Letters to the Editor

Once again, Auditor General Jack Wagner has issued a report criticizing the way charter schools are funded ("Wagner: Pa. charter, cyber funding flawed," Thursday). He states that districts could save $365 million a year if they were funded at the national average for charter schools. He calculated the "national average" by examining the four states with the highest charter enrollment: Michigan, Texas, Ohio, and Arizona. These states have a lower cost of living than Pennsylvania, and spend significantly less on education than we do. Is Wagner really suggesting that Pennsylvania cut its overall education spending to be more aligned with low-spending states such as Arizona and Texas?

More disappointing is the fact that his report doesn't discuss why parents send their students to charter schools. Wagner simply proposes cutting funding to charter schools as a way to help districts save money. In the future, I hope he will focus less on protecting the existing system and more on how to expand high-quality options for students.

We need a commission to comprehensively study how to improve the funding system, and I urge my House colleagues to join me in supporting a commission that approaches this problem fairly and objectively.

We're all aware that Pennsylvania's method of funding public education is problematic, that schools have been underfunded at the state level, and that last year's budget cuts exacerbated the problem. There's little debate about that. The School District has undertaken tremendous efforts to find efficiencies and budget responsibly, and has already made drastic cuts. The bottom line is that schools need more funding from the state and the city.

The School Reform Commission's budget counts on an additional $94 million from the city. The legislation passed by Council will raise only $40 million, half through property taxes and half by raising the use-and-occupancy tax. While it's a bitter pill to swallow, it simply isn't enough. The consequences of not raising $94 million will be devastating for students, teachers, and principals.

However, this isn't a one-sided deal. The return on investment to taxpayers, business owners, policy makers, and our students is a more efficient education system that budgets responsibly and prepares our students for college and 21st-century careers.

My hope for our city's students is the same as my hope for my own children: That they will return in September to a safe place that helps them to fulfill their intellectual and creative potential. I am gravely concerned we can't promise them that.

Robert Benne never gives a reason for a secular government sanctioning marriage as an event that should get favorable treatment ("Protect the religious from the secular elite," June 17). The fact that certain people in government believe it's desirable for a couple to be married and to reward them with benefits not afforded to single people or same-sex couples creates an unequal status for a large part of the population.

The drive for same-sex marriage is not an attempt to deprive religious people a right they believe needs to be defended. It is to correct a state-created and -sponsored inequality. In that way, religion has nothing to do with it.

If our government were to remove all benefits of marriage from its tax and inheritance laws, all there would be to debate is semantic in nature.

"Private sector is not fine" (June 18) says putting lipstick on President Obama's "pig of a recovery is not going to pay the bills." What the writer does not understand is that the pig was killed by Republicans in Congress.