Letters to the Editors

Parents provide accountability in private schools

Re: Voucher schools' unaccountability, by Barbara Miner, Feb. 25.

Miner's logic in this article is flawed. These schools are accountable to the parents who choose to send their children to them. The government's involvement in education over the years may have had both positive and negative effects, but the mere existence of a private school industry proves that these schools are doing something right. Otherwise, parents would not choose to pay the tuition when their children could receive a "free" education.

No, she is not concerned about accountability. She is concerned with keeping the status quo with regard to public schools -- oh, except we should give them more money. This approach may be popular with the teacher unions, but it no longer fools society at large as it once did, and that is why voucher programs are rapidly increasing in acceptance and popularity.
-- Tom Mulligan, St. Petersburg

A child's education is what matters

Re: Voucher schools' unaccountability.

It is a cockeyed view that sees a tentative effort to end an education monopoly held by failing school systems as a potential accountability problem.

In reality, a choice of schools ultimately makes an educational institution very accountable because parents could finally take effective action if the school doesn't do its job. Specifically, the parents would respond by enrolling their children in another school. Citizens should not be misled. The opponents of vouchers (primarily teacher unions and aligned politicians) are not up in arms because they fear the quality of education might suffer. If they were that concerned, many school systems wouldn't be in the shape they are in. Instead, they care almost exclusively about remaining in power.

In this column, look where author Barbara Miner sees problems with school choice:

Uncertified teachers.

No statewide tests.

Undocumented test scores, drop-out rates or attendance figures.

Schools are not necessarily accredited.

They might not comply with EEOC guidelines.

These are the things that matter to the education establishment, but they all come under the heading of bureaucratic control. Note that whether a school provides a child with a quality education is not mentioned because so-called unaccountable private schools are more likely to succeed there than the red-tape-compliant public school systems.

If a child receives a good education at an unaccredited school with uncertified teachers run by a fundamentalist religious organization, what's the problem? At least the parents' values are being reaffirmed and the child is learning the "three Rs."

The bottom line for a school must be whether it gives a child the knowledge needed to be successful. Nothing else is relevant in this debate.
-- Jim Carroll, Largo

Put efforts into public schools

Re: Voucher schools' unaccountability.

Great column! I am a 71-year-old retired engineer and grandfather. I am also a school volunteer and understand the importance of a proper education for our children. I wish that our governor, Jeb Bush, had the wisdom and guts to reverse his belief in the voucher program that he has created and direct his efforts where they belong -- our public schools.
-- Harold Der Garabedian, Madeira Beach

Not all students make the grade

Re: Leave no child behind, but must some fail for success to be real?, by Sara Matthews, Feb. 17.

Without a doubt, I'd give this schoolteacher a flunking grade. It is precisely Matthews' feel-good attitude toward teaching and education that is responsible for the grade-inflation problem at Harvard and other universities.

Matthews is critical of our education system: "How should I respond to the apparent contradiction in society's expectations of education? To "leave no child behind,' yet, at the same time, to deem relatively few students as successful?"

There is no contradiction. To get a grade of B, C or even occasional Ds over a lifetime of schooling is not to fail or be unsuccessful. Our schoolteacher would have us believe that only a grade of A in every class, at all times, marks a successful student. Hence grade inflation.

The real problem Matthews deplores is: "We look to our schools to be places of judgment." Of course we do. Educators decide class size, textbooks, methodologies, etc. They also set standards of academic proficiency, i.e., they test, grade and rank students' mastery of the curriculum. This is not a witch hunt as Matthews suggests:

"Why do we constantly look to schools to establish a pecking order of the highly successful, the less successful, and the failures . . . ?" If we didn't, how would Harvard University, which Matthews maintains "is probably the most competitive in the nation in admissions," be able to select "our most sought-after students"?

Only perverse logic leads a teacher to the dismal conclusion: "Some must fail . . . to validate the success of others." Everyone agrees ". . . we really want excellence in instruction for all students." All students thrive and flourish when they pursue and strive for academic distinction. Not all make the grade. College admissions departments get this. Why doesn't Sara Matthews, our schoolteacher?
-- Dr. Maria Rose Pesce, St. Petersburg

Why penalize the superintendent?

Concerning Bill ties superintendent pay, pupil performance (Feb. 20), I fail to see the correlation of those items. It appears to be a means by which to destroy any semblance of morale within a district of educational professionals.

Rep. Ralph Arza, R-Hialeah, feels he has the ultimate solution to improving reading scores by violating the terms of the contract of a school superintendent. If he were to succeed in his effort, think of the possibilities. It seems within the same sort of reasoning that we would dock a legislator whenever he or she fails to appear to vote on legislation. The same action could be enforced when a legislator has unexcused absences from sessions.

Applied to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, players might be forced to forfeit a set amount for a missed tackle.

The chief executive officer of an HMO could be fined one year's income for failure to okay a needed operation.

If one could organize the third-graders to fail the FCAT, the superintendent could be sent to the soup line!

If people feel they can "legislate learning" so that every child will read by the third grade, dream on!

Why penalize the superintendent? He is not the classroom teacher.
-- Earl Johnson, Sun City Center

Don't misunderstand Democrats' move

This letter is to give clarification and insight into the actions of the Florida House of Representatives during the consideration of a controversial tax reform package being put forth by Florida Senate President John McKay.

It was widely reported in the press that some Democrats walked out on the vote. This is a mischaracterization of what occurred.

In an unprecedented move, the speaker of the Florida House bypassed the rules that govern the process of taking up and considering legislation and formed a one-day special select committee to vote on whether to consider the so-called McKay tax reform plan. In doing so, the speaker disregarded every democratic safeguard that has been put in place since 1822, the date of the first state legislative session.

More specifically, the speaker:

1. Did not allow public testimony.

2. Limited testimony to three paid, one-sided "experts" hired by House leaders.

3. Prohibited amendments to the proposal that would allow the consideration of different ideas.

4. Limited questions and debate.

After hearing objections to the lack of democratic process, the speaker did allow any legislator to decline service on the Select Committee of the Whole. Eighteen members chose to exercise this option, explaining in a letter to the speaker their concern about the dangerous precedent of such a proceeding.

There was no walk-out or refusal to participate. Had the proposal been brought up to the body sitting in session, each one of us would have cast a vote as required by the rules of the House.

Ironically, anybody watching the Select Committee of the Whole meeting would have seen that most members did not even stay in the chamber to even listen to each other.

Clearly, the speaker of the House could have killed the McKay proposal by sending it to an existing committee or not taking it up at all. Instead, he invented a new venue without regard for fair play. Eighteen of us respectfully chose not to be part of a political "show" that we believed demeaned our democratic institution.

Of equal importance to us was the specter of politicians firing political artillery at each other while many of Florida's children are sitting in overcrowded schools with underpaid and underappreciated teachers.

The "bombs away" attitude of the Florida House moved us no closer to working together with our friends in the Senate on this and other important issues. I hope that in the coming days, cooler heads will prevail.
-- Rep. Lois J. Frankel, Democratic leader, Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee

Florida doesn't need more gambling

Re: Vote down slot machine gambling, editorial, Feb. 19.

The people of Florida have voted down extensions to gambling not once but twice. It seems Sen. Ron Silver, D-Miami, is beholden to the gambling interests in the state as he continues to sponsor bills to widen gambling in Florida.

The slot machine bill and his bill (SB 182) to legalize the so called "instant bingo" gambling show whom he represents. The people do not want slot machines and we certainly don't want legalized bingo pull tabs. This form of gambling is in no way related to bingo, and the governor has promised to veto the bill should both houses pass it.

These new gambling opportunities will take money away from the lottery scratch-off games as you can spend more money faster with "instant bingo," and the profits go to profiteers rather than to the state. State Attorney Bernie McCabe can't control the illegally run bingo games in Pinellas County now. How will he do with more gambling mandated from Tallahassee brought on without voters having the chance to reject the issue?
-- Bud Strawn, St. Petersburg

Casinos beat lottery odds

Re: Vote down slot machine gambling, Feb. 19.

The notion that "video lottery" is the "crack cocaine of gambling" is ludicrous, to say the least. More Floridians are addicted to the Florida Lottery than to casino gambling options such as slot machines, poker, blackjack, craps, etc. In a casino, the odds are much better than in the Florida Lottery.

Perhaps the welfare of Florida demands that the lottery be shut down in favor of on-shore casinos where you have more than one winner and increased revenue for education.
-- Caesar J. Civitella, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright