Editor, Times-Union: It occurs to me how to answer the babble of bullies out there regarding freedom of speech. Let me draw you a picture. You say it is freedom of speech clashing with free commerce. I say not. You seem to think that if someone is in the music or movie business and they disagree with the status quo, then they should not have the right to speak their mind and should just sit down and shut up. Why do they have fewer rights than you do? What you are advocating is banning music groups like the Dixie Chicks from the airways and demand radio stations refuse to play their records and record stores take their CDs from the shelf and refuse to sell them to anyone. You think movies with people like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins in them should be banned also and not shown at movie theaters. That is where you make your mistake. That is where it becomes censorship. This might not be found in a civics book, Davie, in any case, at Warsaw High we had government and econ classes, which they still have to this day. You are right in that anyone can and should choose what music they listen to if they listen to music and which movies to see if they go to movies. That has always been the case and those decisions should be made based on what you like to hear or see. It should not be based on whatever is still available after those in charge have made a decision to eliminate choices based on their politics. If you want to decide not to listen to the Dixie Chicks on the radio or TV and turn it off or to another station, then that would be your right. It is not, however, your right to take away my right to listen to them or their right to perform professionally. That is censorship. If you refuse to read the documents that govern our country, then try picking up a dictionary. After you have boxed yourself into a corner that you have given up the right to get out of, well, we'll see who's crying then, won't we. And to David Beall, I am not your pet, or your friend, and you are not at all familiar to me, so that will be Mrs. Deborah Smith to you, thank you.
Deborah L. Smith Democrat via e-mail
School Funding
Editor, Times-Union: As the legislature finalizes the budget, the school funding formula will be a key issue. The House version, passed by the Democrats, relieves school districts of the responsibility to control staff sizes and other expenses due to shifting population, and does not direct funds toward children's specific needs. Two of Indiana's largest school corporations have lost approximately 10 percent or 6,500 of their students, yet received 15 percent, or $50 million in additional funding. Indiana is the only state that still utilizes a minimum guarantee under the House-passed system.
The Senate version of the budget passed a school funding formula with a simple three-step approach designed to allow funding to follow the student. An established foundation of $4,500 for each student trails the child to the public school he or she attends. An additional $3,460 per student would be available based on the following five complexity factors:
n Children eligible for free lunch ($1,200)
n Children whose parents have less than a high school education ($970)
n Children with single-parent families ($530)
n Children with limited English-language proficiency ($430)
n Children living in poverty ($330)
Shortfalls of the House Passed Version:
n Guarantees a 1.75 percent increase to all school districts
n Ensures that fixed costs that must be paid by schools are covered
n Without some sort of minimum guarantee, as many as 75 school corporations in Indiana would receive either no additional state funding or cuts in that support. Many others would see minimal increases in funding.
n That could mean fewer teachers, lost programs and even increased class sizes.
n Without some sort of minimum guarantee, as many as 75 school corporations in Indiana would receive either no additional state funding or cuts in that support. Many others would see minimal increases in funding.
n Caps spending at 3 percent even in fast growing school districts
n Does not base expenditures on students (money doesn't follow the child)
The rural and the fastest growing school corporations in the state are teaming up to advocate the money following the student, not the building. With schools facing losses, it seems illogical that districts such as Gary and IPS are receiving 15 percent more funding while losing 10 percent of their students. Regardless of which funding formula is chosen, schools must be efficient with their resources. The staff and administration must be utilized in the most efficient manner.
It is my hope that we adopt a compromised form of the House and Senate versions, which ties funding to students. If there is one positive result of the restricted school budget formula, it is that schools will be forced to focus on educating the students. It will become imperative that every student within any given school stays in school. Perhaps we will be forced to realize that losing teachers and educational resources in order to fund extracurricular activities and facilities is not the best usage of education funds.
