Email letters, September 12, 2013
It’s time to change school board dynamics
In reference to James O’Malley’s letter to The Daily Sentinel, the article only covered a very small portion of what questions were asked and what was discussed. If O’Malley had been able to attend, he would have been able to express his concerns about how our history and civics are being taught in our schools.
I would like to emphasize that these particular three candidates were interviewed by my smaller group, Citizens 4 Liberty. Each faced 20 interested citizens for two hours. They were also interviewed by the Mesa County Republicans.
“Ice Cream in the Park” was attended by a very knowledgeable group of people. Many of them attend the school board meetings and watch the ideas of Ann Tisue and Jeff Leany get voted down 3-2.
We wish to change that dynamic. We feel that a change of philosophy to a more conservative viewpoint is necessary to accomplish things such as how history and civics are taught, raising graduation rates, and decreasing the percentage of high school graduates who need to attend the community college for remedial classes in math or any other subject. The educational system must learn to be accountable for the results of its actions.
I am a very strong believer that it is the citizen who is responsible for doing some homework before casting a vote, and I got the idea that on this matter O’Malley agrees with me.
For those who wish to have more information on the candidates, Freedom!Colorado is having a forum that will include all school board candidates at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 10, at City Hall. All candidates have been invited.
Sentinel effectively relayed facts on PERA funding issue
Regarding the Sentinel’s recent editorial regarding the Club 20 position taken on Amendment 66, regarding school funding, the editors were correct to point out that money raised by the successful passage of the amendment would be prohibited from ever being used to directly fund PERA.
It was refreshing to see the facts so simply stated. Thanks for the real story founded in facts.
Mesa County and Colorado School and Public Employees
State, federal governments mandate English Language Learner programs
I read with keen interest the summary of comments made by Pat Kanda at the recent coming-out party held for him and two other candidates at the Mesa County Republican Women’s ice cream social in Lincoln Park (“Republican school board slate unveiled,” The Daily Sentinel, Sept. 9).
Kanda states that he is unsure about the effectiveness of having English as a second language program in local schools, and he feels that sports fees aren’t covering as many costs as they should.
We might have had a lively discussion about the English Language Learner program and athletic fees had I been invited to attend. The Republican Women’s President Linda Gregory indicated that a “subgroup” had spent two hours interviewing the candidates apparently prior to endorsing them by inviting them to the ice cream “social.”
I was not invited, nor was I interviewed. Had I, as a candidate, been interviewed, a seemingly logical step prior to making endorsements in a nonpartisan race, I may have at least earned an invitation.
But failing that, perhaps I can make a comment here in a more open forum.
The ELL program requirement comes from Title III of the “No Child Left Behind Act.” Its purpose is to ensure that every school district provides children identified with needing assistance in English language development instruction that will allow them to achieve the same education standards and outcomes as we expect of their English-fluent peers.
ELL is a federal and state requirement and, when you think about it, really an imperative if we are to actually reach one of the great values of public education — providing a solid base for all children so that they can succeed in careers and as citizens.
Perhaps before voters are called upon to cast a ballot in the District 51 School Board races, all the candidates will have a chance to discuss educational issues in forums that allow voters to make informed choices.
School Board Candidate
Recall election validates desire for honest government
Perhaps the editors know something about the recall that I was not privy to.
I do recall hearing on PBS (as left-wing as you can get in its bias) that both sides were not pitching the issue of gun control. Yet The Daily Sentinel after the vote seems convinced that was “clearly the reason.”
From what I have heard, the biggest concern of the voters over there was the fact that the politicians decided to push these laws that do violate the Second Amendment and that cannot reasonably be enforced, especially without violation of the rights of the citizen.
The number-one problem I had with both Morse and Giron was the same problem I have with a majority of politicians: They have ears but do not listen, and they appear to have forgotten they are elected to “represent” the people,” not their partisan politics. It was purportedly the people who voted to remove them who helped elect them — not the bloated Bloomberg or the president.
Push polls going into the recall suggested pretty much how the vote went, but the polls were ignored because Obama and the Democrats did so swimmingly there in 2012. I did not vote for Hickenlooper because I could NOT trust him to defend our state constitution nor our way of life.
His maladministration has proven my initial impression of the political right. I most certainly will vote for anybody but Hickenlooper in 2014. I would support a recall of that Democrat, as well. Progressives of every stripe always beguile themselves by insisting, as have Morse and Hickenlooper, that more people agree with them than agree with the opposition.
The recall of these two politicians proves the desire of the people for honest and moral government. When we do NOT see such, we reserve the constitutional right to remove unfit politicians from the office they were entrusted with.
ROBERT JAMES BURKHOLDER