Public school cuts political, impractical

To the editor:

I just got through reading Monday’s letter to the editor from Jennifer K. Welch, a Clark County School District teacher, about how state budget cuts are affecting her job (“No more cuts to public schools”).

I agree that kids should not go without adequate books or equipment, but don’t blame the taxpayers or Gov. Jim Gibbons for recent cuts to public education spending. Blame your administrators and the Legislature, which decided to cut where it would hurt most so that taxpayers would then agree to a tax increase.

Instead of agreeing to cut administration and non-teaching positions or cut the benefits and retirements that most private citizens paying for those perks will never have, administrators and lawmakers chose to cut books and teaching positions.

I agree that teachers are not paid enough, but I will not support more school funding until administrators are working out of temporary trailers instead of Taj Mahal-like offices. Because I, as an ordinary taxpayer, can’t dictate that the money won’t be spent on higher salaries and more perks for those administrators, I refuse to give them any more of my hard-earned money. There are ways to economize in difficult times. It is not by cutting the grocery budget to keep cable TV. That’s the equivalent of what they have done.

So please put the anger and disgust where it belongs — on the people running the show and not the people funding it.

Vicky De Leo


Top-heavy schools

To the editor:

The feelings of frustration from schoolteacher Jennifer K. Welch, expressed in a Monday letter to the editor, are apparent and understandable. As a senior citizen, I am very concerned that our children are not receiving the educational opportunities that were afforded us. I am not unwilling to contribute my tax dollars to the betterment of the system, and I am sensitive to the plight of our teachers.

Having said all that, I must strongly recommend that, indeed, sacrifices do need to be made. The governing body of the state of Nevada must formulate a credible study of just where and how the educational budget is spent. Administration and management costs must no longer be hidden from public scrutiny. Our top-heavy structure has principals, vice principals and maybe vice-vice principals, directors, advisers and whoever else securing high-paying employment opportunities for those fortunate enough to obtain these lofty positions.

If these people are concerned about “the children,” let them submit to an independent audit from an outside source. If budget-cutting is in the picture, let us all participate

Robert G. Greene


Traffic signal timing

To the editor:

I live near West Lake Mead Boulevard, across the road from Sun City Summerlin. My biggest concern regarding the possible opening of Lake Mead’s interchange at the Las Vegas Beltway is how many years it will take, if ever, for the Regional Transportation Commission to adjust the traffic signals to handle the increased traffic on Lake Mead.

Their track record is dismal, at best.

Kenneth Record


Equality of outcome

To the editor:

Sunday’s Review-Journal featured a commentary by UNLV law professor Sylvia R. Lazos begging for more money for public education; also, threatening a lawsuit should our Legislature and governor not “do right” by Nevada’s children (“No tax hikes? It might be time to sue”).

Ms. Lazos feeds at the public trough. No surprise she ignores normal ethics, conflicts and logic to contort for more money.

Ms. Lazos bases her proposed lawsuit on the Nevada Constitution, noting that men have the right to be “equal” (Article I) and that the Legislature is to establish a “uniform” system of “common schools” (Article XI). Ms. Lazos then defines “uniform” as distantly modified by “equal,” a la equality of outcome.

Ms. Lazos claims that the outcome required by the state Constitution is that all Nevada students must not only graduate from high school, but graduate prepared for college, or with an “education … that provides … the opportunity to have access to higher education, or vocational training.”

The state currently provides an equal amount of dollars per pupil. This is defined as equal opportunity, or as a workable definition of “uniform.” But not for Humpty Dumpty Lazos: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

You, dear reader, and I have all gone to school and know that no amount of money will educate the bottom 1 percent who don’t want to be there. Is $100,000 per pupil not enough? Ms. Lazos would have us throw more money at them until they graduate college-bound.

Ronald L. Smith


News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like