Reprehensible
Let me get this straight. The Democrats in our legislature, at the urging of the Democratic Party, raised the amount state parties can spend on their candidates from $10,000 to $2 million, but the Maryland Republican Party, in its first competitive election in years, will not be allowed to spend one thin dime on its top candidate -- Ellen Sauerbrey?
The attorney general decided that under the public financing law any state GOP expenditure on behalf of the Sauerbrey campaign will count against the public financing she is receiving.
That legal opinion came from a Democratic attorney general.
The result, after a judge upheld most of the opinion, is that Democratic nominee Parris Glendening can outspend Ellen Sauerbrey by four or five to one, and the state Republican Party must stand by silently.
Am I the only one who finds this reprehensible?
Am I the only one who thinks this is an affront to democracy?
How can we possibly have a fair debating of the issues with this kind of inequity?
Maryland Democrats are under the gun for the first time in recent political memory. That they would resort to using the powers of their offices in silencing political opposition proves they have been in power far too long.
Attorney General Joe Curran should be ashamed of this blatantly political opinion. It is unfair to Ellen Sauerbrey and to all Maryland citizens who want to hear an honest, fair debate between the candidates for governor.
Perhaps this arrogance of power is the best reason to clean house this November and elect Republicans for a change.
Tucker Clagett
Upper Marlboro
Means to an End
I found Neal Peirce's piece on contractual education (Opinion * Commentary, Sept. 26) amusing in a sort of "where have you been?" way.
It has been apparent to me that since the evolvement of the governor's Excellence 2000 meeting that the states have
decided to ditch the public school system onto private enterprise.
What is the most disappointing thing about this "goal" is that instead of just doing it outright through the democratic process, they have set up these performance farces to establish a so-called need for contractual education.
Once their goal is met and all public education is privatized, then we will see a return to a fundamental education and the end of "outcomes" and performances.
In the meantime, we have the lost generation in an educational, political chess game to avoid dealing with unions and voters, and like idiots we all sit by while it happens.
Whether or not contractual services are good, better or best is not the issue.
The issue is to what means are we willing to go to change the system? I, for one, am very resentful of the assumption that my children can be used as a means toward this eventual end.
Kathryn L. Schultz
Baltimore
Superintendent Amprey on EAI Test Scores
Because of its negative tone, I feel I must respond to Gary
Gately's Oct. 18 report on the release of our most recent standardized test results.
In Baltimore, we have been involved in a tremendous amount of discussion about the issue of privatization in education. Most of this discussion has focused on one company that is engaged in partnerships with educators -- Education Alternatives Inc.
It is essential for us to step back and look at this issue in the global terms it deserves. We must understand that we are the victims of our own narrow-minded thinking, and our children are fast becoming the victims of that thinking. This is reflected in the failure of our schools.
The concept of public-private partnership, particularly as it pertains to school management, breaks with tradition -- and does so in a positive way.
It is normal to question an unorthodox technique. We understand the public's need to investigate, to scrutinize, to hesitate. The public should be questioning us -- and participating in the decision we make for their children.
As a result, we have responded completely and honestly to relevant queries about our contracts with EAI and other private sector organizations.
If we can collectively focus on the end result -- that is, on our children and what we want for them -- and if we can stop squabbling over the vehicle that will take them to that end, then we will be happier and feel better about our future and the future of our posterity.
Elevating a discrepancy in standardized test scores to the level of scandal does the citizens of Baltimore, and especially our children, a great disservice. Moreover, it is irresponsible to manufacture a "controversy" based on such early test results.
At this point, no one can use standardized tests to determine whether EAI students are achieving better or worse than their counterparts.
Standardized tests are longitudinal instruments. Results rely heavily on patterns of test administration and conditions. We cannot have test reliability or validity so early in this undertaking.
The only fair standardized measure of the Tesseract concept -- despite company claims -- will occur as the result of a third party evaluation which we have contracted to do.
Meanwhile, myriad less sophisticated measures tell us that this concept can and does work.
If our children are to succeed, we must focus on how they learn. And we know enough about how children learn to know how we can create an appropriate learning environment to maximize student success.
All of those ingredients exist in Tesseract classrooms: personal education plans, smaller student-adult ratios, technology-based instruction, parent involvement and a philosophy that all children have talents and gifts.
These concepts can and will exist in other Baltimore City public schools classrooms. Through this partnership, we are paving the way for other unique approaches to instruction -- with or without EAI.
We must examine all aspects of the Tesseract program before we arrive at final conclusions. We also must examine other approaches that will give our children hope for the future.
Most important, we must put aside the adult issues that are blocking our progress as we attempt to reform our schools.
Traditional approaches have been failing the young people in our classrooms today. As I have said before, we are out of time. We must try new approaches, and we must give those new approaches a chance to succeed.
Walter G. Amprey
Baltimore
The writer is superintendent of public instruction for Baltimore City.
Let's Get Fiscal
I receive a Social Security check monthly. I would not call it an entitlement, though during my working years I did contribute to the fund which no longer supports what workers such as myself draw out. I would have welcomed a choice to invest that money in my own way.
I also have children and grandchildren and don't like to contemplate the legacy they are being left. I have tried unsuccessfully by writing to congresspersons and voting for representatives who say they are fiscally responsible to change the direction in which we are headed.
We apparently have a different understanding of fiscal PTC responsibility. My understanding includes slowing, stopping and reversing the accumulation of the national debt.
To do this, all of us must accept change. At one time I paid dues to the National Education Association though I did not sup
port their candidates, nor policies in educating our youth.
I am a member of the American Association of Retired People and find that I am not in tune with their policies, either.
I hope that there are many in my age group who realize we are on the road to fiscal disaster. In the coming election I will try again to vote for those I consider ready to act on behalf of my children and grandchildren. I hope other voters will, too.
We have poured enough money into welfare, entitlements and education to have seen more results than are apparent.
Federal programs merely skim off money from the states. The closer tax money is spent to the source of the money, the better control over that money voters should have. Let us therefore try once more for fiscal responsibility.
Helen P. Voris
Baltimore