IB program opponents have voiced dangerous ideas

If it is true as reported in the Feb. 21 article "Upper St. Clair Kills International Baccalaureate Program" that "Dr. [Daniel] Iracki and other newly elected members of the board expressed opposition to the program on the grounds that it is Marxist, anti-Christian, un-American and too costly," the rhetorical question asked by Thomas Frank in his recent work "What's the Matter With Kansas?" should be re-asked locally.

As a Christian, I find Dr. Iracki's willingness to openly object, in his official capacity, to anti-Christian educational programs intellectually and morally oppressive.

This outright mixing of religious beliefs and government function (albeit this time by grass-roots local elected officials) is a type of terrorism that is more dangerous over the long term than simply blowing yourself up with a vest bomb. He and his faction are attempting to "blow out" the minds of the young.

LOUIS B. LOUGHREN
Mt. Lebanon

---

Fosters thinkers

I never realized that when asked why I became a Russian and East European studies major, I should point to the Marxist education I received as a graduate of the International Baccalaureate program at Schenley High School.

Somehow, maybe there is a hint of truth to some of the recent complaints coming from Upper St. Clair; after all, the section I enjoyed the most in my IB history class was on Stalinism. I learned to understand Stalin as a leader who was extremely intelligent, cunning and resourceful. We never ignored or made light of the truly awful acts that Stalin ordered or took part in, but as a part of the unit titled "Dictators," we were supposed to examine why and how dictatorships were/are successful.

Despite being enthralled with the topic, I did not graduate from high school with high aspirations of becoming a dictator, or even of living under one. What I took away from that history class is how to understand and recognize patterns in history.

The IB program fosters the future of America through encouraging worldly and creative thinkers, which are generally a good thing -- unless America is planning on trying isolationism again, which did not work out so well in World War I.

HANNAH LEVINSON
Squirrel Hill

Editor's note: The writer is a sophomore at Oberlin College in Ohio.

---

Ports insanity

Handing control of six major ports over to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates strikes me as, well, insane ("Bush Refuses to Budge on Ports," Feb. 22). And also totally indicative of the way the Bush administration operates.

The American people need to know that the UAE was one of the few countries to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Aside from harboring al-Qaida operatives, the UAE has been the transfer point for rogue nuclear weapon components.

According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system. This latest security sell-out must be halted immediately.

ROBERT GOETZ
Regent Square

---

Are we scared yet?

One month ago, President Bush spoke in his State of the Union address about keeping our country safe from terrorists. He has continued a war, arrested and detained many Arabs and Middle Eastern people, all in the name of "keeping our country safe."

How then do we explain his most recent statement that a deal to allow an Arab company to run six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any effort by Congress to stop it ("Bush Refuses to Budge on Ports," Feb. 22)?

Does this sound like someone concerned with national security? Who is the real threat to our national security?

RITA LAMPE
Shaler

---

Teachers first

Regarding the ongoing Pittsburgh Public Schools employee negotiations: While Superintendent Mark Roosevelt states there is no money for even a 1.35 percent increase, a board-requested fact-finder differs ("City Schools Again Reject Fact-Finder's Suggestions," Feb. 9). Indeed, the superintendent himself negotiated a very lucrative contract when he took the job last year.

Not only is there money for him, but there is money for the highly paid administrators he has brought into the system. One wonders why the current crop of administrators at Bellefield is not sufficient.

People may be surprised to find that Pittsburgh has one of the highest employee-to-student ratios in the country. Middle-management positions have been expanded beyond reason. Supervising principals, teachers on "special assignment," reading "coaches," math "coaches" and supervisors are but some of the hundreds of professionals who rarely interact with students. They justify their positions by generating paperwork that teachers complete. Yet the board of education is loath to show respect to the very people on which the entire system depends, the people who attempt to do their best under often-adverse conditions -- the classroom teacher.

Along with top-heavy management, the public may be unaware that the schools are administered on a "site-based" system. This places millions of dollars in the hands of building principals to spend as they see fit. Remember, these people were trained as teachers, not graduated from the London School of Economics.

All of this may sound incongruent until you think of the people who initiated this system. They were not educators, nor economists, nor urban planners, but people who were a minimum of 18 years of age with a desire to enter politics -- the board of education.

GARY SHERWOOD
Bentleyville

Editor's note: The writer is a teacher in the Pittsburgh Public Schools.

---

Unequal benefits

Superintendent Mark Roosevelt has been arguing his case against the state-appointed fact-finder's report on negotiations with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers. The school board has voted to reject the report, but there is at least one point upon which both the board and the fact-finder agree: gay teachers shouldn't have full benefits.

The PFT included domestic partnership benefits in its proposal in an attempt to address the inequities in the current contract, which restricts gay and lesbian teachers from taking full advantage of the benefits that married teachers enjoy, such as providing medical insurance for loved ones. This restriction is something most conservative megacorporations gave up years ago.

The board's rejection of the idea of equal pay for equal work is out of step with their constituents' values. If gay teachers are required to show up at the same time, go home at the same time and teach the same kids as their straight counterparts -- in short, if gay teachers are good enough to teach in Pittsburgh, and clearly they are -- then they're good enough to receive the same benefits as other teachers. This is hardly a radical notion.

I don't believe Pittsburghers support this discrimination, and I don't believe Mark Roosevelt supports it. So which board members voted to reject domestic partnership benefits, and for whom are they speaking?

DEVIN BROWNE
Hill District

Editor's note: The writer is a teacher in the Pittsburgh Public Schools.

---

The governor's budget proposal is fiscally irresponsible

Regarding the Feb. 14 editorial "Right Priorities: The Rendell Budget Is Fair and Balanced": Don't be so coy with your veiled threats to Republicans. If all you are going to do is repeat the governor's spin on what his proposed budget does, just come out and admit you cannot accept Republican principles and will do anything for Democrat Ed Rendell. This is certainly a disappointing and, in my view, unacceptable approach considering you have a responsibility to base your editorials on fact, not spin.

Your Valentine's Day editorial on budget priorities must have been written by the governor's press secretary. It certainly was not objective.

Did you know that in order to do all of this exorbitant spending, the governor proposes to spend more than $800 million more than the General Fund generates in revenues? While you praised the governor for a minimal tax cut proposal, did you forget he just vetoed a tax cut bill that "shaved" a few other taxes as well?

By the way, when you say you are opposed to WAMs, does that include the governor's pet projects, too? For instance, the Opportunity Grant program is spent totally at his discretion, and the Community Conservation & Employment program received a proposed increase and it operates at his discretion. Or are you just opposed to "legislative" interests? Are you opposed to:

automatic external defibrillators for emergency personnel;

hospital emergency room expansions;

technology improvements for schools;

upgrades to emergency operations centers;

crime prevention and public safety equipment; and

homeless assistance?

These worthwhile and lifesaving programs are just some examples of what legislators advocate for, yet according to the governor's press secretary, he would never fund any of them.

Finally, we are going to craft next year's budget based on what and where we spent money this year -- the programs the people request and expect. It will be based on how much money we have, not how much money one can borrow or shift. That is called living within our means. Maybe you recall that line from the governor's inaugural address.

REP. SAM SMITH
Majority Leader
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Harrisburg

---