Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintThe federal investment in education continues to grow
The March 22 editorial "No Funds Left Behind" seems to have left a few facts behind regarding the feasibility of ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year.
Nothing so profoundly affects the quality of education a child receives than the quality of his or her teacher. That is why the law emphasizes teacher quality and why we are helping states to meet the goal that all children, including minority and disadvantaged students, have a highly qualified teacher. We found many states were not using the full flexibility in the law, especially to help their middle school and experienced teachers demonstrate that they are highly qualified. In addition, we are helping to clear up misunderstandings. Many were under the mistaken impression that all veteran teachers had to either go back to school or take a test.
Furthermore, the Department of Education is providing three new areas of flexibility for teacher qualification. These new policies will address the particular challenges of teachers who teach more than one subject, especially those in rural districts and science teachers. We are providing record amounts of funding for teacher training, professional development, recruitment and retention activities, to the tune of $5.1 billion, with $2.9 billion specifically geared to help states meet the highly qualified teacher requirements.
Overall, the federal investment in education continues to grow to support local efforts to help all children receive a quality education. President Bush recently proposed another large funding increase for No Child Left Behind programs, raising federal support for elementary and secondary education programs 36 percent since 2001. The president has asked for a federal investment of $5.3 billion in Pennsylvania alone -- representing an increase of 41 percent since he took office.
No Child Left Behind is helping ensure that every student has a great teacher. That will make for a better education for all students -- every single one.
ROD PAIGE
U.S. Secretary of Education
Washington, D.C.
Tainted defense
Jeffrey Hunker's Perspectives piece, "No Vision About Terror's Future" (March 27), is critical of President Bush for doing nothing to protect the Internet and electrical power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Bush appointed Richard Clarke, "the most important person in the federal government you've never heard of," as the top person responsible for cyberspace anti-terrorism.
Is it possible that Bush, acting very much as a CEO applying accountability, was not comfortable with Clarke as "principal coordinator for counterterrorism" and put him in a position better suited to his interests and capabilities?
Mr. Hunker missed an opportunity to truly defend his good friend, whom he obviously respects, by joining the political arena and presenting a very one-sided commentary of a complex issue spanning a number of years.
ROBERT T. DOUGLAS
Mt. Lebanon
The right actions
President Bush is not the reason our economy is failing or for the social ills that plague our country. Each individual is responsible for his own destiny. This country offers a multitude of programs for people in need. How many of us have struggled to achieve a better lifestyle for ourselves by working hard in menial jobs while moving up the educational ladder to improve our status in life?
The No. 1 issue today is terrorism. The security of our country and our world is being threatened by a force that many people deny even exists. We need a strong president in the difficult years ahead who will make the security of our nation and our world his No. 1 priority. We cannot afford a wishy-washy presidential administration in the difficult days to come.
I believe President Bush's immediate actions after 9/11 were necessary, as is the continued fight against terrorism, if we want to continue living in a world that promotes order and peace.
C. McGURK
Brookline
Look at the figures
I read with amusement the March 20 letter from James Barnes ("A Clinton Era Review") wherein he blasts the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Mr. Barnes seems to give credit for the economic success enjoyed by America to the Republican-controlled Congress.
However, Mr. Barnes conveniently fails to mention that during those first two years of the Clinton presidency, when Congress was Democratic-controlled, unemployment fell. The trend of falling unemployment continued throughout the Clinton presidency. In fact, unemployment did not start to climb until 2001 when the Bush administration came into office.
For the data, check out the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Web site at www.bls.gov.
RANDY WOYICKI
South Fayette
Martha's example
Our political system is screwed up! It's outdated and outmoded. We need to make a change or we will never stabilize our country.
This business of putting a person in office who is totally unqualified but is popular with the political party is the ruination of -- yes, it is ruining -- our nation. Everything is going down the tube.
A person is elected for office by a party of people who are looking for a favor in return. So, even if they want to be honest, how can they be when so many favors are owed?
A change needs to be made. Running our country is a business and we need qualified businesspeople to do the job. Why not ask Martha Stewart? This entrepreneur, self-made businessperson is criticized for her successful business practices and could go to prison for telling lies. All business people tell lies. If they expose all of their confidential secrets, how can they make a profit?
Martha Stewart is a wholesome, clean-living business lady and a charming hard worker. My children can watch her shows any time. Her successful business practices have paid a bounty in taxes and have meant employment for many. If she made a mistake, fine her; it is stupid to put her out of business. Martha Stewart has run a tight ship; our politicians run a sinking ship.
JERRY POMPA
Morningside
Say yes to history
I heartily agree with the letter by Jeanne Cecil concerning Senate Bill 919, which would amend the Public School Act to make labor history part of the curriculum of grades 9-12 ("History in Context," March 24).
I would amend the bill to include courses in general Pennsylvania history from grades 6-8, which would include how state government operates as well as local government. It was what was called "civics" when I was in school. I would also include the option that courses in county and local history be offered.
West Virginia requires five years of studying state history. Pennsylvania should also require knowledge of state history and government.
Too many citizens have little knowledge of how state and local government operates so they do not participate or vote in elections. The more people know of the rich heritage of this state the more they would appreciate it and preserve historic sites. The more they know about state and local government, the more they would participate and vote.
THOMAS A. JOSEPHI
Mt. Lebanon
Wooden ways
I read Diana Nelson Jones' article about Roslyn Place's wooden street with great interest ("Paving the Way to Greatness," March 21). I currently live outside of Philadelphia, but my heart is still rooted in my birthplace, Pittsburgh. I visit often but somehow I have missed the wooden street.
Earlier that day I had read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that started out with the following sentence: "I have descended from the last lane in the city still paved with wood blocks -- the stretch of Camac just north of Locust -- into the copper-pot-festooned kitchens of Deux Cheminees, seeking instruction from chef Fritz Blank on the venerable caraway seed."
Now I have two wooden streets to visit, one close to my home and one close to my heart.
RICK TITLEBAUM
Merion Station, Pa.
Be thankful that majority wishes don't determine our civil rights
Regarding the March 18 Associated Press story "Poll Shows Majority of Pa. Voters Oppose Gay Marriage," which ran on the Post-Gazette's Web site: It is dangerous to suggest that public policy should be based on the wishes of the "majority" -- particularly in a country that professes to have inalienable rights for all.
If we did, it is very likely that blacks would still not be allowed to marry whites, or vote, or live and work and go to school wherever they desire. If we did, it is very likely that most -- if not all -- legal immigrants of Middle Eastern descent would have been ousted from our "friendly shores" soon after 9/11. If we did, I fear most minorities would have no rights at all.
The leaders of this country are expected to stand behind the equal rights of all Americans -- to do otherwise is an abuse of power.
JANIS McDONALD
Herminie
