Opinion: School officials should listen more to parents

Surprise! Surprise! I guess they never really expected anyone to use the McKay Scholarships or the vouchers. Now the Pinellas County school district could lose about $7.3-million.

I hate to say it but I'd be very surprised if that's not just the tip of the iceberg. When February comes around and many parents don't get their "choice" schools for their children, the private schools, most likely, will be bursting at the seams. I also think the percentage of homeschoolers will skyrocket, and others will just move away.

If this does become the case, much of the extra $7-million for transportation annually will be an exorbitant waste. They will buy too many buses, hire too many drivers, etc., just to get "choice" started.

Doug Forth, an assistant superintendent in charge of the budget says, "you assume the children will be here; you hired the teachers to serve them." Well, when parents don't get their "choice," you have hired the teachers to serve not them, but others!

When will they begin to listen to the parents? We all want what's best for our children. That is, good schools, in our own neighborhoods, so we can be involved with their education!

A School Board member asked, "What are we doing about getting smarter about planning so we stop getting blindsided?" I say, take the blinders off, look around, and listen to the parents! Believe it or not, we do know what's best for our children.
-- Tish Prestage, Clearwater

A time to re-evaluate

Re: Fewer students equals budget shortfall.

The Pinellas County School Board will start the 2003 year facing a $7.3-million budget shortfall, much of that due to disabled students taking advantage of services offered by the private sector. This kind of news would be sufficient reason for any private sector company to rethink its options. Perhaps it is time for the public sector to begin some judicious planning for its financial future.

Pinellas County special educators should rethink their methods and service delivery as pertains to serving our disabled children. It seems to me that the leadership within the Department of Special Services is in need of retraining and thinking outside of the box. Otherwise, the bleeding of its atypical children may very well continue.
-- Ellen A. Rhoades, Oldsmar

Rice was right about homeless

Re: Protesters defend dignity of homeless people, Dec. 31.

I see homeless people in all areas of Pinellas County. They are usually holding signs on the roadside, begging for money. The faces are the same year after year. The thing most people don't see is what these bums do with the money they collect. Most of them go to the nearest convenience store and buy an ice cold 12-pack of beer. It's nice to have a cold beer after a hard day of begging for money from the working taxpayers.

Most of them have no desire to become positive contributors to society. As Ronald Reagan said, people choose to be homeless.

The protester in the picture says he has been homeless for 10 years in St. Petersburg. How much longer will it take him to find a job so he can support himself? I don't doubt that he is a person, however the term "bum" describes him perfectly.

The dictionary definition of bum is: a tramp: an idle person (bumming, bummed) to beg, to sponge; to live as a vagabond. (The definition of tramp is "a vagrant.")

Pinellas Sheriff Everett Rice merely called it like it was. If you don't like being called a bum, then quit acting like a bum.
-- Brian Hudgins, Seminole

Slamming law school isn't the answer

Re: Professor's words sting school, Dec. 23.

Professor Mark Brown of Stetson Law School, who wrote the Temple University law review article critical of Stetson's 5 percent black enrollment ("Affirmative Inaction: Stories from a Small Southern School"), states he believes in "corrective justice" but then admits he is "not sure what the answer is."

The solution is not slamming Florida's oldest and leading law school over what former President Bill Clinton called "bean-counting" when he was criticized for not having a certain percentage of minority groups as Cabinet members.

With Stetson's 800-member student body, 5 percent would be 40 students; 6.75 percent, 54 students; 7 percent, 56 students; and 15 percent is 120 students, professor Brown's magic percentage.

Federal law does not mandate racial quotas for university admission, but U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that the achievement of diversity is permissible, thus opening the door for unofficial "quotas" or "goals."

As all Florida law schools seek black and Hispanic applicants, the goal of an additional 80 qualified black law students for Stetson is a big order, considering the dismal job prospects for all graduates after a three-year law school ordeal. Remember that a four-year degree is a prerequisite for even applying to an accredited law school. Black and minority college graduates are well-advised to get an MBA (master of business administration) as opposed to a law degree.

Why more black and Hispanic college graduates do not have high LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) scores and grade-point averages to get into law school is a question that sociologists, educators and politicians have debated for years without finding answers, let alone a quick-fix solution as longed for by professor Brown.

Any qualified law school applicant -- whether white (including Jewish students), black, Asian or Native American -- should not be denied admission in favor of anyone who does not meet academic standards, for whatever historical or sociological reasons. Common sense is not discrimination; it is reality. Everyone agrees on equal opportunity. Equality of the result is hard to mandate.

Would Brown condone adding points to the Florida Bar exam scores of minority law-school graduates to ensure a pass rate equal to white graduates? What would this do to the integrity of the law profession or the integrity of the minority-group lawyers?

Rather than writing a sucker-punch law review article and retreating behind the cloak of tenure, Brown would be better advised to approach the dean and volunteer to head a black student recruitment program. It's known as leadership, and that is the answer.
-- David P. Carter, Esq., Stetson Law School, class of 1972,

A disturbing view of the courts

Re: Bush names new Fla. justice, Dec. 31.

I was deeply concerned, although not surprised, to read about Gov. Jeb Bush's recent decision to name Kenneth B. Bell to the Florida Supreme Court.

Bell's statement that courts "must recognize their role as the weakest branch of government and pay due deference to the legislative and executive branches" completely ignores one of the most fundamental beliefs on which our country was founded. The court system, especially the Supreme Court and the state supreme courts, were not designed to give governors and legislators unquestioned and unfettered access to do as they please. Just the opposite: The courts are meant to protect the people's interests and to check the powers of the Legislature and governor.

Perhaps Kenneth B. Bell should dust off his college textbooks and re-read the chapters concerning the checks-and-balances system of government that our founders felt so compelled to include in our Constitution.
-- Jason Woodrum, Clearwater

People should limit their impact

Thank you for your Dec. 28 piece titled Big project, small town, on MiraBay in Ruskin. You quoted a MiraBay buyer as saying about the FishHawk Trails area, "Groceries, convenience stores, gas stations, new schools; it's really growing." Then he said of Ruskin, "We hope the same thing will happen down there." Then he wishes for "a whole different atmosphere than living in the hustle and bustle of Brandon or Tampa -- I believe it's going to stay a small town."

If quoted correctly, this future Ruskin resident must realize that it cannot be both ways. His expressed vision is at odds with itself. Ruskin's character is "small town." Resources are within walking distance or a short drive. The small businesses provide friendly service and excellent products. People know your name. Wonderful!

If what you want or need isn't in Ruskin, chances are you will find it 5-10 minutes away in Apollo Beach or Sun City. For chain restaurants, a mall store, home store, etc., the 20-minute drive into Brandon works just fine. Tampa and Sarasota are 30-35 minutes north and south respectively.

"Big-box" and chain stores have their niches. Ruskin, however, will lose its character with their arrival, and the "hustle and bustle" that comes with them. The environment will suffer immeasurably. To our irreversible loss, Ruskin will be another Brandon or an extension thereof. This is unnecessary.

We encourage people who want to live in this area to think about why they really want to be here. Then they need to think about their options. In the interest of minimizing your impact on the environment, consider buying an existing house. There are plenty available, including those with waterfront. To improve and occupy an existing structure is to make a positive impact on your community.

If you must have a new house, and a place like MiraBay suits your lifestyle, fine! Buy, build and enjoy. Try not to defile the land and water any more than has already been done. In either case, make some rules for yourselves. We try to follow these:

Minimize our invasiveness.

Respect, support, and enjoy our community for what it is. This includes our local businesses.

Clean up.

Respect the environment and be good environmental stewards.

Unfortunately, the MiraBay buyer may be correct when he says, "Things are going to change when people move down here." If so, it will not be "a long, long, long time before it ever becomes a big town," as he says. It will be a short, short, short time -- perhaps only 5 years. We need to think carefully about what we are doing.
-- Pete and Claudia Davidsen, Ruskin

Environmental calculations

I enjoyed Beyond the Oaks (Dec. 22) an article about the politics associated with a proposed development along the Halls River.

One should never be surprised to find out that rich people are the financial backers of groups that oppose development. There are at least two reasons why they might fund fights to stop other people's projects.

1. They might simply like living in or visiting areas with little traffic, large estates and slow economic activity. After all, they have their money or hold good jobs in other locations and do not depend on a vibrant economy in the area of proposed development.

2. They might also have a good understanding of the law of supply and demand. If they successfully restrict development, they make properties that are already developed or approved for development much more valuable.

Many leaders in groups like Environmental Defense share a common bond; they are people who understand that development restrictions keep the supply of good housing, commercial property, sugar, energy and a host of other commodities lower than it would normally be. They also know that restricting supply increases the value of the land, buildings and commodity production facilities that they control.

Rich people are pretty good at figuring out ways to remain that way.
-- Rod Adams, Tarpon Springs

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page