Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 5, 1996)
No more ‘As’ or ‘Fs’ for children in early grades ■ OUR OPINION: Strange new report cards reflect each child's individual learning progression "Mommy, mommy, look m my report card!" "Did you do well In school, honey?" “YmIi, I did — instead of that one little card, my teacher gave me two whole {rages of turat words and let ters and stuff’" ”Umm. that's great sweet ie — isn't it?" it is for thousands of Amerii an school* hildren Parents of elementary and middle school kids nation wide are seeing a new ••pact in the increasing trend within education reform — report-card reform Instead of handing out the traditional letter grades of A through F for any single subject. some public schools are adopting a system of rat ing students on more titan 150 different academic and social skills Proponents say the change renta ls the desire of many educators to educate the “whole" child Changing the traditional grading system is a big issue, but it is else an entity that lias needed tinkering for a long time For years, educators and psychologists have studied the demographics and learn ing patterns of children Experts have found that the physiological differences between girls and boy* con tribute* greatly to the way the two Hexes not only com prehend and interact with their world, hut also how they learn about their world In kindergarten, and earli er mm tal environments such as childcare, many girl# show a higher level cf matu nly and learning ability than their male counter parts. Some studies show that many little boy* aren't even ready few the academic and social demand* of pre school Difference* like these demand a creative and new approat h to grading each individual s educational progression Without change* in the way educa tors gauge student progress, children can and will con timie to struggle with of low self-esteem and serious anti learning altitude* Beginning with kinder garten and carrying over into the primary grades, school* are starting to entourage children to leant at their own pat e Thi* emphasis is another reason educators see the need to replat e the standard letter grade with the new rating system The c hange will not only benefit children, but alto parents concerned with the quality of education their children arc getting. In answer to a parent's concern and a child's need for indi vidual development, schools utilizing the new grading com apt want to communicate to parent* more than just how well their child to doing in the trash subjects. The ability to road phrases: read an entire story without stopping, apply mathematical formu la* to real-life questions; and respact diversity, are a few of the at .Ith-mic area-, teachers want to U-ac h t hil drwn. and to keep parent* informed about Although |utrents and educator* find the new grad ing system confusing and about as easy to decipher as a big-city road map. the new report cards represent a move in the right direc tion n» » mmmm *m wax lawi# amn <■*—>■» oHumi l>«Wi *>"»< ■» m*»-* » — CMf» ftakr t—m »■—»»a u w» Mmaafrua *«*•«« £npa a a«M* * 9m InmniMM fw 9m IwM aim mm rnmimmtmm 9 9m uwtmi* mb * idi JQO i# (Hu | r% M •» < IIWB—H •aM«BrT «a«tMBaaaM<Mainasi% tia oiw h«mmm mm m»m»> » yin,i la * a. ''"■• •"I nmmbMMb mm* *MMb)mhmmmi UMaONaa iMOrta tamatM •ft’.tiltrtxar ■ m, »MW IB>» *» ;nniirr ilrMflui M0H MlMHIl liMtaaamwaMda'. _ Urn «*** «** Mttaw Caar *mmm urn h*». f mt £#nor ,j 1 { CH*J 7DP PRfOBirVJ ST If OUjfPr fioK I+OQAiKtfy rI w*HCM CAM ONIV Bf SOC.W*» av I cxm/Ofts, Pvr/sAor<x^i,fif*j on»i? y if A <r% tt-AT nv *JOxKD*/ r ^ W ><Hvf ry( otfKiT *o**t f 1 {*<■•*' on tftow© n*3v*«r I v«i ir uxm-'lP' J 4 fi4T rv i$ 4 T#*4V . motTY <OfA, 4«« ^ S^wD 4 rut yw»r*o atmrvf y ' MAV0C r»f s* \ cau fo* M *<-*»*. »^»«,TKws»A*y, (Jo1 o«J'r wA)Dto«i'iiio*Ay^«*t ^ y*o^» ptrmfoAK. jf**M w«iM I N\ult»ple Personality Disorder 1 - r* n* cm* c+x w (Mj I® ^ tw* ■ ■ m ■ i|| Measure 20-54 robs Peter to Dav Paul It ta a vary good thing that (oiks In Eugene want to do something to provide affordable housing When the utility sales las is defeat •d, let's pun together with a common goal getting the t ltv VjiHUH il to fund affordable hou* ing now — out of the existing General Fund Measure 20 54 should be defeated, A Utility twins tax b« any purpose, no matter how war thy, is • bad idea Here are (list three of the re* ana* that Eugene resident* should vote “no" on their mail-in ballots: I) The measure taxes necessities to pay for necessities When the Oregon legislature proposed a sales tax in HltlJ. It exempted utilities It resign I ted that utilities an* netessilies. not luxuries The Eugene Qtv Council should have shown a sum lot sensitivity Utilities and housing are imwrssitves In this day and age, it is difficult to imagine a house hold operating without water or electricity This ta* is "tubbing Peter to pay Paul " It take* money away from one purpose to pay (or another and pays of! one debt only by incurring a new one Toe goal of an appropmte ta* is to provide more housing, not to tip (wople on the economic edge over into poverty 2) Measure 20 54 is unfair to low and fixed income ratepayers, "That promise and a nickel will get vou a cup of toffee " l nfottunately m rm ket won't even buv a < up of t offer aeiemote Infiation and taxes are always on the rise, and those on low and fixed im hum are unable to keep pa. e A utility vale* lax it regressive because it taxes people without any regard to their ability to pay At a Eugene Water and Electric Board com missioner. I know that the average utility bills of low- and fixed income ratepayers are compara ble to those of high-income ratepayers By necessity . U»w and fixed-incooM ratepayers are already conserving energy and water to keep their bill* low An increase that seems small to one ratepayer adds another burden to people already Having trouble paying their expense* The proponents make much of the to percent of this tax that is promised to "energy assistance program* “ This leaves the incorrect impression that low-income bilk* might not pay the tax In the early debate*, the city designated a pro gram to receive these funds — one that pay* the full bill of those least able to pay (those below 125 percent of the poverty line) It did not address the tax paid by the majority of low- and fixed income ratepayers When this was pointed out. the proponents deleted that language from their arguments and adopted a “trust us" position as to how the 10 percent would be distributed Because the city is not the Internal Revenue Service. It has no record of individual income*, so the tax cannot l «r be based on ability to pay. Therefore, moat low and fixed-income ralepay ere should export lo pay this tax without relief, if the (Jty Cxnanc.il laas a concrete plan for how to avoid tins, it has yet to share if with the voter* 3) The tax targets non-profit organizations such as schools, churches and other communitv groups while exempting some other users. Everyone ha* to pay for utilities The propo nents argue tlaal because no one can avoid pay ing utilities, the utility sates tax is an effective way to raise lots of money for the city. Ttie tax allows the City Council to lap an "untapped market." namely nonprofits, which are usually tax exempt Nonprofit* are tax exempt for a reason: Society has determined that nonprofit* provide a social good We should continue to exempt nonprofit* from taxation. In fact. EWEB steam customer*, "interrupt ible" customers of Northwest Natural Cuts and those who use oil or wood for heat have already been exempted or have been promised that they will las exempted from |>aying this tax In addi ■ ton. Measure 20-54 would allow customer classes to petition the Gty Council for an exemption >ifter the fact You can expect the politically influential to line up at City Hall for tin* exemption should the measure pas* I’ve opposed the utility sales tax tim e it* pro posal in May 1995 I remember how it feels to be unemployed and have to worry about how to make my next payment A lot of expenses can he cut drastically, but utilities are not among them There were months whan 1 had to kite my utility payment to pay off student tuans or other bill*. I was fortunate I had a history of paying my utility bills regularly, so EWEB was sympa thetic to my difficulties Even though l am now employed, my decisions are shaped by that humbling experience I and many EWEB customers give to Enar gvShore to help those less fortunate to make their energy payments. Charity comes from the heart, not just the pocket book W# need to con tinue to entourage than table contributions The Gty Council made a mistake when it referred the utility sales lax to the voter* with out a public hearing lx»fs negate that error by voting down Measure 20-54 lag's tell the Gty Council to fund affordable-bousing needs through it* existing funds, rather than by a "ere alive tax," Vote "no" on Measure 20-54. EWEB Commissioner leff Omnku is a University alumnus and a spokesman far Defeat Utility Sales Tax.
