Educating our youth
Re: “DPS literacy efforts stymied,” June
10 news story.
It is unfortunate for students, parents
and educators that DPS has not
shown greater gains in reading and
writing after three years. This proves
there is no one-shot solution to improving
literacy. It is a puzzle requiring pieces
working together.
One of those pieces is the school library.
Colorado Department of Education
research, replicated in 13 other
states, shows that supporting strong
quality libraries and librarians in every
school improves scores on tests like
the CSAP by at least 8 percent. The
DPS literacy program did not show the
same gains in its three years.
Once, DPS schools had good library
programs. Since the introduction of the
literacy program, nearly 35 full-time
professional librarians in elementary
schools and almost 10 other positions
in middle and high schools have been
eliminated.
The library book budget was decreased
from $2.5 million spent on library
books in 2002-03 to $1 million in
2004-05. The difference went into
building identical classroom book collections
with no assurance that quality
materials were being purchased. A
small classroom book collection is not
an adequate substitute for a quality
school library and librarian.
Years ago, California took the same
path as DPS by eliminating libraries and
staff. California is now firmly entrenched
near the bottom of the student
achievement list. Is Denver headed in
the same direction, or will leaders see
the light and recognize a library’s importance
in the student education puzzle?
Judy Barnett, Colorado Springs
The writer is president-elect of the Colorado
Association of Libraries
Plan to revamp spending
Re: “Should First Class Education plan
pass? YES: All pupils would benefit,”
June 12 Perspective.
As a parent and a taxpayer, I want a
first-class education for my children,
but the plan of Rep. Joe Stengel and
some Republicans to dictate spending
patterns to local school districts is another
demonstration of how out of
touch the state legislature has become.
I have a few questions: If your district
isn’t allocating the dollars to the
classroom that you think it should,
what are you doing about it locally?
When was the last time you attended a
school or district accountability meeting?
When was the last school board
budget meeting that you attended?
How much time do you spend each
month in your children’s school?
Every time the legislature passes a
bill aimed at our schools, it usually does
little but add to the already huge administrative
burden. The local school
boards are not the ones dreaming up
the hair-brained schemes that have
caused administrative costs to balloon.
The Republicans’ plan will take the
decision making from people closest to
the issues and with an understanding
of the special needs of their district in
favor of an arbitrary cookie-cutter approach
that has absolutely no basis in
fact. Why do you want to add another
administrative function in the name of
reducing administrative costs?
When I talk about the education system
designed by the Colorado legislature,
I use the analogy of a one-legged
stool. Currently, the one leg designed to
support the system is the accountability
of the schools. If you truly want
first-class schools, start by modeling
your design on amuchmorestable structure,
the three-legged stool.
Instead of
making the one leg on your current model
ever longer, which inherently makes
the stool less stable and efficient, consider
adding two more legs in the form of
parent and student accountability.
Restore the notion that education is a
privilege, not a right. Over the last 35
years, the legislature has slowly but deliberately
cut two of the legs off the
stool. It has shifted its responsibility to
the teachers, counselors and administrators.
The legislature should require
some form of accountability of every
parent and child who chooses to take
part in our education system.
John P. Wells, Leadville
Battle over tenure
Re: “The battle over tenure; Academia’s holy grail inspires defenders, detractors,” June 12 Page 1 story.
Clearly, tenure is a double-edged sword; it protects good faculty members from bad administrators and bad faculty members from good administrators.
Most people have difficulty understanding the need for tenure because they cannot imagine a business offering anything like tenure to its employees. Many bright people go into academic positions because they want the freedom to conduct the kinds of esoteric intellectual pursuits that fuel progress without constant fear of losing their jobs. Why else would a talented individual accept an academic salary one-third of what is paid in industry?
However, it is unreasonable to compare colleges and universities with businesses. Colleges and universities are shielded from many of the normal competitive pressures that shape the way businesses operate. This allows decisions to be made without regard to negative consequences. The extensive use of committees allows everyone involved in a given decision to avoid any individual responsibility, no matter how absurd the outcome.
Thus, granting tenure to a faculty member can be, and often is, based upon subjective personal bias rather than merit. Without tenure, excellent faculty members who are not “team players” would face constant arbitrary threats of termination from incompetent administrators. The price for this is that deadbeat faculty members who are tenured cannot be terminated by good administrators.
However, it is the responsibility of university administrators to ensure that rigorous standards are upheld when granting tenure.
Are most universities wallowing in a morass of ineptitude? I don’t think so. There are enough really dedicated faculty members and administrators at most universities. After all, higher education in the United States is arguably the best in the world. Changing a system that is functioning pretty well is a risky gamble.
John M. Allen, Ph.D, associate professor of chemistry, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Ind.
…
Writers Kevin Simpson and Alicia Caldwell assert that the main reasons the tenure system was established were to “shield professors’ academic freedom from shifting political winds – and to guarantee lifetime employment.” The focus is on the advantages of tenure to professors. This overlooks how the system also benefits students, in terms of the quality of the education they receive, as well as the university.
The work of education is not just about producing and delivering a product. It is also about creating and building personal and professional relationships. Full-time, tenure-track professors are alarmed by the attack on tenure and the rising use of part-time and adjunct faculty partly because this trend can undermine a critical part of the educational process and experience, i.e., creating and building meaningful relationships between students and faculty and between faculty and their institution.
When students begin their university careers, they expect that their teachers and advisers are going to be around when they return year after year. They expect them to be available for academic guidance, mentoring and professional networking in the long-run. When an institution grants tenure to a faculty member, it cements an ongoing reciprocal relationship of mutual expectations and responsibilities. It also fosters loyalty and a sense of commitment on both sides.
The tenure system endures because it is not just beneficial to faculty, but also to students, their education, the university, and ultimately the larger society that universities exist to serve.
Christina Kreps, Ph.D., associate professor of anthropology, University of Denver
War in Iraq
I challenge The Post to continue to find and report stories about Iraq and Afghanistan, to include successes and failures, or praise and criticism. I also encourage your readers to stay informed.
When I was in Iraq with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment the first time, news about war protests was demoralizing, but we knew the people still cared one way or another.
Now, speaking with my friends and fellow soldiers presently serving over there, I know there is something much worse: apathy. Michael Jackson, the runaway bride and the Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston breakup lead the news. Soldiers are wondering if anybody cares at all any more.
At this point, reading about a rally of support or a war protest would equally boost the morale of our troops. I’d like to think that we the people still care and that we are interested in reading about world events, our soldiers and the difficult birth of a new nation over the fluff and meaningless stories that grace our news media lately.
Bryan Catherman, Herriman, Utah
…
Re: “Brits were wary of Iraq war fallout,” June 12 news story.
Your article describes how British officials were concerned that the United States was planning to invade Iraq with “little thought” to “the aftermath and how to shape it.”
While the Downing Street meeting and these British papers elucidate how the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” we still don’t have an answer to a fundamental question: Why did President Bush decide to invade Iraq in the first place? We all agree that Hussein was a tyrant, but there are other countries with governments that are equally unacceptable: Why choose Iraq?
Sarah Kurtz, Golden
Helping the homeless
Re: “Ending homelessness not easy, but Denver has plan,” June 5 Perspective.
The recently announced plan to eradicate homelessness from Denver is admirable in its stated aims. The costs would be extensive but worthwhile if the aims are achieved. While optimism and charity are admirable human traits, they are trumped by what we can do now, not so much in the financial sense as in our abilities to achieve our hopes.
The three largest causes of homelessness are alcoholism, drug abuse and mental illness. These problems have no current solutions – easy or otherwise. The “cure” rates appear to be minuscule. Schizophrenia has no cure, just medicines to control the symptoms and make life bearable.
Are there any cures for other mental illnesses?
Perhaps we can’t get these people off the streets for good, but having them utilize decent housing, be fed properly and under medical care would be splendid accomplishments. Critics would say that we are only warehousing them, but is that so bad when we consider the alternatives?
Cecil E. Bethea, Denver
Government waste
Re: “Environmentally friendly office,” June 2 photo, Business section.
The photo and article were discouraging. They both outline the tax-and-spend mentality of a government gone mad. It is obvious that the government feels no responsibility to the taxpaying public to conserve their hard-earned funds. It is beyond me why the EPA needs a nine-story atrium, a two-story lobby and a rooftop garden in its new $90 million building.
If a similar excess were contemplated in a private company in which I had a few shares of stock, I would work diligently to remove the board of directors.
I am asking my senators and representative in Washington (the public’s version of a board of directors) for their comments on this extreme waste.
Dick J. Morroni, Denver
Wind in Washington
Re: “U.S. senator, Colo. town
battle over wind energy,” June 16
Business story.
Regarding the comments
made by Sen. Lamar Alexander,
R-Tenn., on windpower: As a
senator in Washington, Alexander
obviously is an expert on
wind and gas.
Lawrence H. Kaufman, Golden
Logic behind statewide smoking ban
Re: “Statewide smoking ban
best,” June 13 editorial.
I am not a smoker, and I do go to restaurants and an occasional
bar. Your editorial has some interesting twists that don’t quite add up to a “need” for a statewide
smoking ban.
The finding by the Denver Environmental
Health Department
that a worker could inhale the
equivalent of two packs of cigarettes
seems very unlikely.
Think it through: A cigarette
lasts about 10 minutes. Forty cigarettes
works out to 400 minutes.
Eight hours is 480 minutes.
So they are saying that the dreaded
secondhand smoke is about
equivalent to directly smoking,
one after the other, 40 cigarettes.
Second, the desire of restaurant
owners to “level the playing
field” certainly seems anticompetitive.
What about letting
folks vote with their wallets?
smoking is really all that offensive,
those businesses that allow
it will soon drop by the wayside.
Seems like legislation would
only shield owners from the market.
Third, the air in four bars
four! was especially bad.
of how many? Then there were
“some bars” that had rather nasty
air. Again, how many?
David Nasser, Monument
Children in prison
Re: “Juvenile injustice
inexcusable,” June 12 Diane
Carman column.
After dealing for more than a
decade with children serving
life without parole, I know that
these kids are treated far more
harshly than many adults who
commit nearly identical crimes.
Colorado’s justice system is at
war with our juveniles.
While district attorneys opine
that these kids got a fair trial, everyone
else involved understands
that trials are never about
justice. They are only about
throwing 15-, 16- and 17- year-olds
away for life. Easy convictions.
Easy headlines. Easy political
rhetoric about, “If they’re old
enough to do the crime, they’re
old enough to do the time.”
No, they’re not. And once you
lock these kids up in adult prisons,
they are prey to horrors no
child should ever endure.
Most people think only the
worst of the worst are convicted
as adults and that this could never
happen to their child. They’re
wrong. Many children are serving
hard time for crimes far less
serious than murder.
Why is our justice system at
war with our children? When
did we decide that, when it
comes to juveniles, we no longer
believe in redemption only
retribution? When will Colorado
join the rest of America in
taking a second look at the injustice
of throwing children away
in adult prisons?
Mary Ellen Johnson, Colorado
Springs
