What, now you’re against incentives?
To the editor:
Tuesday's Review-Journal editorial on the merits of schools rewarding kids for merely attending class ("A trophy just for showing up") seems to me to point out the obvious contradiction that exists with the right-wing viewpoints this newspaper regularly espouses.
When it comes to business endeavors, the capitalist side reveals itself to be against any government interference or taxation, since this hinders "free markets" -- the argument being that the ability to make money need not be hindered by the unnatural force of government interference. If you work hard enough and smart enough, you too can be rich (just don't get unlucky).
But when this capitalist philosophy presents itself in the form of rewards for students merely showing up for class, they get all high and mighty. This action, after all, should fall under the banner of "personal responsibility" or duty. Bull.
If it is a 100 percent capitalist society you want, then it is a capitalist society you shall get. The school system is forced into putting a price on attendance because that is what the No Child Left Behind Act values. They in turn act as any rational business would act and incentivise that which has value to them.
Our education system is exactly that -- it is a system. It is a system for producing the most educated American citizen that it can. It does this so America Inc. can continue to put forth its product and do business in the world.
Now, on the other hand, if we stop heaping the burden on only those who have decided to continue this nation's legacy by having children and begin to acknowledge that their education is our collective responsibility, we might get somewhere.
If you have some idealistic view about what type of people parents and students should be, get real -- this is the United States of America. You want unbridled capitalism, and you want me to feel a sense of "personal responsibility"? Well, that's all well and good but, in America you gotta pay me.
Or is that not the America you thought you lived in?
Martin Elge
LAS VEGAS
It's about accountability
To the editor:
Tuesday's editorial, "A trophy just for showing up," really caught my eye.
I am a little older than the baby boom generation. When I was 14, the principal gave me a choice: bend over or go home. I bent over and he used a 12-by-12-inch paddle with holes drilled in it. I never stepped out of line again, and my mother never found out, thank God.
The point that I am trying to make is that there should be no such rewards for just going to school, other than a good GPA. I have raised four sons and, yes, we had our moments. One of my older sons was having a problem at the fourth-grade level -- he was getting low grades and was bored, so he said. I asked the teacher to give him homework, and the reply was, "I can't do that." After a short discussion with the teacher he was given homework every day. He went from a C student to an A student and was happy with school.
I can't believe that the Clark County School District is providing prizes ranging from bicycles to iPods. What about textbooks?
This is not a teacher problem; it is a school administration/parent problem. What ever happened to being held accountable for your own actions?
JIM VANDEWAY
LAS VEGAS
Motion denied
To the editor:
I was bemused by Tuesday's self-aggrandizing letter to the editor from David Rivers, a judicial candidate for District Court, Department 10. While I agree that incumbent District Judge Jessie Walsh needs to be replaced, the letter definitely does not describe the David Rivers I have had contact with.
Over the past several years, Mr. Rivers has twice represented the owner of the property adjacent to mine concerning my right to enter subject property to make required repairs to my home. (My home is in a zero-lot-line community where the southern exterior wall of my home is the boundary between the properties.)
Even with Mr. Rivers' self-proclaimed expertise in civil litigation, the District Court ruled in my favor. Mr. Rivers then appealed my case before the Nevada Supreme Court, resulting in a unanimous decision in my favor.
Mr. Rivers may be honored to have an AV rating from Martindale-Hubble, but his track record against my lawyers does not support this high rating.
In closing, Mr. Rivers may have convinced himself that he's the best choice for Department 10, but my research leads me to believe that William Kephart is by far the best candidate.
John J. Erlanger
LAS VEGAS
