LETTERS: Private schools vs. public schools an unfair comparison
Private vs. public schools
Regarding Dean Parker's letter on Education Savings Accounts ("ESAs provide choice," Sept. 12 Review-Journal), comparing private schools with public schools is ridiculous.
First of all, private schools can select who attends and can without consequence remove any student for a number of reasons, particularly students who demonstrate behavior problems. Second, to say private schools have better teachers is again not true. The teachers' success is tied to having students who, in many cases, are tested before entering and can be turned down if they don't meet the school's standard.
In addition, private school students come from homes that prepare them, support them and provide them with the necessities that bring about success.
Put one of these private school teachers in a classroom where 92 percent of students are on free or reduced-price lunch programs, don't speak English and are transient, with many having been in multiple schools before finishing first grade, and see how well those teachers do. Some of these students have severe problems — unrelated to the school environment — that impact learning.
Students who come from such homes are undernourished, ill-prepared, have special needs and are sadly starting off without many of the early developmental skills needed for learning. This is not about intelligence or potential, but about living in environments that are not conducive to learning.
It's also untrue to say private schools work with a smaller budget than public schools. Most private school teachers have a spouse whose salary and benefits allow the teachers to work for a lesser salary, while having the benefit of students that they can turn away, unlike the public school teacher. That's a big incentive to be a private school teacher.
The strength and weakness of the public school system in our country is that we attempt to teach all, regardless of their problems. No other country attempts this and then is insulted for trying its best. There is high turnover in staff because teachers aren't recognized for teaching in impossible environments with little support. The only ink they receive is when they're told how incompetent they are by the media.
Ed Wagner
Las Vegas
Iran nuclear deal
Monterey Brookman's letter ignores several facts about the Iran nuclear deal ("Iran: deal or no deal," Sept. 13 Review-Journal). The writer implies this was President Barack Obama's deal when, in fact, the deal was hammered out by six countries: the United States, England, France, Russia, China and Germany. The deal "being touted" by the president was constructed and approved by all six countries, as well as Iran, and has to do with Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons.
The deal has nothing to do with anything else. The six countries worked on the deal with that one objective. Not human rights. Not Iran's aggression toward other Middle East countries (including Israel). Not an American currently incarcerated in Iran. The deal had one objective, period.
The alternative to reaching a negotiated deal would either lead to war or simply the status quo, with Iran continuing its nuclear development unchecked. Sooner or later, Iran would have finished the job.
With the negotiated deal, six countries will be watching to ensure Iran doesn't cheat on its commitment, and all six have agreed to immediately restore sanctions should there be evidence of cheating. The deal is one that should be accepted here, as it is in the other five countries that were part of the agreement. The only "nonsensical palaver" is coming from those opposed to the deal.
David Adams
Las Vegas
Demanding specifics
Regarding the editorial on presidential candidates' platforms ("Demand specifics," Sept. 26 Review-Journal), where was the demand for specifics when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it," regarding the Affordable Care Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation ever?
Robert E. Smith
Las Vegas
