Letters to the Editor

I disagree with those calling for the state to bail out the parochial schools with our tax dollars ("Catholic students lobby for vouchers," May 21). Parents who send their students to parochial schools, especially in the suburbs, are not fleeing failing public schools. They are making a decision to give their children a religious education. That is their right, but don't ask the rest of us to pay the freight.

As Gov. Corbett cuts financial support for education, supporting parochial schools will only increase the pressure on public schools. This is not just districts such as Philadelphia and Chester, but also districts with long-ignored pension costs. If the state siphons funds for parochial schools, homeowners will see tax rates skyrocket.

At the same time that parochial schools demand state support, they bristle at the suggestion that they become accountable for their policies and curriculum. The state should only pay for schools that it controls, those that accept every student and teach a state-supported curriculum.

As a former teacher and elementary school counselor for more than 30 years, I can understand the frustration of trying to teach when one or two students frequently disrupt the class, depriving others of learning ("There must be consequences," May 21).

With respect and admiration for the letter writer, who devoted more than 40 years to teaching in Philadelphia, it is sad that he describes disruptive children as having "no interest in education." Some children have behavior problems that preclude their ability to function successfully in school without support. But we can't turn disruptive students into "real" students by isolating them. And we surely can't turn them into "real" students by denying their return to school simply because a parent/caretaker does not appear for a school meeting.

Finding a way to enlist support from parents or guardians who seem to have little interest in their child's education is a challenge. The classroom teacher, regardless of talent and effort, can't do it alone. A group effort involving principal, special-subject teachers, counselors, school psychologists, home and school visitors, nurses, community agencies, etc. can be valuable resources in this effort.

The best opportunity many of these kids have for a successful learning experience is at least one caring adult who believes in them. Often that caring adult is a teacher who just doesn't give up.

Public school systems have been asked to do more with less in most districts across the country for many years. The current push to use school funds to aid the private school industry, especially religious schools, is a slap in the face to our Constitution. The use of children as pawns to "protest" for these funds is outrageous.

Private schools are free to pick and choose their students. They do not deal with behavior or learning problems. They can limit enrollment in order to have smaller class sizes.

Public schools accept every child. They are at the mercy of political whims, and can only be as good as we allow them to be. Until our country understands that education is a better investment than incarceration, and that privatization is not in the public interest, our children will suffer.

Signe Wilkinson's cartoon with a student asking, "What's art?" (May 20) and Dan Hardy's story "Survey warns of Pa. school cuts" (Tuesday) paint a bleak picture of the state's commitment to a well-rounded education that includes art, music, and gym. The School District of Philadelphia is hanging on to these essential programs as well as it can, but the problem of underfunded districts is a statewide dilemma.

Gov. Corbett and our state legislators need to get the message: There is no way around this roadblock without increasing revenue. We want children to be holding guitars, paintbrushes, and basketballs — not dead-end signs.

How many members of the panel that says "Do nothing" regarding prostate-cancer screening have practiced what they preach ("Cancer test is harmful on balance," Wednesday)? Further, how long did they do nothing in regards to their prostate cancer? It's all well and good to proclaim that a cancer is slow-growing, but what guarantee is there that it won't change? I had to two uncles who had agonizing deaths after dealing with untreated prostate cancer. Thankfully, I found mine early and had successful radiation treatment four years ago.

I was simply amazed at the letter "Baseball needs rule changes" (May 22).

The writer must not have played sports, or at least not baseball, to suggest suspending a player without pay for a year for intentionally trying to knock the ball out of the catcher's hand or glove, or for trying to intentionally hit a batter with a ball.

This is how the game is played, whether it is Major Leage Baseball or a sandlot contest. Continually changing the rules makes for a very different athletic contest, no matter what the sport may be.

If people have a problem with the rules of a sport, let them search for another avenue to channel their attention. Allow the rest of us to enjoy the game the way it should be played.

The letter writer who takes issue with some time-honored baseball traditions is right. There are certain aspects of the game that are dangerous. He cites running into the catcher and hitting a batter with a pitched ball. And we have completely overlooked the velocity of a ball when hit by the batter. Almost all injuries could be prevented by replacing the standard bat and ball with a Wiffle ball and plastic bat.

The editorial "Barking up wrong tree on 'fracking' for gas" (May 16) is definitely on the right track in saying that the state of Delaware is correct when it comes to this controversial gas-drilling process.

Not only has Gov. Jack Markell essentially stopped the practice in Delaware until studies are done on the safety hazards of fracking, but Vermont has officially banned gas drilling.

Due to the amount of chemicals used in each drilling, the most important step we can take is ensuring that we know what effects this practice has on our water supplies, especially because individual citizens have no power to stop gas drilling once it is permitted in an area.

A moratorium on gas drilling, until we know exactly what it does to our water and, therefore, our health, is needed if we want to avoid preventable sickness and destruction of natural resources.

Natural-gas companies can wait to drill until these studies are completed, and our elected officials can guarantee that our health and safety are the drivers of policy, not the profits of gas drillers.