Filibuster rules the least of our problems
To the editor:
The United States, thanks to our elected officials in Washington, has $14.3 trillion in debt that through interest is growing daily.
And because those same officials won't do their jobs and secure our borders, we have an out-of-control illegal immigration problem that is costing Americans hundreds of billions a year more.
We also have a more than $1 trillion medical care law awaiting funding through our taxes, and that law is going to take four years of funding before it can even be fully implemented.
The United States has been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy.
So what was Sen. Harry Reid's first order of business for the 112th Congress? A debate on the rules of filibuster.
The filibuster rules are there for a purpose -- to give the minority party a chance to voice their opposition to legislation wanted by the majority party. Now because Sen. Reid no longer has the power he had, he wants to change the rules.
Apparently he didn't understand the mandate of the people on Nov. 2. Let me make it clear to Sen. Reid: We the people are tired of politics as usual. We want change. That's why we changed the makeup of the Congress. If you don't listen now, another change is coming in 2012.
Be careful what you wish for, because those rules you want changed now are going to work against you when your party is the minority.
Kathleen M. Stone
Pahrump
Public education
To the editor:
Effective family engagement is the single most highly correlated factor with student success. What was described in your Wednesday editorial -- a "parent trigger" -- is something significantly different.
Nevada has the original "six standards for parental involvement" in statute. The 2011 Legislature will see a bill to update the NRS to the revised "six standards for family-school partnerships." These research-based standards include: Welcoming all families into schools, communicating effectively, supporting student success, speaking for every child, sharing power and collaborating with community.
The "parent trigger" described in your editorial is an end-game approach that is very likely warranted in many Washington, D.C., public schools. As a 20-year resident of the D.C. metropolitan area, I watched some of the endless cycle of waste and corruption.
The situation in Nevada is very different. We know what works: a longer school day, magnet school programs, career and technical education, school academy programs, school-based innovation and remediation-prevention grants, with strong prospects for many charter schools, empowerment and other models. Any and all of these options cost more than the baseline per-pupil funding Nevada deems sufficient.
Please do not recycle the "throwing money at it won't help" argument. In fact, there is a strong correlation between per-pupil funding and student outcomes, once outliers such as D.C. (for the above-mentioned reasons), Utah (family engagement ingrained as a societal norm), and a very few others are removed. "You get what you pay for" may be too simplistic. Perhaps we should be thinking more that you need to invest as much as you can in the most important drivers for economic diversification and recovery.
Vouchers take public money and put it in private schools. If the argument made by the editorial is that low-income families would benefit most, you haven't looked at tuition at private schools, nor at the available capacity in this state.
What about transportation? What about rural schools and school districts? Private schools are not required to enroll every student who applies. What about those who have special needs?
Also, those private school parents have in fact received benefits from their public education tax dollars -- just as all of us, even those who chose not to have children, benefit. When you flip the switch, you expect the lights to come on. Where do you think the people come from who make sure that happens? They come from public education. About 97 percent of students in the United States attend public schools. On average, only 25 percent of taxpayers have K-12 students at any point in time. Public education was never based on user-fee-style taxation because it benefits all.
Do we need reform? Yes -- as long as we keep what's already working, reform what's not working, and make sure we engage families and community members in the process. Public education should be the business of a public that is actively engaged in making sure all of our students succeed.
Alison J. Turner
Las Vegas
The writer is president of the Nevada Parent Teacher Association.
Science lesson
To the editor:
I thought everybody knew the difference between climate and weather (Stan Smith's Wednesday letter to the editor):
If you believe in global warming, it's "climate" anytime the temperature is above normal, but it's "weather" anytime the temperature is below normal.
If you don't believe in global warming, it's "weather" anytime the temperature is above normal, but it's "climate" anytime the temperature is below normal.
R.W. Trickel
Henderson
