Questioning the āfreedomā offered by DeVosā plan
Re: āFederal tax credits for donations would boost school choice scholarships,ā Jan. 31 commentary
Betsy DeVos stated in her commentary, āAmericaās forgotten students — those without the freedom the wealthy, powerful and well connected have always enjoyedā should have the same educational freedom as the wealthy. She ended with, āThe Trump administration will continue to fight for freedom ā freedom for every student and freedom for every family in America.ā
Does that include freedom from hunger, worrying about paying bills, worrying about getting or keeping a good job, having to move often and worrying about accessing or paying for health care?
If this administration and Congress will elevate living standards for all Americans, then perhaps parents will be freed up to play, go places, talk informatively, and read books with their children. With the āfreedomā of enjoying early language and learning experiences with their families and feeling reduced anxiety about having access to the basics of day-to-day living, including good nutrition, all children will be physically, mentally, and emotionally more ready to benefit from their public school experiences.
To boost educational achievement, we donāt need another tax-break for the wealthy; we need a social break for children and their families. To attain the educational achievement levels of high-achieving countries, we must examine all features of their societies, not just how their schools operate. And then we must implement meaningful social changes here.
Mary Lou Johnson, Lone Tree
What Betsy DeVos says is just a rehash of the Republican-generated nostrums about public education. Our rankings havenāt changed, that¶¶Ņõap true. If anything, theyāve gotten worse. Why? Because, in part, the money that should have been used to improve school infrastructure, equipment and teacher salaries were flushed down the toilet by the surge in high-stakes testing brought to us by Republican administrations, most notably, George W. Bushās disastrous āNo Child Left Behindā nonsense. These are the same people who want to expunge Thomas Jeffersonās call for the public good from history textbooks.
When Republicans, especially those who have never been to a public school, start yammering about school choice, understand the code word here. They simply donāt want to pay for public education. I wonder how many of the majority of poor people can afford to make that choice for expensive, private schools. If DeVos wants equal and fair choices, she should be directing her department¶¶Ņõap funding toward what serves the vast majority of our children. Oh, and her rewording of the voucher issue by calling for scholarships is yet another so-called conservative lie.
Vernon Turner, Denver
Donāt use taxpayer money for faith-based education
Re: āParents choosing faith-based schools deserve equal treatment,ā Feb. 2 commentary
Columnist Krista Kafer claims that parents opting for faith-based schools for their children should be able to take a tax credit to defray the cost of tuition. She claims it¶¶Ņõap a āquestion of fairness.ā To be totally fair, if those religious-sponsored schools want to benefit from tax money, let them start paying into the tax base by removing their tax-exempt status. Then theyāll be accessing money from a source theyāve contributed to, rather than asking others to foot the bill for their studentsā tuition.
Gene Drumm, Denver
Kafer confuses fairness with public interest. Taxes are typically used by a community for supporting various needs critical for a communityās survival: roads, bridges, water supply and treatment, police, fire protection, and schools, etc. These needs reflect a shared and common purpose by the public at large.
However, if individual residents want a special road or bridge near or onto their property, taxes for the general welfare of all would not be used for such a narrow and personal need.
The same is true for public schools vs. religious/private schools. Taxpayers contribute money to educate the community at large, hopeful that the result will be an educated populace.
Religious schools are a personal option for parents who want some theology or dogma attached to their childrenās learning. That is, of course, a choice any parent can make. What they canāt impose with that choice is the requirement that community taxes pay for their individual preference.
Ed Tyrrell, Arvada
I strongly disagree with enabling school choice widely. This practice continues the inequality of public school funding and allows rich, predominantly white parents choices not available to others. Whether it¶¶Ņõap religion, sports programs or other priorities not available in your local public school system, only parents who can navigate the choice system (and often provide transportation or other program requirements) have access. Select choices within public school districts for vocational programs, gifted and/or talented programs or specialized special needs programs should be available and enabled for all students.
If we are going to support boutique school choice, then what about those of us with no children in the system? How are our choices reimbursed? Why should my tax dollars go to your faith-based education? I support a strong, well funded public school system as foundational to a democracy of well-educated citizens. Everything else is elitism.
Deborah Gard, Lakewood
Air near wells is safe according to tests
Re: āMobile monitoring lab goes to source,ā Feb. 2 news story
Reporter Bruce Finleyās story misled readers when it comes to oil and natural gas production.
In his piece, Finley wrote that āstate health officials trying to assess potential harm from oil and gas operations (have) relied mostly on estimates provided by companiesā and that āboth residents and industry officials eagerly await resultsā from the stateās mobile lab.
Well, actually, the results are in. Theyāve been in for years. But they were not included in the Sunday story.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has deployed its mobile air lab, which is referenced in the story, countless times.
After thousands and thousands of measurements by the stateās mobile lab, there has not been one attributed to oil and natural gas development, of benzene or any other chemical, that would cause short- or long-term health impacts. Over the past decade, and throughout Colorado, other third-party measurements and measurements by academia have recorded the same results, thousands of times. CDPHE analyzed over 10,000 of these samples in their 2017 assessment alone. Again, there have been no air measurements near oil and natural gas development to date that would lead to negative health impacts.
With the storyās concentration on Broomfield, it is most concerning that Finley didnāt include results from three different air monitoring studies in Broomfield just this past year. Those studies from third-party agencies have concluded that energy development operations in Broomfield continue to have no short- or long-term health impacts. In fact, air data collected during operations looked very similar to baseline measurements. It¶¶Ņõap shocking this extremely relevant fact was left out of Finleyās coverage.
This industry is committed to Colorado, and most importantly to Coloradans, because we are one and the same. This is home, and we work hard every day to protect the air, water, lands that make this state an exceptional place to live.
Dan Haley, Denver
Editorās note: Haley is president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Park Hill Golf Course planning is a waste
The Denver Community Planning and Development Department recently announced that it will be initiating a formal āSmall Area Planningā process this year regarding the Park Hill Golf Course land.
The Community Planning and Development Department is taking this action despite the following facts that prevent development of the land:
(1) the land is protected by the perpetual open space conservation easement for which Denver taxpayers paid $2 million;
(2) the land is zoned Open Space-Recreation;
(3) the Colorado conservation easement statute prevents termination of the easement unless a court determines that — based on changed circumstances on or surrounding the land since the easement was granted ā it is impossible to fulfill any of the easement¶¶Ņõap open space conservation purposes.
What a colossal waste of the time, energy, and money of the city government and our fellow citizens.
Write and call the mayor and city council members.
Penfield Tate III, Denver
Editorās note: Tate ran for Denver mayor in 2019.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
