Conference 7.286::maynard

It appears that this proposal will be on the table not too long from now.
Maybe we should start raising the issue to Sen. Durand, Rep. Evans, Lt. Gov.
Cellucci, and Gov. Weld, in the form of letters and phone calls.

You can be guaranteed that this bill will most certainly raise the ire of the 
Jerry Williams' of the world, as the funding will most likely come from 
increased taxes of some form.  I would hope that this would be offset somewhat 
by the lowering of property taxes, which is the main source of revenue for the 
town and city school departments at present.

A case in point.  In order for Maynard to be at the state average in spending
per student, the school department budget would have to be increased by 
approximately $600,000.  This is a whole lotta money and to even hope that an
override of this amount would be passed, is wasted energy.  But, you can also
look at it this way.  This year we will be losing over $300,000 in funds to 
educate the kids of Maynard in the Acton and A/B school systems.  Next year the
figure will be at least as much or more.  We can either pay the town of Acton
to educate our children or we can chose to spend the money on our kids in our
own town.

This is not to say that money is the cure all for the Maynard Public School
system.  For whatever reasons the image of the Maynard school system has been
tarnished.  Hopefully, between the overhaul strategies mentioned in the bill 
sponsored by Rep. Roosevelt and an influx of funds, we can turn the image of
this school system around.

We have a girls soccer team that could very well win the league title.  We have
a football team that has a good possibility of doing the same.  Unfortunately,
the football team has only 28 players, 15 of which are seniors.  Several of the
underclassmen play a pivotal role in the success of this team.  What are they 
going to do next year when there aren't enough kids to field a team?  Something
has to be done.  Crisis is upon us, and it is time to act.

						Steve

    
    The plan that was spoken of in the article is known by a couple of
    titles. It was put together by the Mass. Business Alliance for
    Education and is titled "Every Child A Winner!". It is also known
    as the Moscovitch Report. Ed Moscovitch, a North Shore economist and
    former Mass. Secretary of Admin & Finance, authored the financial
    reforms. This report is being used as the basis for legislation due
    to be reported out of committee in late November/early December. The
    financial plan includes changes in both property taxes and state aid
    to schools. It sets a basic principal of both a ceiling on revenue
    and a floor on spending. It is not expected that the full foundation
    budget will be acheived in 1 year. Nor is it expected that school
    systems would implement reforms in 1 year either.
    
    

A group of Maynard Citizens for Education has scheduled an open meeting for 
all Maynard parents and interested residents on Wednesday, Oct. 23 at 7 p.m. 
at the Elks Hall on Powder Mill Road.

The meeting will compile a list of concerns and problems with the Maynard 
school system to present to the School Committee.  The input of parents who
have chosen to leave the system is especially welcome.

The product of this meeting will be a detailed, quantified list of the 
problems Maynard's citizens see facing the schools.

For further information call Louise Carroll at 8797-7726 or Anne Pratt 
at 897-6045.

Copied without permission from the Boston Globe, 23-Oct-91


			Weld to Urge Education Overhaul
			 US backs plan for broad change
			  by Muriel Cohen and Scot Lehigh

With the support of US Education Secretary Lamar Alexander, Gov. Weld will
propose a plan tomorrow that state officials said would restructure the
state's education system from top to bottom.

At meetings in Springfield and Worcester, Weld will call for earmarking
state aid to schools, virtually eliminating the tenure system, requiring
all students to pass tests at key points for promotion, and making other
major changes, administration sources said yesterday.

Implementation of many aspects of the proposal, called Massachusetts 2000,
would require legislative approval and adoption in local school districts.
The plan is in line with programs in a number of states that have already
signed on to the voluntary America 2000, a national school reform initiative,
introduced in April by President Bush.

Although details were still sketchy yesterday and officials said the plan
is still being revised, the key points are expected to include:

*Earmarking Chapter 70 state aid for schools.  Currently, the money is 
designated for schools, but some communities are using it for other municipal
purposes.

*Establishing a private education foundation to raise money to support state
and local reform programs.

*Giving parents and teachers the power to decide how school funds are spent 
once they are allocated by school committees.  In addition, it proposes 
shifting other authority from school committees and administrators to teachers.

*Virtually abolishing teacher tenure by eliminating seniority in layoffs and
promotions.  "I think there is going to be radical tenure reform.  The 
standard upon which you build the teaching infrastructure is going to be 
driven more on performance than seniority," said an administration spokesman.

*"Gateway" testing of students to determine if they are qualified to move on
to the next level.  It is not clear at what grades testing would be required.
"They're thinking about competency testing at three different places.  If you
don't pass, you don't move into the next category," said one official.

*Individual education plans for many students.  "It puts a lot of onus on 
parents to work with teachers to develop a plan for their child, but instead
of teachers looking at a class as a class, they will look at students as
individuals with individual student plans," explained the spokesman.

*Applicaion of private sector management techniques to schools.

*Strengthening the link between two-year colleges and vocational education
schools so students do not have to duplicate courses after transferring.

Weld's plan is expected to open a battle for reform with a legislative
commission headed by two Democrats, Sen. Thomas Birmingham of Chelsea and
Rep. Mark Roosevelt of Boston.  The commission expects to produce its own
plan by the end of the year.


	Democrats see funding need

Although they have many goals in common with the governor, Roosevelt and 
Birmingham said Weld's plan is seriously flawed because it does not call for
additional funding.

It "sounds longer on rhetoric than substance," said Birmingham.  "Talk is
cheap, but education is not.  I believe it is dishonest to pretend to have
a world-class or adequate system without fair funding."

"Why don't they go to Holyoke where there is a real crisis," asked Roosevelt,
who said he was offended by the plan to make the announcements at a Springfield
middle school and at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in 
Worcester.

"You can't fund public education with private dollars.  We should look for all
kinds of business partnerships, but what bothers me is that it will be so
fundamentally deceptive," Roosevelt said.

"Our goals are not that differenct, but we are going to come up with real 
solutions to real problems.  We will set standards and give them resources."


	Committee position is key

The committee's position will be key in determining whether some of Weld's 
proposals are implemented.

The proposals apparently have the support of Roseanne Bacon, president of
the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the statewide teachers union.  She
has reportedly agreed to serve as cochairwoman of the Mass2000 commission
and should be heavily involved in any tenure changes.

Bacon, whose union backed John Silber in his gubernatorial race against Weld
last year, could not be reached for comment.

Like Bush, Weld has presented himself as a chief executive with a strong 
interest in education.  But his record to date shows a 19 percent cut in 
state aid for public higher education, the continued downsizing of the state
Department of Education, and a decline in state aid to local education.

State officials said they do not want to draw "micro-outlines" for 
Massachusetts 2000 but, rather, to establish a framework and create op-
portunities.

"Massachusetts 2000 is moving the state toward Bush's national goals.  The
recommendations and the vision will be Weld's view of how we can accomplish
them," said one state official.

The Weld administration has helped gain speedy approval for legislation that
enables parents to choose attractive schools for their children outside their
home districts.  School choice is one of the major planks in Bush's school 
reforms for America 2000.

"The governor's agenda will be consistent with the president's emphasis on
competition and accountability," said Education Secretary Alexander in a 
conference call yesterday with Lt. Gov. Paul Cellucci and state Education
Secretary Piedad Robertson.

"Our system of universities and comnunity colleges is a perfect fit with
Amerca 2000," said Robertson who declined to comment publicly on details of
the program.

Two of the key elements in Bush's blueprint were a private foundation to tap
business and corporations for school funding and granting federal seed money
to encourage the development of model schools in each of the 535 congressional
districts.

	Private funds may be scarce

Relying on private sector for more moey may not be fruitful in these tough
economic times in Massachusetts, said Jack Rennie, president of a Billerica
electronics firm and head of the Mass Business Alliance for Education.  The
Alliance has been working with the Birmingham-Roosevelt commission on proposed
legislation to upgrade schools.

Although companies are showing more interest in the problems of schools, 
Rennie said they may have reached the limit in financial support.

However, he suggested that there are entrepreneurs, such as computer tycoons
Mitch Kapor, found of Lotur, and Kenneth Olsen of Digital Equipment, who might
be tapped for support and involvement.

>>*Earmarking Chapter 70 state aid for schools.  Currently, the money is 
>>designated for schools, but some communities are using it for other municipal
>>purposes.

	This shows Bill Weld's ignorance of suburban politics. Even if 
Chapter 70 money goes directly to schools Town Meetings will simply
reduce budgets by that amount. Another one of Weld's accounting tricks.



>>*Establishing a private education foundation to raise money to support state
>>and local reform programs.

	There are already over 100 private education foundations in the state
of Massachusetts. They won't be able to come close to raising the necessary
funds. This was already tried for the returning Desert Storm Vets and failed
miserably.

>>*Giving parents and teachers the power to decide how school funds are spent 
>>once they are allocated by school committees.  In addition, it proposes 
>>shifting other authority from school committees and administrators to teachers.

	I'ld love to know how he plans to do this without creating anarchy
at the same time. I believe in a strong school based management approach but
that places a Principal in charge with advice from parents and teachers. I
think the MBAE approach is more reasoned.

>>*Virtually abolishing teacher tenure by eliminating seniority in layoffs and
>>promotions.  "I think there is going to be radical tenure reform.  The 
>>standard upon which you build the teaching infrastructure is going to be 
>>driven more on performance than seniority," said an administration spokesman.

	This is going to happen anyway. This is, quite simply, rhetoric. The 
Tenure Law is a greivance process. The other issues (seniority in layoffs, 
etc.) are contractual in nature. Any school committee has the opportunity,
should it be able to negotiate it, to go to a merit based system.

>>*"Gateway" testing of students to determine if they are qualified to move on
>>to the next level.  It is not clear at what grades testing would be required.
>>"They're thinking about competency testing at three different places.  If you
>>don't pass, you don't move into the next category," said one official.

	Outcome oriented goals and performance measurements for students and
educators are already part of the MBAE legislation. Again, more rhetoric. 

>>*Individual education plans for many students.  "It puts a lot of onus on 
>>parents to work with teachers to develop a plan for their child, but instead
>>of teachers looking at a class as a class, they will look at students as
>>individuals with individual student plans," explained the spokesman.

	We can't even handle the administration of IEP's for those kids
who are under 766 now. This simply sounds like Weld wants to extend the 766
regulations to cover all students. I'ld love to see the bill for this one.

>>*Applicaion of private sector management techniques to schools.

	There are lots of places within education that private sector 
techniques can be applied. It's already being done in a lot of districts and
would probably be done in more if businesses were more aggressive with 
offering their services. Agian, this is part of the MBAE plan as well.

>>*Strengthening the link between two-year colleges and vocational education
>>schools so students do not have to duplicate courses after transferring.

	This appears to imply that Bill Weld sees two-year colleges as
an extension of vocational education. I find this very interesting and
wonder what these institutions think of being pegged as "voke schools".


>>Although they have many goals in common with the governor, Roosevelt and 
>>Birmingham said Weld's plan is seriously flawed because it does not call for
>>additional funding.

	BINGO!!	When Weld was approached with the MBAE plan 6 months ago (or
longer) rumor has it that he told them he would not support any plan that 
called for more public money in any form. Weld's libertarian stances 
apparently extend to the constitutional public trust of educating children,
especially since they don't vote. 

>>It "sounds longer on rhetoric than substance," said Birmingham.  "Talk is
>>cheap, but education is not.  I believe it is dishonest to pretend to have
>>a world-class or adequate system without fair funding."

>>"You can't fund public education with private dollars.  We should look for all
>>kinds of business partnerships, but what bothers me is that it will be so
>>fundamentally deceptive," Roosevelt said.

>>"Our goals are not that differenct, but we are going to come up with real 
>>solutions to real problems.  We will set standards and give them resources."

For once it appears that the legislature is the one with the reasoned 
approached. I am offended that Bill Weld would throw out a plan that took 
2 and 1/2 years of research by business leaders and educators to come up 
with and replace with these whimsical musings.

There was an education reform forum held last night at Maynard High, which was 
attended by many concerned citizens and officials from several towns and cities
across the state.  It wouldn't be possible to detail all of the points of
discussion, but I'll try to highlight some of the major areas of interest.

There were two speakers, one being Jack Rennie who is chairman of the Mass.
Business for Education, the other was State Rep. Mark Roosevelt, House Co-chair,
Joint Education Committee.  These gentlemen are two of the key figures behind
the legislation package that, if it passes, would overhaul the public education
system in Massachusetts as we know it today.

* Currently, Massachusetts is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, providers of
funding in the country for public education.  On average, the state supplies
roughly 25% of the cost of educating a child, with the city or town kicking in 
70% and the feds about 5%.  These numbers are not uniform statewide, but this
is an approximate average.  The new legislation would require the state to 
provide 90% and the city or town 10%.  Of course, we have a governor and
president who's "pie in the sky" idea of funding would come from business only,
which is a not too funny joke.  So, even if this bill were to pass through the
House and Senate, we'd have a governor who would have to be convinced.

It is extremely rare to hear both business and government trumpeting the need
to increase funding (which may mean increased taxes) that would be earmarked
for education.  It is their estimate that in order to implement the plan, $900
million would be required.  The plan would be phased in over a 5 year period.
If the governor (or legislature) does not agree with this funding plan, the 
Mass. Business Alliance will walk away from any further discussion.  They mean
business.  Their extremely optimistic (my opinion) hope is that the bill will
be passed in December of 91.

* They would like to see the quality of teachers increase.  They are not 
necessarily knocking those teachers that are currently in the system, but
the belief is that they should be evaluated on a merit based system.  Teachers
would be provided time for on the job training, just as we in the private sector
are.  In addition, 1/3 of the staff each year would be eligible for 1 month of
training in professional growth.  The tenure system would also be restructured.

* The plan would call for a longer school year.  We cannot expect to compete
in a global marketplace when our kids go to school 180 days a year compared to
220 and up in other industrialized nations.  1% of our students take Calculus
at the high school level compared to 50% in these other countries.  How can we
expect our kids to grade anywhere near the top when they aren't competing on an
even playing field?  It's no wonder we fare so poorly in the areas of math and
science in worldwide comparisons.

* Pre-school for kids at the 3-4 year age level.  Get to them early.  This would
not be compulsory but recommended.  There are presently 150 thousand 3 & 4 year
olds in the state.  This could also be done via a parental outreach program,
with the parents being the teachers.

I've heard Mark Roosevelt speak many times on radio talk shows and let me just
say that I wish dearly that it was he who was representing our district.  The
man is inspiring and honest (at least on the surface).  He devotes a tremendous
amount of time and energy on the issues.  If any of you have the opportunity to
talk or listen to him, it is time well spent.

He talked of horror stories at four school districts which were brought on due
to budget cuts.  The city of Lawrence had to layoff the maintenance staff at
the high school.  The school is now infested with rats.  The children of Gardner
have to bring their own toilet paper to school.  Holyoke has an average of 40-50
kids in each class, and the little town of Wales near the Conn. border has class
sizes of 57 students in grades 1 & 2, 54 students in grades 4 & 5, and 70
students in grades 6 and 7.  This last school system hasn't any maintenance
staff, no school nurse, 2 teachers in addition to the principal who teaches 
as well.  There is no secretarial staff whatsoever.  Personally, I find these
circumstances revolting.

					Steve
    

> * The plan would call for a longer school year.  We cannot expect to compete
> in a global marketplace when our kids go to school 180 days a year compared to
> 220 and up in other industrialized nations.  1% of our students take Calculus
> at the high school level compared to 50% in these other countries.  How can we
> expect our kids to grade anywhere near the top when they aren't competing on an
> even playing field?  It's no wonder we fare so poorly in the areas of math and
> science in worldwide comparisons.

John Silva did an editorial on WBZ radio last week concerning this.  He argued
that while other countries are performing better on standardized tests, 
performance doesn't relate to number of days in the school year.  The examples
he sited were that while Japan attends 220 days and performs quite well on 
these standardize test, so does Hong Kong and they have a school year the same
length as ours.  Sweden also does very well on these test and they only attend
five more days than us.

He argued that people should look very cynically at plans that involve 
lengthening the school year primarily because of the cost of the program.  He
feels that more fundamental changes in educational system should be performed 
and will have a much bigger impact than lengthening the school year.

Re: -1

Is it John Silber you're referring to?  Those are two countries that are doing
well on standardized testing that have roughly the same amount of school days
per year.  I'd be interested in knowing how many hours they attend school each
day and also what age it is they begin.

					Steve

    
    The United States has the shortest school year in the free world. Hong
    Kong's school year is actually 200 days and Japan's is 243 (the
    longest). The average in Europe is 220. If we scored close to some of
    these countries the cynics might sway me but we can't even outscore
    Thailand. We finished 14 and 15 respectively in a late 80's study of
    Math and Science scores in 15 countries. 
    
    See Atlantic - November 1990.
    
    
    Also, I have a copy of the MBAE plan. While the Education Committee's
    legislation won't look exactly like it it will be pretty close. DEC
    is a member and participant in MBAE. 
    
    
     

    Can you explain then why the older generation (I being one of them) did
    good in school got good SAT scores went on to college. What changed.
    I claim the problem in unions,teachers who don't care, lack of parents
    envolvement with there childern education. 
    
    
    
    art

    I agree with response .10 concerning the length of the school year.  I
    would rather see 180 days of quality education than 220 days of extra
    babysitting.  Quality education starts with the parents at home and
    does not end when school is out for the day or the year.  

    
    Lester Thurow, noted economist and MIT professor wrote in 1985,
    
    "The standard American response to proposals for a longer school year is
    to argue that Americans should learn to more efficiently use the
    current 180 days before they worry about adding more days. Such a
    response is to get the whole problem backwards. Instead of starting
    with what is easy to do - work longer and harder - Americans start with
    what is very difficult to do - work smarter. The argument is also a
    form of implicit American arrogance. Americans think that they can
    learn in 180 days what the rest of the world takes 220 to 240 days
    to learn. It also forgets that the rest of the world is trying to use
    its 220 to 240 days more efficiently."
    
    	While there are many thoughts on how to extend school time most 
    adults agree that our kids need more school time. There is a bill
    before the legislature that would extend the Massachusetts school year
    from 180 to 220 days. The MBAE proposal asks the legislature to
    consider a 20% increase in school time. If you wish to see a well
    thought out factual discussion of this issue I urge you to find the
    November 1990 issue of THE ATLANTIC magazine. ( I do have a few copies
    of the article but I can't guarantee that it'll get in the mail in
    a timely fashion).
     

    
    Certainly motivation, both of parents and of students, has alot to do
    with it. Parental involvement is clearly key. However, one must also 
    understand that the body of knowledge as grown tremendously since the
    early 50's. I don't have the exact figures in front of me but from
    knowledged has doubled at an ever increasing rate to the point where
    it is expected that knowledge will double annually from 1995-2000. 
    Foreign countries in the 1960's all had shorter school years than the US. 
    In the early 1960's Massachusetts and a number of other states moved from 
    a 160 day to a 180 day school year. Since then almost all other
    countries have extended their school year beyond 200 days. 200 days
    would be a snap for even the Northeast school systems. Elimination of
    February and April vacations would add 10 days and adding a week to
    either end of the school year would deal with the other 10 days. That
    would still leave the hottest part of the summer (and a vacation of
    8-10 weeks) off. Even going to 220 days could leave kids with up to
    6 weeks off in the summer depending on how it was scheduled.
    
    

As Mike pointed out in his last reply, it isn't so much that kids aren't 
learning as much, or more, than those of us from prior generations did, it's
the fact that other countries are extending the gap between the knowledge
gained in comparison to the U.S., at whatever level you choose to pick.

As I noted in a previous reply, approximately 1% of our students are exposed
to Calculus by the end of high school, compared to 50% in the countries
that are progressively blowing our doors off.  This is only one example.

Viewed from another perspective, one can also see a lack of discipline at the
parental level.  This is evident not only in school, but also in general 
living environments.  From the lack of respecting their elders, to the lack 
of discipline and many other areas of life, too many kids do not have the 
drive that is necessary to succeed as good members of society.  Obviously, not 
every kid is going to be a Nobel Prize winner, but these are values that 
should be taught to every child by parents from day one.  Unfortunately, too 
many parents refuse to believe that "my Johnny or Suzie would do such a thing."

Twenty years ago students wouldn't think of talking back to a teacher, whereas
today, it isn't at all uncommon.

More parents have to become more involved, not just the few that are keeping
the systems hanging by the strings that are about to snap.

					Steve

    I meant to add this to my last note.  Rep. Mark Roosevelt will be on
    the Peter Meade show tonight on WBZ (1030 AM).  The show usually starts
    around 6:05.
    
    					Steve

After listening to last night's shows on WBZ it doesn't seem apparent that there
are sufficient monies in the general fund to provide the dollars necessary to
implement the education reform package proposed by Rep. Roosevelt and Sen.
Birmingham, as Gov. Weld would like us to believe.  But, on to other things...

I got a chance to speak to Rep. Roosevelt last night on the Peter Meade show.  
Although being a bit flustered, I was able to ask a couple of questions, the 
first being the status of a lawsuit against the state of Mass., calling for
proper funding levels in each of the cities and towns throughout the state.
His feelings were that should the proposed educational bill fail to pass, the
state's public educational system would then be in the hands of the court should
the lawsuit win (which everyone seems to think will be the case).  The legis-
lature would then have to once again attempt to pass a bill, or public education
would go into receivership of the courts, which is a scary thought.

I then asked him how the proposed bill would affect the school choice law, and
his answer was pretty much as I expected.  As we know, the law is reflective of
a free enterprise system.  He clearly understood the effects of the current law
on systems that are losing students, but with funding obtained on a more 
equitable basis, the cities and towns losing these students wouldn't be hurt
nearly as badly financially.  In this regard, it is my opinion, we as a town
have to demand more from our system in order to bring it to a higher level.
Mediocre isn't good enough.  We also have to make known the positive aspects
of our school system.  There have been a lot of upbeat articles in the Beacon,
but not everyone reads the Beacon.

My last question to him was along the lines of lengthening the school year and/
or school day.  He said they haven't made public any details in this area.

John Silber then hosted a show with Sen. Birmingham (who co-authored the bill).
One of the first questions asked by a caller was in regard to lengthening the
school year.  Sen. Birmingham was in favor of doing so, while John Silber was
against it.  The point Silber made was that he felt we would be trying to teach
students the same things in 220 days as we do now in 180 days.  Sen. Birmingham
pointed out that by the time Japanese students finish their 12 years of public
education, in reality they've attended school 3 years longer than students here 
in the U.S., because of their longer school year.

Several teachers called in to the show and from the small sample size of the
callers it seemed apparent that this bill, as currently stated, will be facing
a battle from the MTA.

Another point of concern was in regard to the percentage of students in the 
state that receive special education.  If I'm not mistaken the percentage in
Mass. is 17%, as compared to the national average of somewhere around 8%.  There
is obviously a problem here.

					Steve

    
    Weld and Peter Nessen appear to think that they can hoodwink the state
    into believing that the "earmarking" of local aid for education means
    an increase in funding for schools. Those of us who know how public
    finance works know better. Town meeting doesn't set its budget based
    on local revenue only. It takes the whole revenue stream and divides
    it up. All this would do is reduce the dollar amount allocated to
    to the school budgets. 
    
    There will be a hefty battle in the next 8-10 weeks on Beacon Hill.
    It wouldn't surprize me to see the MTA and the MFT actually backing
    the legislature against the Governor's position. They'll be okay
    with the tenure repeal once they understand the protections that 
    will be put in place. They know that they'll be without contracts
    and without members if there isn't a funding change. They also know
    that they have a better position with the lawmakers than with the
    judges.
    
    

[This is from a letter from the Granby, MA parent/teacher organization to
 parent groups in other Massachusetts school systems...]

We are asking parents' groups (and concerned citizens) to join with us in
a march to Boston on December 16th, 1991 -- the 218th anniversary of the
Boston Tea Party.   We are fed up with the inaction of our legislators and
are prepared to let them know that we stand together in demanding quality
education for our children.

[....]


The rally takes place on the steps of the Statehouse from 12 noon to 2 PM.
There will be speakers during the first hour, the second hour will be used
to meet with legislators.


-- Maynard responds to the call --


Maynard bus will leave St. Bridget's parking lot (on the corner of
Percival St and Rt 117) at 10AM.  Cost is $5/person.   Signs and teabags
will be supplied for you.   To sign up for the bus, call Karen Derby
(897-1859), Betsy Griffin (897-4275), or Cindy Parker (897-3437).
[You don't need to be from Maynard to use the Maynard bus, but PLEASE
 contact one of the above people to assure that you have a seat reserved.]
The bus is expected to return around 3 PM.


- dave

    Just another quick note...  Contrary to the Minuteman Chronicle article
    in last weekend's edition, people are not attending "dressed up as
    teabags" - nor is it an evening affair.   This is serious business for
    many folks, and not a two-bit attempt that such phrasing would imply.
    
    - dave

    
    Yeah, and if you really plan to use those teabags you'll confuse the
    hell out of those legislators. Teabags mean no more taxes to just
    about all of them. 
    
    For anyone who is going to this "rally", be sure you have your message
    concise and detailed. Be able to offer concrete examples and ideas. 
    And don't just go to see your rep.