State education spending
Re: “State school spending near bottom of class,” April 17 Perspective articles.
The notion that we can achieve higher-quality education by spending more money has been thoroughly disproved by the past 40 years of American education history. Witness the well-documented fact that the highest spending per pupil, in Washington D.C., and some of the lowest spending per pupil in the heartland states, most notably North Dakota, have resulted in exactly the opposite effects you would expect.
Author Paul Teske dredges up the statistic that Colorado is 40th in the nation in per-pupil spending as evidence that we must therefore be 40th in the nation in education quality, a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality. He ignores the fact that our national education spending per pupil has increased dramatically in real dollars over the past 40 years with no concomitant increase in quality or results. He laments the potential reduction in state spending on higher education, ignoring the fact that the cost of higher education has been increasing dramatically (far in excess of the cost of anything else in American society except medicine) for 30 years, again with no concomitant increase in quality or results (as opposed to medicine, which actually does improve year after year).
Teske trumpets Amendment 23 as if it were a reasonable, common-sense solution to our education needs instead of a budget-busting educator’s pork barrel. He also wishes we could be more like Massachusetts and less like Mississippi. I know Mississippi got a lot of bad press in the ’60s and ’70s, but a lot of Coloradans might agree with me that Colorado would do better to emulate current Southern values than those of the politically correct Ivy League northeast.
Jeff Kocsis, Littleton
…
State Rep. Jack Pommer (“No other way: We need to hike funding”) is right about education needing more money. But he distorts the funding problems for the special education program. Special education is not a federal program. It began in the United States in the 1800s, and in Colorado in the 1910s. In a revised statute in 1973, the Colorado legislature made the provision of special education for all handicapped children mandatory. The special education program for the handicapped included all categories in the 1965 legislative act. It wasn’t until 1975 that, because courts were saying that public schools could not deny special programs to meet the special needs of such children, Congress passed the federal law mandating special education for all handicapped children.
With that law were specific guidelines for each district to follow. Admittedly, the law specified some actions beyond what the state of Colorado already required, the Individual Education Plan being the primary one. Colorado law specified that diagnosing a child required a team action, but did not specify the makeup of that team.
Since the early ’60s, the Colorado legislature has never fully funded, as specified in the act, special education provided by the public school districts. This is the case even after the legislature mandated the program.
Parents should learn the history of special education in the state of Colorado, discover how the legislature has always underfunded special education, how they play one program against another, and what effect that has upon your school and your child. Then join forces and write your legislator.
John A. Ogden, Centennial
Reviewing Colorado’s felony murder law
Re: “Should state’s felony murder law be revised?” April 17 Perspective articles.
In neither of their essays on Lisl Auman did state Sen. Dan Grossman (“Sentences unwarranted”) or professor Pat Furman (“Put intent at law’s core”) address the core issue in the national debate on the case: whether the punishment fits the crime.
Multiple rapists, armed bank robbers, even enraged spouses who gun down their partner’s lovers are given sentences that don’t ensure they’ll die in prison. Life without the possibility of parole is second only to a death sentence in severity. Does Auman deserve this penalty for her particular actions, despicable as they were, while criminals who’ve committed worse acts routinely walk out of prison after 20 or 30 years?
Auman deserves to serve prison time – lots of it – but the provision in Colorado’s felony murder statute that denies judges any discretion in sentencing should be changed.
Tim McGovern, Centennial
…
The felony murder law does not need to be revised because of the Lisl Auman case. Auman did not a commit a felony that led to a murder. Instead, the murder of officer Bruce VanderJagt led to her felony conviction obtained by an unethical district attorney who worked backward from the murder. He portrayed Auman as a “criminal mastermind” without having any evidence to support his caricature of her.
Before the murder, neither the Jefferson County deputies nor the Denver Police treated Auman’s conduct as a felony.
When a bank was robbed in Fairplay some years ago, the Park County officials called the Highway Patrol, who set up a road block and promptly captured the felons before they could reach Denver. Auman did not rob a bank. She may have committed petty larceny.
Life in prison for petty larceny is a cruel and unusual punishment. No ethical lawyer has stepped forward to appeal Auman’s felony conviction in the federal courts. There is no ethical reason why Auman is not out on bail. There is no reason why she should plea bargain with unethical lawyers. Colorado suffers from an oversupply of unethical lawyers. I hope Auman has the courage to endure another trial, if that is what it takes for her to get justice in Colorado.
Gaylen A. Thurston, Centennial
…
As a high school debater, I am familiar with a number of debate “tricks.” The least acceptable of these is the use of emotional or dramatic description for persuasion when the description has no actual bearing. This came to mind when reading state Sen. Dan Grossman’s article on Colorado’s felony murder law. I agree with much of what Grossman says, but his use of sensationalism is unnecessary. Grossman tells readers that Lisl Auman enlisted “the help of skinhead and meth-user Matthaeus Jaehnig.” This is a true statement, but of what possible relevance are the words “skinhead” and “meth-user”?
Colorado’s felony murder law has nothing to do with how disreputable one’s associates are. Grossman is simply invoking negative descriptors to give readers a negative impression of Auman. He does this again when he describes the shooting of Denver police officer Bruce VanderJagt in graphic detail.
Debate over felony murder has nothing to do with the brutality of the crime. It is a debate over the role of intent and personal responsibility in our laws. The invocation of other sensational details is a lowbrow attempt to sway the uninformed.
Colin West, Fort Collins
Public relations for CU
Re: “CU weighs makeover,” April 17 business news story.
Creating a new nonprofit organization to help the University of Colorado make over its public image? These “veteran spinmeisters” have to be kidding. Don’t they get it yet, that one of the many reasons CU is having an image problem is the current group of nonprofit organizations that speak for and do business in the name of the university but are not accountable to CU’s board and president?
Most Coloradans know that, generally, things are as they seem to be. No amount of “warm and fuzzy” images on billboards and in brochures will change the fact that CU is really what people in this state currently believe it to be. It’s what CU does and does not do that counts. No amount of public relations and publicity will solve CU’s basic problems.
We are dealing with two cultures in conflict: a superb academic culture led by world-class faculty in conflict with a dysfunctional culture of games, pleasure and adolescent gratification. Publicity won’t make this conflict go away. Only a change in CU’s culture will.
Here’s to CU’s Board of Regents. The appointment of Hank Brown as interim president is a wonderful first step in bringing back the kind of public credibility CU needs in order to advance it to the level of academic greatness that is so necessary for Colorado to succeed in the 21st century. What is not needed is a new and independent organization that is neither under the control of nor accountable to the people responsible for CU and its future.
Martin D. Robbins, Denver
John F. Kennedy’s religion
Letter-writer Pat Blackis (April 17 Open Forum) wrote that John F. “Kennedy went to some pains to assure the American people that he would, if elected, honor his oath of office over his religious beliefs.” That is historically false. What Kennedy said, on Sept. 12, 1960, in a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, was:
“But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.”
It is very important on such critical matters as our Constitution that there be no misrepresentation of what our presidents have said.
Joanne Marie Roll, Denver
Emergency contraception
Re: “Owens’ veto of contraception bill,” April 17 Open Forum.
Given the divisiveness and passion that attends any issue even remotely related to abortion, the strong opinions voiced in the April 17 Open Forum discussion on Gov. Bill Owens’ veto of House Bill 1042 are not surprising. What is surprising, and appalling, is the letter from Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for Focus on the Family and, therefore, an individual entrusted with reviewing and opining on legislation on behalf of her influential organization.
In that light, her description of HB 1042 as “a bill that would have required all hospitals in the state to offer so-called ’emergency contraception”‘ is notable and inexcusable. In fact, as pointed out by many other writers, the law only mandates that hospitals inform rape victims of the existence of the drugs, not offer, recommend or prescribe them. The distinction between the law as written and as described by Earll is material.
A hospital could comply with the law, and its medical responsibility, by informing a rape victim about all available treatments, yet still follow its moral tenets by offering “pro-life” counseling and religious advice against using “emergency contraception.”
Neil Ayervais, Littleton
U.S. intelligence
Re: “The mediocrity of U.S. intel,” April 17 David Ignatius column.
David Ignatius is understating terrifically when he says our national intelligence is “mediocre.” He says correctly that the problem will not be solved by inserting new layers of incompetent personnel. He says we need fewer, smarter agents. But he never mentions the main problem: There are too few “smart” Americans available – those who are knowledgeable about foreign languages and cultures.
For now, we should quit meddling overseas altogether, until we can change our youth culture to produce an educated, world-informed elite. This should be an urgent project, like the rush to produce scientists after the Soviet “first-in-space” shock. As things are, the Bushies go for blind interventionist lunges based on isolationist thinking.
So we must try to work within America, e.g., to inspect, for possible nuclear weapons, the 25,000 huge ship-containers entering our ports each day. Also, we must have an urgent program to recruit and train enough medical personnel to prepare for a probable germ-war attack. And so on.
None of these urgent reforms will happen, of course. The Bushies are shamelessly underfunding homeland protection, while ignorant Americans say they trust Bush on “security.” This prescription, neglected, will actually serve as our epitaph.
Dan Lyons, Fort Collins
America and the world
Re: “Spirit of Bush, Tancredo,” April 17 John Andrews column.
Speaking of second languages, can anyone tell me which one John Andrews uses in his columns? Lost in translation is Andrews’ apparent equation of unilateralism with strength. So, the U.S. is such a great world leader, its citizens need not learn other languages or understand other cultures because the Middle East and the rest of the world will fall in line soon. That’s a long-term strategy, right? By this rationale, what’s unrealistic is the Chinese studying English just so they can better manage the U.S. debt they float for us. China does need us more than we need them.
And yes, Tom Tancredo is a man of principle; on that almost everyone agrees, whether or not they like what he stands for. But Andrews uses Tancredo’s call for restoration of diplomatic relations with Taiwan simply to take a cheap shot at China. Andrews’ rhetoric reminds me of an aging athlete who “hears footsteps,” so reacts by denying the talent of his upstart competition.
This country didn’t become great by pretending we were so, and pooh-poohing the competition. Facing the realities of a changing world is a better path to prosperity than the language of self-delusion and aggrandizement spoken by Andrews.
Mick Domenick, Wheat Ridge
…
John Andrews correctly points out that the Taiwan containment policy has not served to reduce tension in that part of world.
Taiwan has enjoyed open, free and democratic ways of life for years, although its system may have to admit some faults before we can call it an ideal democracy. Nevertheless, it is this universal value that separates Taiwan and China.
That Taiwan has peacefully transformed herself from Nationalist Chinese authoritarian rule is more than a miracle. It is a model for the entire world to see: one that does not require U.N. supervision with foreign aids or military presence.
Philip K. Liu, Winchester, Mass.
To the Point
I hope Zombie America wakes up before there’s one political party practicing theocracy, or another campaign of fear, no ethic checks, veterans are completely forgotten, social disaster instead of Social Security, more propaganda TV news, and a culture of uneducated intolerance.
Craig Sechrest, Golden
Instead of building a new Denver jail, I suggest we expand the Smith Road facility, including putting the criminal courts out there. Then Denver can sell the downtown site and the building, and can put that money toward the Smith Road expansion.
Robert Rose, Denver
Ahh, the freedom of religion! As long as it is my religion, of course.
Michael Lambdin, Lakewood
If ethanol suddenly replaced oil as the nation’s main energy source, President Bush would still insist on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but to farming.
Jeff Wozer, Denver
If abortion is as pre-eminent an issue for Catholics as Archbishop Charles Chaput says it is, then those arriving at heaven’s gates who are asked if they fed the hungry should sail through if they answer:
“No – but I never voted pro-choice.”
Joel Brence, Aspen
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
