelevant to any of the points made. I'm supposed to
be impressed??
> > I agree that many of the large manufacturers produce junk I wouldn't want,
> >but the reason they can do that is because consumers refuse to demand higher
> >standards when spending their money. Instead they rely on govt. to cure the
> >problems, and that doesn't work, and manufacturers know it and that's why
> >it stays that way.
>
> Parse this through with me, thomas. The Oldsmobile diesel self-destructs
> around 30K miles
It doesn't, get it through that zit between your shoulders.
- roughly two and one half years after the initial
> purchase. OK, if you are right, it self-destructs around 50K miles -
> roughly four years after the initial purchase. Now just how is the
> initial purchaser supposed to devine that the engine GM is selling is
> gonna self-destruct some 2 and 1/2 or 4 years down the road?
Well being as the first one in town was a taxi I'd say that it's fairly
likely that it went more than 12,500 a year. And all one has to do is
look into how well they do, it doesn't take long to put many miles on a taxi.
Even if it did, rushing out to buy something new leaves one wide open for such.
If ya want something worthwhile wait awhile and see first.
> > Heck, Chrysler failed to warrantee a window lift motor on a rig of mine,
> >and so far that's cost them the sale of 4 new rigs over the last 9 years.
>
> Yet, Chrysler hangs around, does it not? And, indeed, it does not
> seem particularly regretful of losing your four sales. Chrysler
> continues to make money hand over fist and is not particularly interested
> in your personnal kvetching!
And as long as the legal system stays the same, and the public believes the crap
you come up with that's the way it will stay.
> Perhaps gubmint should require 'em to address your concerns vis-a-vis
> the window lifts?
Perhaps govt. should get hell out, if it wasn't for govt. molycoddling neither
Chrysler or GM would be able to get by with the crap they do. Hell Chrysler
wouldn't even be in buisness.
'Cause it does seem your kvetching on the window
> lifts ain't been particularly effective in showing Chrysler the
> error of its ways. And you've still got defective window lifts
> and Chrysler has still got lots of profits!
Thanks to assholes like you, yes.
> Well, whatever! Most folks prefer to get the window
> lifts fixed over ideological purity. YMMV, of course, although
> I remain amazed over the folks who would rather get screwed than
> accept the assistance of gubmint. To each his own poison, I suppose.
Yeah, you and reality seldom meet.
> 'Course, the majority of the merican public would prefer _not_
> to get screwed and are willing to accept gubmint assistance. Yet,
> if you prefer to deal with your defective window lifts on your
> own - go for it. There ain't no one requiring you to adjust your
> bitches through the gubmint process.
>
> Take 'em on yourself if ya' think that the way to go.
Well the legal system being what it is, you can't get much justice for
$150, the cost of the window motor.
I did have a little fun with it though. United technologies(window motor manufacturer)
had an exhibit at the local airshow and they were bragging how all their stuff was used
on the space shuttle. I piped up and said that I had one of their motors and
they can't even make a window motor, and it's no wonder they couldn't get the shuttle
off the ground.(they were having problems getting it to go at that point.) The
sales guys REALLY didn't like me:-)
And Chrysler probably doesn't like me telling about it here either, to bad.
Maybe some of the public will wise up, and buy elsewhere.
xx
id...@primenet.com
For a good overview about the laws on peyote you can see..
http://www.win.net/~peyote/law.htm
Thane Eichenauer
Chandler, Arizona
unofficial Peyote Way Church of God page maintainer
http://www.primenet.com/~idic/peyote.html
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Don Homuth wrote:
> So, the First Priority of the NEA, on examining a putative Work Of
> Art, would be to determine whether or not it might be "offensive."
> One would suppose that some specific criteria would have to be
> promulgated incongruous for that to occur? Wonder what those might
> be?
I think it's ludicrous to rely on the government to define what
is offensive or tasteless, or what is the opposite for that matter.
That's why the best solution to this whole thing is to have an NEA
budget set at $0, and fire everyone who shuffles NEA paperwork
or anything else associated with this program. It's very simple
if you just give it a chance. What's gonna happen, Don? Is the
country going to collapse without an NEA (like it must have done
many times before the late 1960's, right?)
Bob T.
Don Homuth
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:45:04 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>....
>What's gonna happen, don? Is the
>country going to collapse without an NEA (like it must have done
>many times before the late 1960's, right?)
Um, BT -- if you go back, and *carefully* read the thread, you will
find that I had already suggested zeroing out the NEA budget, but on
different grounds.
But in overall effect, we're on the same side on this one.
Clues, BT. They're all around you.
Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide
Bob Tiernan said:
>BT: "Government has absolutely *no* business taking tax money
> from people in order to subsidize art. It is just as immoral
> to take money from Joe Catholic in order to fund something
> he finds sinful as it is to take Billy Liberal's money in
> order to fund a Broadway play saluting Jesse Helms."
>
>Don H: "I'm against the NEA. At least the way it operates now.
> Sort of. Maybe. Ask me again next year, and you might
> get another answer. Maybe. Depends on who's in charge.
> Sort of."
>
>
>Whoopee. Wonderful.
Oh fercryinoutloud, Bob, take the vote on your side and move on
to the next issue. You're wasting your time if you hold out for every
one to vote the same as you because they agree with all your
principles and whys and wherefores.
Take the vote and be thankful for it and move on to the next issue.
JZ
--
More importantly, it might adversely affect my credit rating, which, for any
dutiful yuppie, fills the same role as the immortal soul did for Reformation
era zealots. - Tim Mefford
Don Homuth
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:22:35 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>BT: "Government has absolutely *no* business taking tax money
> from people in order to subsidize art. It is just as immoral
> to take money from Joe Catholic in order to fund something
> he finds sinful as it is to take Billy Liberal's money in
> order to fund a Broadway play saluting Jesse Helms."
Are you aware of such a play, or would this be another one of those
"hypothetical oppressions" you like to prate on and on about? You
know -- the oppressions that would exist *if* folks acted the way you
think they might -- someday -- somehow -- somewhere? But funny thing
-- they don't seem to at the moment.
>Don H: "I'm against the NEA. At least the way it operates now.
> Sort of. Maybe. Ask me again next year, and you might
> get another answer. Maybe. Depends on who's in charge.
> Sort of."
(chuckle)
Having a lot of trouble quoting me directly, BT? I know that making
up things to attribute to me must be fun, but let's review what I did
say, just for the record, OK?
What I said, clearly, was that I support zeroing out the NEA budget,
and the reason I gave was that as far as I am concerned, it acts
mostly as an entertainment subsidy for Republicans and Wealthy
Democrats.
Now, I am actually on record as having said exactly that some 20 years
ago. And I am still saying fundamentally the same thing now.
But then, since you invent "hypothetical oppressions" to argue with
(what was that "blue shirt" thing all about, anyhow?), inventing
similarly hypothetical statements with which to typify the thoughts of
your opposition isn't too big a step, is it?
Except that it's simply dishonest, on its face.
>Whoopee. Wonderful.
Enjoy your party, BT. When you're ready to deal with Reality, do let
us know.