More Views on Parochial Busing
Parents of parochial students may soon have to pay for the transportation of their children if the $229 million budget is not met by Howard County. This has raised the question of whether parochial school students are entitled to free transportation. But this question has already been answered by a law passed in 1943 which requires transportation to be provided when the students live on an existing bus route with available bus seats.
This reinforces the idea that students of parochial schools should be allowed free transportation. The parents of these children are taxpayers and part of their tax money inevitably goes toward public education. And the fact that these parents send their children to parochial schools saves the county money because it means that there are less kids in public schools. It is unfair to make these parents pay for transportation when they are already, indirectly, paying for it.
Many parents of public school children are vehemently opposed to free transportation for parochial students even though it is only enforced when there is room available on the buses and the stops are already on a bus route. They see the parents of these children as wealthy and privileged but this is not always the case.
Undeniably, a large number of these parents are well off but many also scrimp and save so that they can give their children a better education. If some parents lose this service, they would not be able to transport their children to school because the parents of parochial students do, indeed, still work.
The parents are entitled to this service because the money still comes out of their pockets, no matter what anyone says.
Seo Hee Ko
Ellicott City
Loved your editorial, "No Free Ride for Parochial Schools" (Feb. 16). You said, "When parents choose to send their children to private or religious schools, they should expect to foot the entire bill." Couldn't agree with you more. Then you said, "Public funds should be for public education." Again, couldn't agree with you more.
Now I want to hear you apply these lines to state aid to private higher education. Many of your readers may not be aware of this, but Maryland allocates huge sums to private higher education. In last year's budget, these funds amounted to more than $25 million -- and this to colleges and universities that don't charge their in-state students a cent less than out-of-state students.
In a state as financially strapped as this one, and that invariably looks to its higher education budget whenever cuts are called for, this free ride is inexcusable. To judge from your editorial on parochial schools, you ought to be in the vanguard of those who are trying to put a stop to it.
George S. Friedman
Towson
The writer is president of the Towson State University Faculty Association of the American Association of University Professors.
I am writing in response to Kenneth Stevens' letter in The Sun for Howard County on March 5. Mr. Stevens has long been an outspoken opponent to transporting nonpublic school students. However, this letter is the most nonsensical I have read. He objects because religious instruction is provided at the end of the trip. This logic, carried further, could have dangerous consequences for all Howard countians.
I must admit that I have religious materials in my home, Bibles, Sunday School materials, magazines, and (lean in closer so I can whisper) church bulletins. Some of these were even delivered to my home by my U.S. Postal Service worker. Occasionally, there are religious materials in my recycling bin, which is picked up by a county paid contractor. Should my house catch fire or should I fall victim to an attempted burglary, the responding county fire or police officers would be helping to protect religious materials.
If we allow Mr. Stevens' logic to stand, all county services to all Howard countians of any faith could be subject to a team of anti-religious materials police, who would, of course, be paid with county tax dollars. Busing of nonpublic students should certainly continue. The choice not to use one county-provided service does not disqualify a family from all other county services.
Marcia A. Croteau
Ellicott City
You should get over your hostility to parochial school education as expressed in your editorial, "No Free Ride for Parochial Students."
Why not give the children attending the Howard County parochial schools a free ride? Do they need the ride any less than public school students? Are they somehow less deserving? Under your logic, why not make the schools pay property taxes? Why give them police or fire protection?
Parochial schools provide public benefits throughout the state. . . .
In Baltimore, the inner city Catholic schools educate thousands of children from poor families, who happen to be overwhelmingly non-Catholic. They provide sound educations and save the city and state millions of dollars. In Northwest Baltimore, the parochial schools conducted by Jewish congregations have +V revitalized that section of the city. Parochial schools and the students who attend them should be respected, nurtured and assisted whenever possible.
John C. Murphy
Baltimore
Punishing Truants
In several school systems in Maryland, a new policy has gone into effect regarding the attendance of students.
Now, instead of punishing the students who skip school, the parents of these adolescents are being penalized. Parents of students with poor attendance are being fined.
I disagree with this. A parent who is punished for their child's actions may act in a more severe way toward their child. If a student is not attending school on a regular basis, he/she needs positive reinforcement instead of passing the buck to their parents.
If the parents of the child don't have enough control to send their child to school, fining the parent won't solve anything. Also, if the student doesn't have a great enough interest in school to attend it, he/she probably won't care about the punishment given to their parents.
In order to encourage students to attend school, there should be positive reinforcement in the school instead of negative reinforcement toward the parent.
Daniel Pick
Ellicott City
Dog Doc
On Feb. 22, you printed an article with a picture of a kindly veterinarian, Dr. Fred Lewis.
I must tell you I was most touched by the excellent handling of this article because the Thursday prior I had the unfortunate experience of requesting that Dr. Lewis euthanize my dog of 15 years, Buster.
I must say that if this had to be done (and it did), there's no one other than Dr. Lewis to whom I would like to hand my dear friend.
His compassion was clear, and there was kindness in his craft and gentleness with my old companion. He told me that in all his years of veterinarian medicine, this never gets any easier. It was easy to see that he was nearly as sad (if this were at all possible) as I was.
Thank you for your kind article, and thank you, Dr. Lewis, for your warmth and compassion.
Earl T. Crown, III
Ellicott City
Double Talk
The problem with politicians today is that they just won't tell the truth. Our politicians are so concerned about the possible consequences of telling the truth that they perpetuate factual fraud to get elected.
Think about it, Congress is going to cut taxes, raise defense spending, not touch Social Security and balance the budget. Who's kidding whom? We've been there, we've done that and tripled our debt in the 1980s.
These politicians today also wail that the government spends too much money yet Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, an avowed budget slasher who clamors for "fiscal restraint in government," demands that increased federal dollars be spent on her home state's Acadia National Park.
Sen. Rod Grams of Minnesota, who hates big government, says he will fight to the death to get $4 million in federal highway money for Minnesota Highway 610.
And then here's Newt Gingrich, who would dismantle government except that he then wouldn't have a job, who had his Cobb County District in Georgia get $573,200,000 in federal assistance in 1992 or about $7,491 per person.
No wonder we citizens are fed up with our politicians. If these baby boomers don't outgrow their sandbox shenanigans, the public is going to demand some adult supervision. That will be the consequence for their failure to tell the truth and for doing exactly what they blame the government for -- lying and pillaging.
Jim Mundy
Ellicott City
Why Public TV?
The Republican majority of the U.S. Congress has proposed to eliminate federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which would do immense harm to the public interest.
Not only would 92 million Americans without cable service face possible loss of access to these vital, stimulating and educational programs, too many Americans would continue to be force-fed a steady diet of shallow, violent and dehumanizing programs now being broadcast by commercial television and radio.
To make matters worse, 24 million of the 43 million Americans with disabilities are deaf or severely hard of hearing, and they could lose one of their largest sources of captioned TV programming.
CPB, which allocates its $285.6 million federal appropriations to its Public Broadcasting Service affiliates, is committed to captioning as many of its programs as possible. (Closed captioning is the process whereby the dialogue of the program is decoded by add-on equipment or computer chips and projected on the bottom of the TV screen for persons with hearing losses to read rather than hear.)
If these cuts are made, it is inevitable that shifting budget priorities will force PBS to cut back on captioning, and TV will once again become "radio with pictures" to persons with hearing loss.
USA Today/CNN/Gallup recently conducted an independent survey that indicated 76 percent of Americans favor continued federal funding of CPB at some level. People recognize that PBS programs such as the "McNeil/Lehrer Newshour," "Frontline," "The American Experience," "Rumpole of the Bailey," "Newton's Apple," "Mystery," "Nature" and a host of other programs represent what broadcast journalism and entertainment can and should be. These programs are stimulating, innovative, thought-provoking and, due to their educational impact, represent the greatest "extension university" in the country.
Everyone recognizes that cuts in federal spending have to be made in the face of a $4.5 trillion deficit. But Congress must get its own priorities in order and crack down on truly wasteful spending, such as $500 toilet seats for certain aircraft or huge sums for the Department of Agriculture to study why cow manure makes barn floors slippery. Any old farm boy, of which I am one, could explain the latter situation in five minutes at no charge.
Congress should examine the entire question of CPB/PBS funding from the standpoint of how this appropriation benefits its entire constituency and not from the standpoint that this is what Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has decreed must happen. Congressmen and women are supposed to represent the people of their district, not the personal agenda of the speaker.
Another prime mover behind the effort to eliminate CPB/PBS funds is Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Both gentlemen contend the same programs appearing on PBS are already available on cable, and CPB/PBS funding is no longer needed despite the fact that 92 million Americans don't have cable. In recent days, Mr. Gingrich has indicated that his position on CPB/PBS funding has been misconstrued. What he is actually saying is that he wasn't prepared for the overwhelming backlash from all corners of America against cutting these funds. . . . It is vitally important that people write to Mr. Gingrich and Senator Pressler, along with the entire Maryland congressional delegation, and remind them that CPB/PBS is a valued service to all Americans and that the majority of people polled have indicated support for continued funding.
We must emphasize to the Congress that public broadcasting programs provide opportunities for lifelong learning, contribute to math and science competency and adult/child literacy, prepare children to learn, and provide tremendous access via captioning to 24 million Americans with hearing loss. We have much to lose if Congress gets its way. This should be everyone's fight.
Willis J. Mann
Laurel
VTC