Choosing a school
in the neighborhood
Regarding Christine Carrie Fien’s article
on the school-choice policy (“Home-school Advantage,” February 4):
Some
parents in the School 46 neighborhood are seeking a guarantee that neighborhood
kindergartners will be allowed to attend 46 if they want to. School Board
member Rob Brown implies that those parents can only be motivated by two
things: high test scores or elitism. Brown points out that the standardized
test scores at School 46 are not even that high, noting that Schools 1, 7, 15,
23, and 43 have comparable or better scores in math and reading.
However,
School 46 is in the Northeastern zone, while 7 and 43 are in the Northwestern
zone and 1, 15, and 23 are in the Southern zone. Under the current plan,
parents in the 46 neighborhood are restricted from sending their kindergartners
to any of Brown’s comparable schools.
Moreover,
I’m surprised that Brown would assume that city parents are motivated only by
two considerations (one laudable, one unworthy). I am not a parent or a member
of Concerned Citizens for City Living (though I did sign their petition), but I
came up with this list of reasons why parents might prefer to send their
children to the neighborhood elementary school:
• They
might not have access to reliable transportation, and want the option of
walking to school events and parent-teacher conferences. If they are
stay-at-home parents, they might want the option of walking their child to or
from school — or if they’re employed at a distance, that of having a
neighborhood friend or family member pick up their child if he becomes sick at
school.
• They
might be acquainted with, and have special confidence in, the teachers and
administrators at the local school. They might believe that their shy
kindergartner would adjust better if he were at the same school as his neighborhood
friends.
• They
might be motivated to work with the neighborhood school’s parent-teacher
organization on some of the same issues, and with some of the same people, who
are active in the neighborhood association.
To Rob
Brown, I would suggest that stigmatizing those who have a contrary view is not
an effective way of creating a dialogue.
I’m not
sure the School District has done a good job defining
what they hope to achieve with this plan, or how they will measure success.
I’ve heard that the goal is to comply with the federal “No Child Left
Behind” law; to correct imbalances between where the schools are located
and where the children are located; to foster integration; to increase test
scores district-wide; to eliminate sub rosa
manipulation of the system by offering a legitimate open-enrollment plan; to
reduce the cost of busing children by keeping the routes within a defined zone
and not, for example, carrying children living in the northeast to schools in
the southwest; to bring parents into a Student Registration Center where they
can get other services such as housing assistance.
This is an
enormous set of goals, not all of which are even measurable. How will anyone
know if the plan is a success? What measures of success have been identified by
the School Board? What will happen if the measures are not met?
Ellen Hoch, Hillside Avenue, Rochester
Candidates ignore disabled voters
Does the Democratic Party have the guts to defeat George Bush?
Does the Democratic Party have the guts to go where no political party has ever
gone before? To date no party has
publicly addressed and made a major part of its platform the issues facing
disabled Americans, including Social Security Disability Reform.
If it is a
concern, you would be hard pressed to find it on the Democratic National
Committee’s website or the websites of the current presidential candidates, let
alone have them mention it out loud. We have been screaming about our concerns,
but since we are “disposable” people, our cries are ignored. If
someone really cared about us, and publicly made our issues as important as all
the rest — and actually acted, instead of making empty campaign promises —
disabled voters would crawl, if need be, to get the polls.
There are
millions of us: Disabled Disenfranchised Democrats, Independents, and
Republicans. But since our votes don’t seem to matter, we refrain from
endorsing any candidate or even bothering to go to the polls. We are sick, and
most are facing homelessness and bankruptcy and cannot afford health care.
Needless to say, we have no money to contribute to a political campaign. And
let’s be honest: It is all about money, right? Special interest groups with the
most money help pay for campaign ads and other expenses.
Here is
some simple math for you: 12,000 people per week file for SSD benefits. Now
multiply that by 52 weeks. Now add in all the disabled people who already have
SSD benefits, all the disabled Americans who can work or who are disabled and
don’t qualify for help. That is a large segment of the population. It cuts
across all ages, sexes, and races, and also includes veterans. Our votes alone
would help any candidate that we endorsed. Many of us do not want Bush, but we
will not settle any longer for candidates who continue to ignore our issues,
either.
I have
tried for several months to contact DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe and the current
presidential candidates on this issue. When I got a response at all, it was
mass e-mailings on contributing to their campaigns.
LJ Fullerton, Rochester (Fullerton,
a registered Democrat, is president and co-founder of the Social Security
Disability Coalition in Rochester)
Just deserts
George Bush was a deserter; Bill Clinton was a philanderer;
were either of these men truly qualified to be president of the United
States? Regardless who occupies the Oval
Office, such debates go on. Bitch, bitch, bitch….
There was
once a time when Americans were intelligent, industrious, and independent. With
great effort, such a people forged a mighty Republic.
We have
since become obese, self-absorbed, dull-witted, and lazy; we are couch potatoes
who have observed the dismantling of America
and lifted not one finger. Aside from being monumentally stupid, we are also
weak willed; a nation of whiners and crybabies whose primary occupation is
bitching.
Want better
leaders or a robust job market? Want cleaner air or water? Want better schools
for our children? Get off your ass and fulfill your responsibilities of citizenship!
Participate! The sad truth is that America
gets exactly what America
deserves. Think about that.
Louis Richards, Rising Place, Rochester
Third-party value
Our government is a mess, and it’s all our
fault. We continue to believe that our so-called representatives will come
together to do what is best, but time after time they make decisions (or not
make decisions) based on one thing: keeping themselves in power.
And we
allow it to happen. Half of us don’t vote, and much of the other half use the
same logic used to pick a favorite athletic team. We allow corporations to
monopolize public airwaves and bombard us with misinformation, hysterical rantings, and half-truths.
It’s time
to put an end to the partisan maliciousness in Washington,
Albany, and even Mendon and Ogden.
We have to vote and do so in an intelligent manner. We need to make our choices
in the booth, not based on realpolitik but
candidates’ legitimate, innovative ideas. We cannot continue to reward
politicians who use vague slogans, empty promises, and PacMan.
Though
Democrats and Republicans would have us believe otherwise, our government was
not established as a two-party system. It comes down to this: Are the
corporate-sponsored parties really representing who they’re supposed to
represent? It’s time to assess and give equal credence to third-party and
independent political candidates. What they lack in money, they make up for
with integrity and vision.
Dave Atias, Park Avenue, Rochester(Atias is chair of the Green Party of Monroe
County)
Gay-marriage ban would be wrong
Constitutional amendments were originally designed to
promote inclusion into the ever-evolving landscape of social democracy. A
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would deny law-abiding,
hard-working, church-going, tax-paying Americans the right and privilege of
that inclusion.
Any law,
however worded, that eliminates or takes away someone’s civil liberty is
fundamentally and principally wrong. Period. Legal same-sex marriage, or
whatever you want to call it, will eventually happen. Proponents of the Defense
of Marriage Act better get used to the idea; the sooner, the better.
OveOvermyer, East Main Street, Rochester
Writing to City
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.
Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. We don’t publish letters that have been
sent to other media. While we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words have a greater chance of being published. We
do edit letters for clarity and brevity. And in general we don’t publish
letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more often than once
every three months.
This article appears in Feb 25 – Mar 2, 2004.
