LETTERS: Education Savings Accounts inefficient, unnecessary and undemocratic

I am astounded at the logical leap taken in the editorial on the National Assessment of Educational Progress ("Testing troubles," Oct. 30 Review-Journal). Although labeling children who are learning English as an "achievement anchor" is offensive, the Review-Journal did fairly and finally point out that many of our Clark County School District students perform well on national tests.

But the R-J's conclusion is we must thus encourage school choice and Education Savings Accounts, which divert public money to private schools. So, our schools are really not that bad, with 1 in 5 students in an English Language Learner program, but we should make the schools worse by encouraging more students from well-off families to attend private school? This makes no sense.

If I were to use some actual logic, I might deduce that the R-J's position is elitist and even racist. More than 90 percent of parents' "choice" is for their children to attend a well-funded and supported neighborhood school, and their choice ought to be respected by our public leaders. ESAs are simply a way to separate the haves and have-nots even further, to subsidize private school, despite claims the program would help our poorest students.

Another article reported that most of the students applying for the ESA program are from wealthy neighborhoods, not from poverty-stricken and thus low-performing schools. "Most school-choice program applicants in wealthy areas," Sunday Review-Journal). Our public tax dollars should not support parallel or private school systems. It is not efficient, it is not necessary and it is not democratic.

Charters and private schools are not accountable to the public and decline to educate our neediest students. I don't blame parents for wanting the best for their children. But I do blame our political leaders for bowing to special interests and wealthy individuals and allowing our public education system to be gutted.

Regina Rothwell Roybal

Henderson

Trading eyesores

I find it curious at best that Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani considered the unfinished Fontainebleau property such an eyesore that she threatened and strong-armed the owners into agreeing to wrap the building, basically as a strange and seemingly unrelated condition for yet another long extension for their building permits ("Unfinished Strip hotel to be covered," Thursday Review-Journal). However, on Oct. 21, the zoning commission, which includes Commissioner Giunchigliani, approved the Westgate Hotel's design review of a rather obscene and unprecedented increase in eyesore signage, which included a 20-story flashing sign to run 24 hours a day, only 200 feet from hundreds of residential bedrooms across the street.

I doubt there is anything in the county codes that suggests wrapping a building in exchange for an extension of a building permit, but that is what Commissioner Giunchigliani voted to authorize Wednesday. How can she claim to be so concerned about eyesores, yet support large signage in neighborhoods where there is no history of any signage so large, high, bright and close to so many residences?

It's unfortunate that the commissioner doesn't value Las Vegas residents' tranquility and favors corporations flashing eyesore lights into their homes, while at the same time wanting to hide and sugarcoat the reality of a stalled eyesore project. It seems hypocritical.

Let's not forget the economic downturn was no doubt caused in part by politicians without foresight or concern for people who actually live in areas that were authorized for and granted residential building permits. It might not be a bad idea for people to see the unwrapped eyesore Fontainebleau as a reminder of what bad politicians in part caused.

James Fuhrman

Las Vegas