HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: MISSOURI MODEL:  EFFECTIVENESS FOR ALL STUDENTS
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:31:08 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX


*4   MISSOURI MODEL:  EFFECTIVENESS FOR ALL STUDENTS
     New Stanley Elementary in Kansas City, Mo., has restructured
itself using the philosophies of Harvard professor Jeff Howard
and Yale professor James Comer (AMERICA 2000 Conference Call).
New Stanley is one of RJR Nabisco's Next Century Schools and has
received an "A+ for Breaking the Mold" award from Ed Sec Lamar
Alexander.
     Howard's "Efficacy Model" serves as a "philosophy" for the
school, according to Principal Donna Hardy.  She said the
school's restructuring is based on making education effective for
all students.  New Stanley's philosophy is that "all children can
learn and we can teach them," said Hardy.
     Hardy said the Comer model helped the school realize "that
parents are students' first teachers" and the importance of
parental involvement.  Hardy also said parents are involved in
all of the school's committees and its board.
     New Stanley is open 11 months of the year.  Students attend
class for 10 weeks and then take a week off as teachers work on
staff development and training.  Hardy:  "Teachers need to have
time to develop.  We feel that it's not programs that make the
difference, but it's people."
     Teachers have 11-month contracts instead of the typical 10-
month contracts that are more expensive to the school district.
But Supt. David Lusk said the investment is worthwhile and
necessary for proper planning and collaboration (9/29).

--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
 -Public school administration has gone from 15% to 30% of expenses since 1960-
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5799 alt.politics.clinton:8268
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:55:00 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct02.155956.25058@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>I don't think that statement makes any sense.  You set your price and you
>get what you pay for.  The question isn't whether "teachers are
>underpaid", but whether you could attract better teachers with higher pay.
>The answer is obviously yes.  The second question is whether the increase
>in teacher quality is worth the added expense.

My question, whenever someone says that you can attract better teachers
if you paid them more money, is this -

	If you can attract better teachers with more money, why do
	private school teachers, who make much less than their public
	school counterparts, do a better job of teaching?

I have another question, too -

	If we do decide to increase teacher pay, what is going to
	happen to all of the people who are working as teachers right
	now?  If what you say is true, we will have to fire all of
	them since they aren't qualified to be teachers.

The facts are simple.  The amount of money you pay a teacher is NOT
related to the quality of the teacher.  Teacher pay is already very
competitive with other 4 year degree programs, and teachers are only
required to get post-grad degrees to demonstrate that they are staying
current with evolving educational theory.  Coupled with the incredible
job security that a teacher has compared to a non civil service worker,
and there is quite an argument to be made that teachers are paid on par
with other college graduates.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:26:43 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21664@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <7464@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>People that make this comment don't understand the nature of the job. Systems
>>programmers need to be next to the machine.
> 
> As I stated, in the case of MVS, sitting next to my 386/PC at home is
> as close to a S/370 as I have to be in order to do "systems programming".
> 
> Systems programming =can= be done cheaper and just as effectively overseas.
> 
	As described in an earlier post from me, I agree with John (suprise!)

> As for union steelworkers, the problem with them isn't the high rate they
> charge.  The non-union shops I worked in paid comparable wages, but turned
> out a far superior product for less total cost to the buyer.  American
> workers are still the most productive in the world, period.

	I think per worker the Japanese are.  This is mostly because of an
almost religious dedication to the corporation, something which we don't
have anymore... (I've jumped jobs twice, so I plead guilty too...).

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: so what gives?
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:29:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

From JHII to J.P. all I see here are heavy predictions about the
future state of the economy if Clinton wins, etc. etc. So how about
a couple of actual issues? I'm curious about:

1) How many of you have actually read Perot's book.
2) How many have actually read Clinton's book.
3) Who thinks that Perot will be a factor in Texas.
and
4) Why is the debate format such a big deal?

5 weeks to go.....and we can get back to work...
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-life vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:30:55 GMT
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep28.173409.38815@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> In article <21627@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> |> 	8 weeks		. . .
> |> 			For several weeks now the baby has been capable
> |> 			of feeling pain; it can even be taught conditioned
> |> 			response.
> 
> Now *I'm* wondering if this is a biased source.  Brain waves are
> measurable.  Pain cannot be measured.  Response to stimulus can be
> observed, but whether it hurts or not is something that must be
> inferred.

Yes, it is a "biased" source.  However, the observation is correct.
In all fairness, it is biased in the opposite direction as the source
which you cited which supports the contention that brainwaves are
present at an early age.  Since the two books have opposite biases
and agree on this fundemental issue, I'd say neither is distorting
the facts any appreciable amount.

"Pain" can be measured by the stress that it induces.  If I subject
you to some "pain", your body will respond in a well-understood
manner.  Pain-management programs teach people how to deal with
their pain, and reduce the effects it has.  The proof that a fetus
can feel "pain" would be in seeing what the secondary effects are.
I believe this has been done.  I do know that fetuses are regularly
injured in the presence of a doctor if only because of accidents
during amneocentisis(sp).  The medical profession should understand
what happens in such circumstances quite well.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5780 alt.politics.clinton:7989
From: klaus@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (Todd C. Klaus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Summary: Money CAN buuhappiness
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:54:10 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Arizona State University

In article <21649@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.181349.2691@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> 
> As for liking Clinton, when he was still sticking to his "principles", I
> liked him.  I remember seeing him and the DLC on C-SPAN one morning and
> thinking that with a new generation of Democrats like him, the old liberal
> Democratic party was dead.  Ross Perot's presidency allowed Clinton to

                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What! did I miss something?  I thought he was going to let us know before
he did that!  Guess we don't have to worry about debates now... ;^)


> show that Clinton was really a liberal.  We should thank Ross for exposing
> another Clinton lie.
> 

[ather stuff deleted]
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Date: 1 Oct 1992 14:32:25 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <00717896662@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>#1: Full school choice. *REAL* school choice, where poor kids can go to any
>school in the land.

Sounds like a voucher system to me.

>#2: Local control of schools by parents, combined with regular evaluation
>of schools by a central authority so that the parents know whether their
>kids are getting a good education or not. Parents hire and fire the
>principal. The principal hires and fires the teachers. All live by RESULTS,
>rather than the current a$$-kissing that currently goes on.

No arguments, but a voucher system would achieve this in the most direct way
possible: parents vote with their dollars.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: bush vetoes stupid family leave bill
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:25:35 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX

*11  FAMILY LEAVE:  HOUSE FAILS TO OVERRIDE BUSH'S VETO
     The U.S. House yesterday failed to override President Bush's
veto of family-leave legislation (multi.; see DRC 9/23 #12).  The
vote was 258-169.  According to the BOSTON GLOBE, the vote
"dash[ed] Democrats' hope of delivering an election-year rebuke
to the president."
     The newspaper adds that "many House Democrats, seeking to
make the veto an election issue, told their colleagues Wednesday
that a family leave bill would be enacted if Gov. Bill Clinton
becomes president."  But the GLOBE writes that "opposition to the
bill crossed party lines Wednesday:  38 Republicans broke ranks
to support the override, while 42 Democrats opposed it."
     The family-leave bill would have required businesses with
more than 50 employees to offer up to 12 weeks' unpaid leave to
employees in instances of family illness or death, or the birth
or adoption of a child.  Bush has proposed a measure that would
give a $1,200 credit per employee to businesses with fewer than
500 employees that give employees leave (10/1).

--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
 -Public school administration has gone from 15% to 30% of expenses since 1960-
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: BullShit
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:50:19 GMT

In article <21671@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>Now, since you are completely unable to read, I'll point out that I have on
>no occassion ever posted my salary.  My comment was directed specifically at
>James Berry who claimed to have some inside information.  I was quite simply
>pointing out that his inside information is probably wrong, and intentionally
>so.  After all, it was none of his business.  Given the nature of gossips,
>would anyone be stupid enough to give out information they didn't want spread
>about the net?
>-- 

John...

   Be careful.  This almost sounds like a dare to someone to find out what
you make.  Given the conservative/business mandated lack of controls on
databases (bad for business and all that), it really isn't that difficult
to find these things out.

 o For a few bucks I can join the credit bureau which reports where you live
   but then again maybe you transact everything in cash or for barter.
 o When I lost my drivers license, the counter droid just wanted my address
   to replace it - no other ID which was good as I had lost any other ID I
   had as well.  I could become you - interesting prospect.
 o I can subscribe to Nexis (I think that's the name) - expensive but very
   interesting.
 o Blind phone calls to your bank will sometimes get me your approximate
   bank balance (the credit bureau report will probably give me your account
   number).
 o And others.  I don't see any point in giving any semblance of a complete
   list - I'm not trying to tell anyone with the inclination how to do it.

PS - I agree with you: as you said, "After all, it was none of his business."
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Never try to teach a pig to sing - you waste your time
		and it annoys the pig.  (West Texas saying)
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5757 alt.politics.clinton:7868
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Should Texans finance roads in Boston?
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:57:37 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Now then, on the subject of roads, I believe that until recently Texas
>has been a net BENEFICIARY of the Federal Highway funding (because the
>place is just so damned BIG compared to the population density).  Now
>that it looks like that could change, we hear a great outcry about how
>people here don't want to pay for 'other people's roads'.  What's even

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because everybody got hosed last
week doesn't mean we should all bend over this week too.  Ditto on
Social Security.

>sillier is that we see the Feds promising that each state will get
>back at least the amount of money that it puts in.  This leads me to

Right.  We all give the Feds $1.  And they give us back $1.  Of course
if they give NJ $2 then that had to come from somewhere didn't it?
And don't forget the beaurocracy.  It is not mathmatically possible for
them to give back every state what they put in since they have to at
least pay one person just to write the checks.

If we're just getting the same money back anyway we might as well keep
it and avoid one level of beaurocracy.

>ask why, if they don't intend to move the money around as has been the
>case in the past, the Feds should even be in the middle of this.

they shouldn't be.

>Seems that if everyone is going to wind up with the amount of money
>their state collects, why not just let the states collect it and cut
>out the middleman.

I agree.  Sounds like we're on the same side yet again.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Prove it!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:04:48 GMT

In <1992Sep30.185555.4399@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>>
>>And you don't view saying things like this to me to be in the same
>>vein as what you are complaining about me doing to John?

>	I certainly don't, but that you might suggests we are
>interpreting each others' posts differently. Do you feel I
>insult you? Do you feel I do so in response to your insults only?
>Do I call you names? Did I not say _I_ thought you were lying, and
>whether or not you were was still in question? Or did I pronounce
>you a liar, as though that were final? Did I give my respects to
>your non-defense of the accusation? Did I ever come out of the blue
>to insult you as though I were a grade-schooler ("BORING, we expire
>fools like you")?
>	Please, tell me how you see this as being the same. I promise
>to consider your opinion. 

Joe, I think you need to consider just why the listener should hear "I
think you lie" and "You are a liar" any differently.  Perhaps you do,
but I don't think most people do.  If I think you lie, then as far as
I'm concerned you must be a liar (since a liar is one who lies, and I
think you lie).  Even more offensive is when you try to tell me that
you know more about me than *I* do, which you seem to do literally all
the time.

Personally, Joe, I think you respond like this because you're still
hacked off about our disagreements over the cops who beat Rodney King
and over the use of the word 'murder' for abortion (while abortion is
legal).  I think you somehow rationalize to yourself that you're
'doing good' when you 'correct' people as you do, but have you ever
notice that you restrict yourself to doing it to people with whom you
have disagreed?  Perhaps your own motives could do with some
self-investigation? 

[And personally, if I want a lecture on my 'sins', I'll go to church.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5782 alt.politics.clinton:8052
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:46:45 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> ... opposes most
>> of the reforms in Bush's America 2000 proposal.  He supports the NEA.  He
>> =is= the problem.

>The NEA got about one hundredth of one percent of the taxes I paid last year.
>Big deal.
>Find another scape goat.

The NEA is a great scapegoat when we're talking about education.  We
don't need another one.  They'll do nicely thank you.

Sure, it may be the case that the NEA doesn't soak up a lot of taxes
directly, but they waste plenty of tax money through their opposition
to reform.

John's right.  (obnoxious, but right :-)  They are against reform of
the education system.

The "America 2000 proposal" mentioned isn't really Bush's alone.  All
the governers, including Mr. Clinton, contributed in creating it.

Of course that was before he decided he needed the NEA to get elected
and got into bed with them.

The NEA is about as interested in reforming our educational system as
the AMA is in reforming our health care system or
the ABA is in reforming our legal system or
the lobbyists are in reforming PACs.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 -Public school administration has gone from 15% to 30% of expenses since 1960-
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5811 alt.politics.clinton:8298
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:46:18 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <fyzd0g3@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>What does this have to do with Haugh's contention that all the good teachers
>flee to private schools and only incompetent teachers remain in the public
>school system?  Obviously one of the best teachers in the country is not only
>in the public school system but intends to be whereever in the public school
>system he is needed most.

You have that completely wrong.  It isn't my contention that teachers DO
flee the public school system, but rather that they SHOULD.  Leave the
dying carcass to the those that can't get jobs elsewheres.

>It just dawned on me (I'm not stupid, just slow) that Barbara Bush should
>abandon teacups for a nice green salad.  Then the Bush/Quayle ticket could
>advertise itself as the Dinner Party:  Chicken, Potatoe, Salad, and Cookies.
>But without the leafy green it's unbalanced, especially while broccoli re-
>mains a banned substance.

Oh, and the Clinton ("I didn't inhale, NOT!") campaign is something to be
proud of?  The way Bill lies, it should be the "Wayne's World" campaign -

	I didn't inhale.  NOT!
	I didn't sleep with Jennifer.  NOT!
	I didn't dodge the draft.  NOT!
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:43:52 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <7469@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <00717896662@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>#1: Full school choice. *REAL* school choice, where poor kids can go to any
>>school in the land.
>
>Sounds like a voucher system to me.

No, it isn't a voucher system.  It's more of the same political patronage.
Eric's program =only= extends to the poor.  It completely ignores the
middle and upper classes.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:33:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Oct05.181223.22581@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>
>81% of the private schools in this country are run by churches. 
>Churches get government subsidies galore through tax exemptions.  If
>they expect to get MORE taxpayer money, they should lose their tax
>exemptions and pay income tax as well.
>
While I don't think private schools should receive government money, I would like to say that
a tax exemption is not exactly the same thing as a subsidy. With a tax exemption, you get to 
keep $X. With a subsidy, you might pay $X in taxes and receive $Y in subsidies, where Y could be
more or less than X. 

Also, churches are not-for-profit organizations, so income tax does not apply to them.
They are tax-exempt because they don't use much in the way of government services.
--
Griff Miller - miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com - My opinions are mine, not Western's.
  "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom 
   and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton