Public school funding
Editor: Educational spending is a highly charged topic at all levels. Maybe this rather simple example will help explain a fiscal problem public schools encounter frequently: Mrs. Smith is feeling generous after finding an additional $2000 in the family budget. She tells her husband she will give him $1000 to use as he sees fit. He immediately starts thinking of ways this will improve his quality of life. But, before he can even begin to assemble his list, his loving, all knowing, benevolent, omnipotent wife informs him the following must occur: He cannot save it. A percentage must go towards new approved reading materials (his current list is still up to date). He must shop with only selected vendors regardless of who or where the best prices are. Neighbors cannot borrow any items he has purchased because they have not been identified as needing them. He has 2 weeks to get his orders in. Does this seem like the windfall he had dreamed of? Categorical stipulations can cripple the way schools use money. Maybe the charter school movement is on to something with the way they develop their plans to spend educational allotments.
Randy Stava
Sonoma
Cell tower testing
Editor: We commend Mr. Knight, the Sonoma Valley High School science teacher, for his recent testing of the cell phone tower emissions and Ms. Michaela Philpot, the SVHS principal, for her report of same to the Sonoma Valley Unified School District. Mr. Knight’s test and Ms. Philpot’s report would appear to have been performed in some measure to comfort parents about the presence of the cell phone tower on school grounds (for if not, why report it to the SVUSD?).
Here are some other inquiries Mr. Knight might want to conduct and Ms. Philpot to report:
· Was the tower operational or fully functional on the day and time of the test? Will the tower ever (over time and usage) emit more radiation?
· Is a one-off, random, spot test a scientifically valid test of tower emissions over time? Is it even illustrative or indicative of the tower’s emissions over time?
· Can one conclude that the tower is safe because it emits only low radiation? And, if so, can one also conclude that since a drop of arsenic won’t kill you, one can drink a full glass? Or that since one puff of a cigarette does no harm, one can chain smoke for 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, for 13 years without harm?
Recently, the SVUSD was asked to hold a public hearing on the tower and it refused on the grounds that there was nothing more to add and that the decision (to erect the tower) had already been made. Setting aside the question of what harm can come from an open hearing and debate on this topic (and doesn’t science require and benefit from a healthy degree of skepticism?), SVUSD’s refusal to address the children and parents affected by the tower is arrogant and harks back to the tautological arguments about Vietnam, Iraq or any other ill-informed decision: We must continue because we must continue…
We hope that we do not look back one day on the SVUSD’s ostrich-head-in-the-ground analysis to ask: Why were we passive? Why were we not curious? Why did we not act?
Thanks.
Neta Sanders, Freshman SVHS
Jerry Sanders
Managing Director
San Francisco ScienceTM
Obama not like Bush
Editor: Doug Nickle’s diatribe against President Obama misses a point, or several. Those cabinet appointees who foolishly got into tax trouble with the IRS were otherwise eminently qualified for their posts, unlike Bush’s cronies, whose records speak for themselves. After the last eight years, all President Obama has to do to succeed is not to remind anybody of his predecessor. By that standard even the letter writer, with his limited grasp of the issues, might qualify. Or not.
Darryl Ponicsan
Sonoma
Need more affordable housing
Editor: We do need more decent affordable housing.
It is really sad that there is so much resistance to the idea. Why are more sweat equity houses and apartments not promoted? It seems like a good model to follow. I have seen how well the sweat equity houses off Hwy 12 are cared for.
Many of the people who rent, can’t afford to buy, I understand that. Couldn’t those same people, who would rent apartments, be involved to some degree to their construction? In return, they could get a break in their monthly rent for example. They might feel more pride in preserving the look and integrity of their dwellings since it is a great and valid concern to their neighbors.
Just a thought. I would like to hear more ideas from members of our community.
Pierrette Duriez
Sonoma