Yearly Update on New Village Leadership Academy - derail

Not quite sure what her problem is. It's obvious to everyone else that they are. Kinda a silly thing to break up over a well known secret.

You're the one making the case that the school used study tech from 2010 forward. Where's your proof? Or do you think it's cool to blatantly lie about shit to get people to hate on other people?

This isn't a court of law and using Study Tech is not a criminal offence.

Here is the evidence:

- Study Tech was definitely in use at the school at one stage and it appears that promoting Study Tech was one of the purposes of the school in the first place.

- The school's tax filings don't show any definite payments to ABLE / Applied Scholastics but there are unexplained amounts big enough to cover such payments. This is true for all available findings and there is no obvious difference between pre- and post-2010 filings (like a large decrease in unidentified expenses).

- Scientology-related businesses, such as WISE companies, seem to claim on a regular basis that they are no longer Scientology-related even when the evidence suggests otherwise

Therefore it is reasonable assume without actual evidence that the school was using Study Tech until the end.

TLR version: DOX or GTFO.

I've posted quotes and links where the owner of the school flat out denied she was a scientologist (which I have no knowledge of if she is or isn't) and where she said the school is not a scn school. That is a STATEMENT in print from the owner of the school. If there were not true, don't you think someone would have come forward to prover her wrong? Perhaps a lawsuit to the contrary?

I have firsthand knowledge of the school from 2010 forward. I know what went on there and who worked there. If the school used any sort of study tech, I would have know.
^^This is not based on the internet and "presumed" stories. This is fact

It would appear that study tech WAS used at one point (to what degree, we don't know).

The school's tax fillings that you make reference to are for 1 year (I believe 2009) only.

I understand that scn related business lie. That is not the case here. They were not affiliated with applied schoolastics nor wise.

To "assume" without fact is defamation.

? so? how do you know?
just saying you know = zip
And again WHY are you fighting this with such vigor? Still haven't said why except "you want to set the record straight".
Why do you want to set the record straight, what does it matter?
All these dancing around answers are very telling.

I haven't posted in that thread for days, but yet as soon as I post something Wham! there you are!
PROVE IT

Sorry if I missed it, but what dog do you have in this fight? School's closed. We think study tech was in play, you don't -- "after 2010." Why so strident? Water under... err... the bridge, right? (Sorry for that last.)

The burden of proof lies on you, slappy.
I've thrown down the challenge, now scour the web for your proof. And none of this "because HE said so" crap. If I can't say so (because I was there and know for a fact), then you can pull some writer's "assumptions" as proof.

I guess you would say DOX or STFU, right?

I read awhile back of a former parent claiming (s)he was going to file a lawsuit because of the misinformation being propagated on WWP. I would hate for some unfortunate soul to fall victim to that.

Plus, it was a brilliant school that, I believe, shut down because it couldn't get away from its previous scn ties and the stupid and false shit being spread by places like this.

Their 990 for 2010 is buggered. It was supposed to show a breakdown of various costs, but doesn't (2011 does).

There aren't any obvious payments to ABLE, but there are some high consulting fees that aren't broken down.

How do you know they weren't using the Study Tech? Do you have any idea what the Study Tech consists of? Just because they don't CALL it the study tech and pledge allegiance to LRH in the morning does not mean they aren't using the methods, doofus.

And assuming without fact is not defamation. You need to word clear defamation.

No, using the study tech is not a criminal offense. So, why are you so offended by the assertion that it was used til the end? Whatsup with THAT?

lol this is a riot!
trying scare tactics now?
everything that was posted was on taken from the net. So that "former (made up) parent" you sepak of would have to sue an awful lot of different media outlets, including ABC News.
Not a lawyer in their right mind would take a case about was reported on the net all over the place about a now closed school.
I am still laughing about that post

slappy?
challenge?
None of this "he said so" crap? Yet YOU are the one who is saying it wasn't taught because YOU said so.
lol
Prove that study tech was not taught after 2010 besides you quoting someone who worked there who also took scientology courses.
You talk an awful lot like a scilon. Always attack, never defend.
And if you're not. Then you are one hell of a big shill to be sticking up for a such an insidious, crime ridden cult for reasons you have yet to explain here.

and you believe it "it was a brilliant school".
Is that why students tested way below the normal school requirements once they got out and they were way behind?

and I am done arguing with a NVLA troll.
When you come up with some solid proof and tell why you are so interested in "setting the record straight" and why you are so up in arms about a closed school, maybe we can have a normal conversation. I am willing to look at any proof you have besides the "because I said so " and one quote by a former scilon who worked there. ok? SLAPPY?

I remember a big consulting firm (non-scn) coming in to see what they could do help with fundraising. Unfortunately, I don't they produced squat.

Wtf? I know exactly what study tech is. And I'm pretty sure the NON-SCIENTOLOGIST teachers would have known they were being asked to delivering any form of study tech as it's not a normal practice.

Do you think lying about the school using study tech or being a scn front group is defamation? Because those "assumptions" have been made here. Btw, if you'd like to throw around insults, I'm down, you asshat.

huh huh huh huh you said "asshat" huh huh huh huh

And..... the question remains.... why is the idea that they still used Study Tech post 2010 so offensive to you? If it is as offensive to you as it it to most of us, then we seem to be in violent agreement. STUDY TECH IS A BIG BUCKET OF FAIL. It looks like we have a point we can agree upon.

You have not included the word think in the appropriate place in you're post.
Not surprised, the word think is not in the sci lexicon.

Dude, now you're just talking sideways out of your ass.
What fucking parent did I say was going to sue some news outlets? I was talking about a "parent" that came here and was surprised (and felt lied to) because WWP had the school pinned as an scn front group.
As far as me proving the school didn't use study tech....I was there, I know what and how they taught. No study tech at all. That's not to say they didn't use some form of it previous to 2010, but I wouldn't be able legitimately talk about that because I wasn't involved with the school then. Now, if you, someone's whose total source of information on the subject comes from the web, can prove anything different, I'd like to see how. It's like someone who has never tasted vanilla before trying to tell someone who has exactly how it tastes.
I would like to see this proof that NVLA students tested lower than normal. My child is in one of the top public middle schools in the district, and is getting straight A's.
You must be running out of debate points....you're accusing me of being a troll and an osa goon now. Is it stat day again? Straighten out your tinfoil hat and try again.

ThatsFunny, you appear to be smart and articulate.
I actually am familiar with that area and the school when it was Public school, prior to the lease agreement that NVA took on with them. I think the school was targeting the kids of wealthy folks in the area, and it misrepresented specifics of the curricula to parents. That is unfortunate. It may have had a creative, and alternative view as regards values in education, but it was not especially an academic school. I know kids who graduated Delphi Academies who could not get into college, after.

Waldorf schools have been criticized just the same, but they appear to be a little bit more honest about their teaching methods, the mentor and actual originator of those educational materials, and don't put impressionable children in an environment where they may later be pressured to sign a billion year contract of servitude in the sea org after their disconnect from their very own parents when they disagree with that life choice.

TL;DR, I am glad that that school closed.
I hope something better replaces it.
Public schools are far better.

Multiple tax years have been cited in this thread so your statement that this is only about 2009 is inaccurate. The large consultancy fees mentioned were there both before and after 2010.

And yes, a school that licenses Study Tech is inherently affiliated with Applied Scholastics, which shares a parent company with WISE.

You don't understand how defamation works.

And you act as if your "first hand" experience is a trump card even though you have not provided evidence to back it up.

I could claim to be Will Smith and provide "inside information" but since no one on the Internet knows you're a dog it's meaningless in and of itself.

I think the vehemence of your protestations are because you liked the school and don't want to admit that you sent your kid to a clam school. Otherwise, you're Will or Jada.

Look, it's okay that you liked the school. Lots of people get duped.

I don't know how old your kid is but trust me, your kid is better off ANYWHERE else but a clam school. Keep reading. Read elsewhere. Read up on study tech. You'll understand.

If you love your kid, acknowledge you dodged a bullet by having to get the nipper into some place that could actually help with his/her/your goal of higher education. You/he/she WILL NOT ACHIEVE THAT WITH STUDY TECH.

I'm going to say it again: The school is closed. Get your kid a real education and put this debacle behind you.

And if your "concern" is that someone is going to sue, well, for fucks sake. They're not suing you, are they? Be grateful. Meantime, your firsthand knowledge doesn't mean shit, in the grand scheme of things.

There is one possibility that some parents that came in from 2010 wants to sue the school and Will. That's why you hear 2010 so much.

Only scilons cannot let go of the thread, because if they don't bring up the stat, they aren't allowed to sleep.

Do you even know what is study tech, Funny? If you play with play doe like mentally challenged children' way of using them, you are receiving study tech. If you have language lessons, when the kids look up the dictionary all by themselves until they understand the book, that's study tech.

It's a high crime for a principle, a scientologists, not to apply LRH tech. You have ethics officer right? Children report each others "crimes", right?

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/will-smith-sacks-scientology-teacher-20090807-ec1k.html
So... They fire Jacqueline Olivier in 2009 because she won't toe the Study Tech line.

And yet, by 2010, the Study Tech is alllll gone?

Either you have a credibility problem there, or the Smiths are whack-jobs that turn like weather-vanes.

Why were they moved? They were not a derail.

Children, children! Your bickering has caused me to come out of semi-retirement and comment. That's funny is a 15 year old boy. Or at least he has the mentality of one. He/she is not a parent. He has a hidden agenda and is not interested in anything we have to say. I consider it a personal victory that the school closed down, and it is a victory for the educational community.

Hi churchlady, did you post this in the derail thread?

Children, children! Your bickering has caused me to come out of semi-retirement and comment. That's funny is a 15 year old boy. Or at least he has the mentality of one. He/she is not a parent. He has a hidden agenda and is not interested in anything we have to say. I consider it a personal victory that the school closed down, and it is a victory for the educational community.

churchlady, 11 minutes ago

Brilliant response. Simply brilliant.

And..... the question remains.... why is the idea that they still used Study Tech post 2010 so offensive to you? If it is as offensive to you as it it to most of us, then we seem to be in violent agreement. STUDY TECH IS A BIG BUCKET OF FAIL. It looks like we have a point we can agree upon.

It's being propagated here that NVLA used study tech and was a scn front group. (I've said this now half a dozen times, but regardless). It did not use study tech past 2010. How do I know? Because I had a child who went there.
As far as study tech being a big bag of fail. I don't have anything to support that. I know lots of brilliant educated people who have used study tech. I know study tech myself, and I think it puts far too much significance on the words and alllllllll the definitions which can sidetrack you from the subject. As far as looking up a word you don't understand. That's common sense. As far as demoing out an idea. Again, common sense IF NEEDED. Clay demos. No clue why you can't just use a demo kit. And so on. I know study tech goes way beyond these few items mentioned, but I'm not going to get into M9'ing and all that other stuff as it's not relevant to NVLA.

I actually am familiar with that area and the school when it was Public school, prior to the lease agreement that NVA took on with them. I think the school was targeting the kids of wealthy folks in the area, and it misrepresented specifics of the curricula to parents. That is unfortunate. It may have had a creative, and alternative view as regards values in education, but it was not especially an academic school. I know kids who graduated Delphi Academies who could not get into college, after.

Waldorf schools have been criticized just the same, but they appear to be a little bit more honest about their teaching methods, the mentor and actual originator of those educational materials, and don't put impressionable children in an environment where they may later be pressured to sign a billion year contract of servitude in the sea org after their disconnect from their very own parents when they disagree with that life choice.

The school targeted kids/families that wanted a solid, well rounded education. The Smiths live in that area and it's close to where the school started (Hidden Hills). Most of the kids that went there came from other school districts.

It did NOT hide any specifics of it's curriculum. The parents were very much involved in the school and all of it's actives. There were parent groups, and weekly gatherings. Every Friday morning parents, teachers, and students all got together for Harambee. That's were kids, teachers and parents can share what they're working on, happy about, news of the day, or whatever was on their mind. For the most part, it was very upbeat and inspirational.

NVLA got kids from other "prestigious" schools (coughViewpointcough) in the area that were behind in their grade. So, like you said, that can happen at any school.

I also know people from high school (public) that couldn't get into college. They had to go to a city college and move up from there. However, I've also heard that 80% of the students now graduating from Delphi Oregon go on to college (you'll have to do your own research on that though).

I THINK there was only 1 scn family that went to school there when it closed. And I've NEVER heard of any child from NVLA being recruited into the sea org.

BTW, Muse leased that location.

Multiple tax years have been cited in this thread so your statement that this is only about 2009 is inaccurate. The large consultancy fees mentioned were there both before and after 2010.

And yes, a school that licenses Study Tech is inherently affiliated with Applied Scholastics, which shares a parent company with WISE.

You don't understand how defamation works.

And you act as if your "first hand" experience is a trump card even though you have not provided evidence to back it up.

I could claim to be Will Smith and provide "inside information" but since no one on the Internet knows you're a dog it's meaningless in and of itself.

There was one tax year where the Smith donated money to scn. To which organization? No one knows. It didn't state "applied schoolastics" or "wise" or "Ias" or whatever.

There was another year of taxes that claimed "consultation". That was what I explained earlier when I said " I remember a consulting group helping with the school". So, my statement stands.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation

What's sad, is if I were an inside spy and feed you supposed inside info on a scn group, you'd be lapping up my "firsthand" info with a spoon and begging for MOAR. So typically hypocritical of someone who is just looking to hate.

I think the vehemence of your protestations are because you liked the school and don't want to admit that you sent your kid to a clam school. Otherwise, you're Will or Jada.

The school was a GREAT school. It challenged and broadened my child's education more than any other school has so far. All of the kids worked on Mac books. They had performances of understanding which displayed their total understanding of their subjects and not just the memorization of them.

It was not a "clam" school, and no one got "duped". Sorry to disappoint you.

There is one possibility that some parents that came in from 2010 wants to sue the school and Will. That's why you hear 2010 so much.

That's one of the reasons why I tried to set the record straight here. I felt bad for that other parent falling for all of the false information propagated here on WWP. I guess if they want to sue, then it's on them from not doing their own due diligence.

Only scilons cannot let go of the thread, because if they don't bring up the stat, they aren't allowed to sleep.

Do you even know what is study tech, Funny? If you play with play doe like mentally challenged children' way of using them, you are receiving study tech. If you have language lessons, when the kids look up the dictionary all by themselves until they understand the book, that's study tech.

It's a high crime for a principle, a scientologists, not to apply LRH tech. You have ethics officer right? Children report each others "crimes", right?

I'm not arguing with myself here, brainiac. It would seem you can't let it go either - otherwise, why comment?

And while we're at it, why don't you astonish me with your profound understanding of study tech and it's deliberate destruction of the human mind. Be sure to explain the "play-doh / mentally challenged" connection too because I'm sure the engineers who design cars out of clay would love to hear this.

You're actually helping to make my point with the "high crime" and "ethics officers" statement. If the head of school was a scner (as stated here because she did a course back in 2005), wouldn't she have to use study tech? Wouldn't the non-scn teacher have known they were delivering study tech? Why haven't they spoken out? Why weren't there ethics officers at the school? Or e-meters for word clearing? Surely someone somewhere would have seen these things.

So... They fire Jacqueline Olivier in 2009 because she won't toe the Study Tech line.

And yet, by 2010, the Study Tech is alllll gone?

Either you have a credibility problem there, or the Smiths are whack-jobs that turn like weather-vanes.

That's the assumption...all though, JPS is quoted as saying "they decided to go in another direction". Perhaps that meant they were moving on from study tech and Oliver wasn't a good fit? Regardless, if there was any study tech being used, it ceased when the new head of school took over.

Children, children! Your bickering has caused me to come out of semi-retirement and comment. That's funny is a 15 year old boy. Or at least he has the mentality of one. He/she is not a parent. He has a hidden agenda and is not interested in anything we have to say. I consider it a personal victory that the school closed down, and it is a victory for the educational community.

Churchlady sounds like a spinster all hopped up on geritol and percocet. How many cats do you own? Bhonestk?

My reason for sticking up for the school is because it was a good school. It was on it's way to becoming self-sufficient. There were many wealthy families whose kids went there and were willing to help finance it. However, the owners decided to pull the plug for their own reasons. Whether they were/are getting divorced and needed it gone, or whether they were tired of the stupid scn connection, who knows. Personally, I would hate to think it was because of the scn connection because that would mean it closed on a lie. A lie perpetuated here. So, if you keep asking why I vehemently defend it, now you know.

http://studytech.org
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/03/18513230.php

Do better by your child.

Self-justification? Delusion? Ok. That's quite clear. Understood.

Pay attention, the thread wasn't about whether study tech works or not.

You....got it.

You do know that Oliver has spoken up about the Study Tech, that she felt pressured to use it? Knowing that her replacement actually had taken scientology courses makes it very hard to escape the conclusion that Study Tech was used more after Oliver left. Unless you have any independent sources to back up your claim, it is very hard to believe you know what you are talking about.

This is or would be a model Scientologist, or a Sea Orger if you are broke. Expect calls.

Sure you don't know what actually is study tech. So you claim that no study tech was used.
Narconon claimed to have a success rate from 70% to 90%, but killed 3 people in 9 months on site.

ah! finally the truth comes out. Your kid went there. I see.
Well.
"Hubbard wrote in a Scientology policy letter in 1972 that "Study Tech is our primary bridge to Society."

PLEASE READ and PLEASE get your kid OUT of using study tech.
I only listed SOME of what can be found at the link all the way at the bottom.
Educate yourself.
Please know I am here to help people get away from Scientology.
That is my main objective, and Study Tech (Applied Scholastics) is one of the first steps in dissemination and indoctrination. If you thought that your child or yourself and your family would not be introduced to Scientology reading materials down the line (which is well hidden within the reading materials) then you are mistaken. They have ONE goal, and that is to eventually get people on course.
To not do so, would be out ethics. To not follow the tech would be out ethics.
Schools just can't use "some" of the study tech. It is copyrighted and must be paid for.
To not follow it to the "t" would be called "squirreling the tech". And that is simply NOT allowed.

Wikipedia:
"Study Technology, or Study Tech, is a teaching method developed by L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology.[1] Study Technology is used by Scientologists as part of their training, and is also promoted outside the church by an affiliated corporation known as Applied Scholastics, which presents Study Technology as a secular, universally applicable method to enhance the comprehension of any student, studying any topic. However, the method has many critics, including former teachers, claiming that the technology and associated schools are intrinsically linked with religious aspects of Scientology."

Copyright (c) 2000 by David S. Touretzky
"Another strange Scientology practice associated with "misunderstoods" is the treatment of yawning. Since misunderstoods are supposed to make one feel tired, anyone caught yawning in a Scientology courseroom is thought to have overlooked a misundersood word and thus be in dire danger of failing in their studies. They are ordered to go back over what they were reading until they find the misunderstood word and review its definition in the dictionary (Wakefield, 1991, ch. 4). This treatment for yawning is also mentioned in the Basic Study Manual (p. 154) and Learning How to Learn (p. 136), both of which include pictures of a yawning boy. Beverly Rice, who once taught at a school run by Applied Scholastics, reported that her students learned to "... NEVER yawn if you were tired. A yawn would bring the supervisor running and meant having to go backwards on your course in the great MU hunt" (message posted to the alt.religion.scientology newgroup on August 17, 1997.)
Yawning may simply mean that a student needs to take a break. And there are many other factors besides misunderstood words that can cause lack of comprehension. The material itself could have problems. Bad grammar, faulty logic, disorganized exposition, and obviously false factual statements are examples. Why place all the emphasis on just one possible source of confusion?"


"The three principles of study tech, including the peculiar terms and physical symptoms that Hubbard associated with violations of them, are laid out in HCO Bulletin of 25 June 1971 (revised 25 November 1974), "Barriers to Study". The HCO, or Hubbard Communications Office, is a division of the Church of Scientology, and HCO bulletins, printed in red ink on white paper, are published by the Church in a series of hardcover books known as the "red volumes", or "tech volumes". In fact, the tech volumes are one of the major components of what Scientology considers its sacred scripture. The HCO bulletins on study technology are also reprinted in various Scientology course packs, such as The Student Hat, that are sold as part of the cult's entry-level "religious services" (courses offered for a fee). A disclaimer at the front of each tech volume and each course pack, including those containing the Study Tech bulletins, states: "This book is part of the religious literature and works of the Scientology Founder, L. Ron Hubbard."


"The clay table is a more elaborate model-making practice, unique to Scientology. Once again, the instructions for this activity come directly from Scientology scripture, such as HCO Bulletin 11 October 1967, "Clay Table Training". Students construct a "clay demo" of a concept by modeling its components in clay and assigning a paper label to each....... much more


WHAT EXPERTS SAY ABOUT STUDY TECH

During the controversy in California, reporter Sara Catania
interviewed several educators about the Study Tech books for an
article that appeared in LA Weekly on November 12, 1997. The result:

Johanna Lemlech, a professor of education at USC specializing in
curriculum and teaching, calls the books "awful." They "violate
everything we know about how children learn, and appropriate
pedagogy," she says. "In short, these books should be carefully placed
in the cylindrical file." (Catania, 1997)


Ms. Catania also interviewed members of the Los Angeles school board,
about which she wote:

One member of the Los Angeles school board is unimpressed. A former
high school history teacher, David Touretzky
calls the books "remedial"
and says they would be of little use to any but the lowest-performing
students. "If you walked into an eighth-grade class and tried to use
these books on kids who are at the proper level, you'd kill them,"
says Touretzky, who coached the Marshall High School Academic Decathlon
team to a national championship in 1987. "They're not even good comic
books."

Study Tech has been around for several decades, but today, only
Scientologists recommended it for use in public classrooms. Its
proponents claim miraculous results, yet no independent evaluation of
its effectiveness has ever been done.

The core ideas may be plain common sense and familiar to any trained teacher, but "mass",
"gradient", and "misunderstoods" are part of a religious vocabulary
closely tied to Scientology beliefs. Indoctrinating students into
Study Tech's unconventional language and world view, with its implied
acceptance of L. Ron Hubbard as authority figure, would do much to
soften them up for future recruitment into Scientology itself. That
is the real goal of Applied Scholastics.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/StudyTech/

Oh noes! You're all missing the point. ThatsFunny says no study tech after 2010. And so we're all dopes for not getting all kumbaya about NVLA after 2010. Because we're supposed to believe the clams when they say something - like "oh, hey, look over there! No study tech anymore!" Tell you what, if ThatsFunny isn't a clam, he/she should be. The relentlessness is impressive.

The barn door is closed, dude...miss...ma'am. Maybe, err, move on? Or not. Whatever. Stick around. Hell, join the party. Help us take down the cult.

Nice...I like the way you say "courses" when it was just ONE course, but I can see where claiming more would help your cause that the school used study tech and was a scn front group.

No clue what you're trying to say. Is English your first language?
I do know what study tech is.
What does Narconon have to do with NVLA?