Letter Topics

List arranged by keyword - in italics

Arecibo Observatory
7/12/2008

Bidenomics
1/8/2024

Blame Unions
1/31/2015

Board meeting behavior
10/14/2015

Board Salary Rip Off
8/29/2007

Booing Hillary, not 
G-d
7/31/2016

Jeff Brown and his supermarkets
3/21/2023

Candidate Forum letters
11/27/2011

Castle rule
11/21/2010

Teachers flee chaos
8/28/2001

I am Charlie
1/14/2015

Greek Church & 'WTC Mosque'
8/21/2010

College Drop-out Rate
1/26/2006

Corbett sues to block Health Care Act
3/20/2010

Convention Center
1/23/2008

Deep Throat
6/1/2005

Defending teachers
July 7, 1997

Dredging the Delaware
11/28/2009

Energy costs
9/25/2023

Facts (1) should be checked
May 26, 2011

Facts (2) Ullery Misread tables
5/2/2011

Blaming teachers for student failure
2/18/1997

Rule of Faith 
12/3/2009

Whoopi Goldberg & the Holocaust
2/2/2022

What is a 'good teacher?'
8/24/2000

Graffiti
6/13/2019

Graffiti
8/24/2022

Gun Control
9/30/2010

Affordable Health Care Act
7/11/2012

Health Reform Act
5/27/2011

Home Schooling
11/11/2005

Dividing Kensington
9/16/2005

Illegal Immigrants
3/06/2007

Immigrants & Assimilation
12/9/2007

Islamic Cartoons
2/2/2006

Leadership in schools
6/18/2004

Meet the Candidates - Where were the Republicans?
10/12/2011

Openness in politicians
9/12/2006

Podcast Interview
9/2016

Primary 2017 letter
5/14/2017

Principals at West
10/6/2010

Rallies in Washington, DC
11/24/2010

Rhee & Teacher Seniority
11/23/2011

Trap & Iraq
11/11/2005

SEPTA 1
6/3/2007

SEPTA 2
6/19/2007

Shapiro attack letter in the Gazette
5/14/2016

Splitting Philly School District
8/14/2011

Bill Green appointed to SRC
2/2/2014

Defending teachers
6/7/1997

Email to President Obama Re: Shirley Sherrod firing 7/21/2010

Abandoning Space
2/10/2010

Sen. Specter wants to 'help' local courts fight witness intimidation
2/25/2010

Increased taxes in Whitpain/
Wissahickon
2/2/2010

Long letter attacking Taylor
5/11/2010

Teachers wanting to NOT be in a Union
12/21/2021

Obama & Afghanistan
8/5/2010

Pensions - Teachers Blamed again
12/14/2020

Fix districts' finances, address pensions, choice 9/4/2014

Another hatchet job on Pensions
12/14/2016

Power Lines Should Be Buried - again #3
9/8/2021

Power Lines Should Be Buried - again #2
3/8/2018

Power Lines Should Be Buried
11/3/2012

Principal of the Month - West Philly
10/5/2010

Principals without certifications 5/23/2010

Safe Schools
Two presentations
April, 2018:
Penn State
North Penn SD

Seniority rules & rehiring
8/26/2013

Teacher failure
2/18/1997

Catholic students lobby for Vouchers
5/29/2012

Vote for Stoloff
10/20/2017

Why you should vote for Ron Stoloff
11/1/2011

Yellowcake
7/8/2008

Victory, 2017
November 13, 2017

Don't complain if you don't vote.
5/25/2011

Voting Machines
5/22/2019

Wissahickon School Board Attitude
5/12/2013

30^th St Station
12/25/2005

Here is a compilation of my letters about various
topics both published & not.

The latest date at the top

An editor has enormous power: with the flick of her red pencil, she can change the entire impression the author sought to make, and that's what this blog post is about. 

An article in The Ambler Gazette got me into a tizzy after I read a guest column on the Editorial Page that, through a "pull out" cast the opposite point the author was trying to make. I wrote a letter complaining about it and, surprisingly, they published it.

The Gazette published a "Commentary" on "The real failure of Bidenomics".

Turns out the writer thought that the failure is in the selling of the good news of the economy, however, you'd never get that idea from the way it was published: the article had that odd title + it has a "Pull-Out" of a paragraph that was actually NOT what the article was about: Wood said the economy is actually great but the Pull-Out implied that it was lousy.

Me, being me, I wrote a letter to the editor and they actually PRINTED it - but NOT in the Ambler Gazette, first. You see, The AG is part of a group of newspapers and it seems to have been printed pretty much everywhere BUT the AG originally. It was published in The Gazette a week later.  

Here's my letter [I'll include the links to the original article and my published letter.]

+++++++++

In the December 17, 2023 issue of The Ambler Gazette you ran a commentary by Will Wood entitled “The real failure of Bidenomics.”

What struck me as odd as I read this piece wasn’t the commentary but the contradiction of the pull-out from the article: “Even while wages were growing at a sharp rate, inflation was outpacing that growth, reducing our actual purchasing power, or ‘real wages’.”

This seems to ignore Wood’s point, which is in the very next paragraph, “Then, in the second half of 2022, inflation cooled but wages continued to grow. Real wages are now higher than they were before the pandemic.”

To the casual reader of the Gazette – one who doesn’t actually read the commentaries – by just glancing at the title and the pull-out, they would gather the exact opposite of the aim of Wood’s article: that the economy going down instead of it is actually going gang busters with inflation down, wages up and unemployment down.

I don’t want to project my perceptions onto the editorial staff but it would normally seem that the purpose of a pull-out is to illuminate the theme of the article not its reverse.

I would, therefore, suggest in the future, that greater care be taken to insure that pull-outs do not contradict the author’s point.

Links:
The original article. 
The letter as published in The Reporter.

re: “Biden’s latest attack on energy is costing your family”
by E. J. Antoni
The Heritage Foundation
Ambler Gazette, September, 18, 2023

In Antoni’s article [“Biden’s latest attack on energy is costing your family”] on the rising cost of energy, he misses the key point in the production of that energy: if you don’t have to pay the costs of cleaning up, things would be much cheaper – for now, but only for the producer.

This would also apply to any polluting industry. If a chemical plant, along with its product, releases a toxic effluent that pollutes streams or ground water without having to consider cleaning that effluent, production costs would be far lower.
However, those downstream - the cities and towns that need that water to drink - will have to clean up that water before it is delivered to customers, which costs a great deal of money. There, you have the conundrum: someone has to pay to clean up. Why shouldn’t the one who makes the mess in the first place be the one who gets the bill instead of everyone, whether they use the product or not?

To put it in the most basic, grossest, level: If my dog leaves a “deposit” on your lawn, shouldn’t I have to clean it up, versus expecting you to have to clean up after every dog that “visits” your property?

Click see the article mentioned.

Top

In the Primary for Mayor of Philadelphia, one candidate, Jeff Brown, has supermarkets in Philly.
The important part of this is that those stores are in areas with few - or NO supermarkets - except his.
I submitted this to the Inquirer on March 21, 2023, but it wasn't published.

I read with amazement the article describing the attacks on mayoral candidate Jeff Brown [“Some decry aid Brown got to open stores,” March 20, 2023] for accepting governmental assistance in opening several supermarkets in “food deserts” in Philadelphia. His accusers seem to forget that this aid was offered to anyone who was willing to step up and take the financial risks, regardless of the aid, to alleviate the shortage of venues which supply reasonably-priced fresh food in the city. How many others did?

I grew up in such a “desert” and realized that my parents paid considerably more at the corner store than folks who could get to a well appointed supermarket and applaud Brown for stepping up.

While I no longer live in the city and have no “skin” in this election, I reject these efforts to pull down those who attempt to make improvements to the lives of Philadelphians by those who sit on the sidelines and do nothing but complain.

Top

This letter is a reply to an op-ed, “Hey Mural Arts, graffiti is art, too. It should be treated as such” 
by Razan Idris, that appeared in the August 23, 2022 Philadelphia Inquirer
My reply was published on August 26, 2022.
Interestingly, the letter was published but the last paragraph wasn't included. I wonder why?

I was fuming as I read this op-ed. Even though the Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network (PAGN) made some errors, the disease of graffiti was so insidious in Philly that I must conclude that Mr. Idris wasn’t around when it was in “full bloom,” so let me refresh some memories:

• There wasn’t a wall, post, light pole or almost anything that didn’t move that didn’t have some tag on it – and one of the most grievous perpetrators was Cornbread. 

• Another point Idris seems to forget is that all those spray paint cans weren’t purchased – they were shoplifted from stores in the first place as the Vandals couldn’t/wouldn’t pay the great expense of defacing our city. 

• Owners of property had to spend hundreds each time they tried to clean up their properties from the depredations of these taggers and often, no sooner had they covered the defacement, than it was replaced by another. All this added to thousands a year for store and property owners in our city.

I do have a suggestion for Idris: publish your address so that all the taggers in town can come and place their marks on your home. I’m sure you won’t mind; after all “graffiti is art, too.”

Reinstate Woopi Goldberg

Sirs,

I write this letter to express my outrage at your suspending Whoopi Goldberg for her statements on The View Tuesday, February 1st. I say this as a Jew, a retired history teacher and one who led school-wide sessions on the Holocaust for many years. Goldberg’s statement that the Holocaust was not about racism but about “man’s inhumanity to man” is far closer to the truth than what you are professing. The ridiculousness of attacking her, insisting it was racism because the NAZIS considered Jews a race is absurd. Why kowtow to the NAZI viewpoint when we really know that the antisemitism at the root of the NAZI philosophy stems from religious persecutions of Jews that were religious in nature.

Further, even after Goldberg apologized for not following the line, you still suspended her. My family and tens of thousands of others across the nation watch The View to hear the clash of viewpoints and opinions yet, when Goldberg expressed a view at variance with the guest, she is shut down, suppressed and sent into exile for two weeks.

What will be the fallout of your action to this show, indeed, your entire network and the nation at large if someone is punished for a view that is not in line with that of the NAZIS? A view, I repeat is far closer to the truth than the one she is being punished for not holding?

Where do we go from here? She should be reinstated immediately and a statement from your corporate office should be released saying that you respect the right of your talent to express their views on a show that has as its sole purpose to do exactly that.

You must do the right thing; you must do it now.

This was not printed.

I need to reply to this article as the person who wrote it, though he suggests he “represents” large numbers of educators, he does not.

I have a unique position in that I’ve been both a teacher – in Philadelphia for 35 years – and was a School District Board member for 8 years in my local district.

I started teaching in the early years of teachers unions and I went through several long strikes to gain benefits for teachers in the city schools and the same thing happened in suburban schools where Eason now works and I find his dislike for unions somewhat confusing in that while he claims to detest the teachers union that represents him in negotiations with his local school district, I can say without a doubt that he has never, not even once, refused any of the benefits achieved by his union as far a pay or benefits such as retirement, healthcare or working conditions.

As far as his suggestion that places of employment have elections to possibly change the union representing them, or do away with union representation altogether, as a former Board member, I can say that to most school districts this would be music to their ears as no employer likes unions. This is just a fact of life in the real world. Every employer would love to negotiate with each – individual – employee, control the workplace with abandon and would love to see that unions having to “re-run” their selection as this would give Boards an opportunity to control their employees to a far greater extent than is permitted today.

No pay raise, improvement in working conditions, or benefits acquired by teachers or any employee for that matter, has been achieved without pressure from unions – or fear that a union might come in - though far too many teachers think that just because they consider themselves professionals they would be treated as professionals by their employers.
The world just doesn’t work that way. To see an example of this, one only has to look at the pay teachers in Charter Schools receive – most of whom are not represented by unions and the people in charge are actively fighting the unions that are trying to organize their schools as they understand that what is good for the professional staff is bad for their bottom line.

Eason mentions an incident that he has heard about third-hand where a union was “telling her to change her political affiliation” and “who to vote for.” First, I find this hard to believe as they likely only suggested that it would be in her interest to vote for a certain person. This is a recommendation and not “telling” her how to vote and if it actually happened they way he repeated, there is no way a union – or employer – can force you to vote a certain way, thanks to the secret ballot, which, by the way, unions fought for.

Once again teachers are being used as punching bags instead of the real culprits: the Pennsylvania State Legislature.

Distefano suggests in his article that only the teachers are responsible for the financial mess in the state teachers pensions when they are as much as the victim as the taxpayers of our state. The huge imbalance in teachers pensions goes back as far as 2005 when the legislature raised its pay from 16-34% in a secret, 2:00AM vote. There was a great deal of controversy over this and many who voted for it lost in 2006. The legislature increase was later repealed but the law stuck for judges and teachers. To avoid squawks, as school boards as well as teachers would have to pay for this increase, legislatures pulled a fast one: teachers payed for the increase from day-one but school boards didn’t have to pay an extra dime, nor did the state, that is, until the bottom dropped out of the economy in 2008. Then the hammer fell and school boards had to pay through the nose to the tune of from 12.36% in 2013, rising to 34.77% this year, scheduled to increase to a high of 36.3% in 2023 gradually tapering off to 3.62% in 2042.

Why do I have such a detailed knowledge of this? I’m in a unique position on this: I was a teacher in Philly for 35 years until 2003 and I’m now on our local school board as we wrangle our budget around this incredible mountain. True, the state pays ½ of this but locally, we still pay ½ directly and we pay the rest through our state taxes. This wonderful “Taxpayer Holiday” has come back to bite all of us, because our state legislature bet that the economy would continue perpetually up in a straight line.

Another storm, more power black-outs all caused by the same problem: The storm's powerful winds or the weight of a heavy snowfall knocked over a tree and pulled down the power lines that supply a house and hundreds of others. Who would have thought this could happen?

While THIS time we didn’t lose power we know plenty of others who did and I’m sure you do, too.

Millions lost power this week and many more will suffer in the future because the power industry is unwilling to secure one of the most important portions of its infrastructure. They bleet, "It will cost too much." But how much have this and all the other outages caused by snow, ice, wind, and auto accident cost in terms of income and inconvenience?

The time has come to bury every power line in the nation.

Every time a road is rebuilt or any major excavation occurs, all power and other utility lines should be buried. Route 202 is about to be widened in Montgomery County, why can’t THESE two storms be the spark that moves us to bury ALL utility lines?

To the Editor:

Tuesday, May 16, will be primary election day, and it’s fast approaching. Those of us on the “Great School Team” of Debbie Greenstein, Tiffany Hodgson, Ron Stoloff, and Tracie Walsh are candidates for the Wissahickon School Board, and we encourage all voters to exercise their right to vote.

Unlike in a general election where all voters select from an identical ballot, in Pennsylvania for the primary election, Democrats receive a Democratic ballot and Republicans receive a Republican ballot. However, due to the ability to cross-file for school board races and some judicial races, Republicans can have their name placed on the Democratic ballot under the Democratic heading. Likewise, Democrats can have their name placed on the Republican ballot under the Republican heading. In both cases, no political party designation will be shown with the candidates’ names so that voters will not be able to discern the candidates’ party affiliation.

Although cross-filing can be confusing, the intention is that for some elected offices, political party affiliation should not determine the vote. Rather, the quality of the candidates should be the determining factor. Those of us on the “Great School Team” concur with that idea. With that in mind, you can check out our qualifications by going to our website: GreatSchoolTeam.org.

Each member of our team brings particular skills and experiences that can benefit our students and community. We are friends of public education and success for all our students.

Regardless of your political party, we humbly ask for your vote.

Debbie Greenstein
Tiffany Hodgson
Ron Stoloff
Tracie Walsh

I write this from a unique perspective: I was a teacher in Philly for 35 years and am now a school board member in my local district where we must grapple with the situation described in “Pension costs climb for school districts,” Wednesday, December 14, 2016.

When the PA State Legislature passed the law that boosted teacher pensions by 25% in 2001, as well as 50% for the Legislature, every teacher in the State began paying to support the increase in their pensions.

However, the boards in the State as well as the legislature did not have to pay any more. Why? To keep the school boards and the taxpayers quiet. This continued until 2009 when the funding agency (PSERS) “suddenly” realized they weren’t even close to paying for the increased teacher pensions since they “assumed” the most glorious of returns on the pension fund investments during the almost 10 year “holiday.”

Therefore, in 2009 PSERS began slamming the school boards with demands to make up for that shortfall and now, each year, each school board in the State must grapple with the gigantic demands to pay back what previous boards had just been able to ignore.

Today, each board in the State is paying about 37% on their teacher salaries for pensions and I’m sure anyone can understand how the taxpayers feel as each year the demands increase as the “payback” increases.

At our most recent budget meeting, the groans could be heard as we received the latest rate – actually higher than what we’d been told just a few days earlier. However, the solution is not to be found on the backs of the teachers and others working for us; teachers have been paying from day 1.

The incompetent and greedy Legislators are the ones responsible for the current crisis and it is they who should be the first to suffer the penalty of increased contributions and reductions in pensions even if these changes would not begin to come close to solving the problem – if only as an example before they demand sacrifices of anyone else.

Booing at the opening of the Democratic National Convention was not directed at Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s mention of the Almighty; it was because she named Hillary Clinton (“Move over, Santa — you’ve got company,” Wednesday). Supporters of Bernie Sanders were expressing their displeasure with her imminent nomination.

Nearly all of the speeches last week closed with some form of the line, “G-d bless America and G-d bless the American people.”

Ron Stoloff, Blue Bell

The original:

To the Editor,

I was aghast reading a letter in the July 27, 2016 Issue page (Move over, Santa – you've got company).

It was obvious to anyone who had been watching the Convention that the booing was not because the speaker mentioned the Almighty, but because the Mayor of Baltimore mentioned Hillary Clinton's name. This was because of the displeasure at that time of Sanders supporters at the mention of Clinton's name.

Either the letter writer just tuned in for the few moments that the Mayor spoke or he was trying to make someone who didn't see any of the Convention think the Democrats would stoop to denigrate the Almighty. All you had to do was listen to almost any of the speeches so far to hear the closing line of “God bless American and God bless the American people.” 

Ron Stoloff

Please note that I'm writing this as a Wissahickon School Board member but not speaking for the Board.

On October 12th, there was a regular Board meeting and a standard part of our meetings is that the public has two chances to make statements to the Board for about 3 minutes. Of late, most of these presentations have been about the contentious issue of the High School football coaches. All the Board members understand and accept that this is a heartfelt issue to those who spoke.

However, something happened that evening that was a complete break from what usually goes on at a public meeting - a break from what should happen: One person, David Kopp, repeatedly called out, stood up, gestured and talked over the recognized speaker, both public and Board member. It began when Dr. Gorman was speaking. (:40 on the recording) The Solicitor - sort of a traffic cop for the meetings - asked this person to sit down, stop calling out and pointed out that this person could, himself, speak uninterrupted. There was no change in his behavior.

After the final public statements, there was a call for Board member comments and several Board members spoke, acknowledging the passions expressed by the speakers. Joe Honeycutt, a Republican member of the Board, spoke - rather tried to speak - as he was interrupted several times by this same person in spite of the repeated requests that he not. (1:00)

Finally, I spoke and was also interrupted (1:08) by this person as he shouted over me and wandered back and forth across the front of the room.

All this behavior would be shocking enough if just anyone were to act this way but is redoubled by the fact that David Kopp is actually running for School Board Director on the Republican ticket.

I ask the entire Wissahickon School District family: is this the type of person we want on our school board? One who is so intemperate in his behavior that he is a disruption?

I suggest you view the recording of the meeting at:

http://wissahickontv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=c7d13b1c2ecadd8d8ca10158cbbb2a78

Ron Stoloff

In their article, "Blocking better schools," Bouder and Paul seek to place the entire blame for the difficulties of Philadelphia's public schools on the backs of the teachers and the teachers union saying that the Union has been the impediment to student progress "for decades."

This is not even close to being true. When the Union was voted in by the teachers, class size was up to 48 per classroom but the teachers fought, year after year to reduce this huge number to 33 that exists, today, in most classes. This was done against the opposition of School Boards that claimed it was unnecessary. Tell that to the parents of suburban children where the class size is in the neighborhood of 26.

The Union fought for reforms throughout the District: nurses in each school, increased numbers of counselors and increased security. Why? Because the teachers are in the schools every day and understand the needs of their students. They fought against a School Board that seemed more interested in warehousing students than educating them.

Bouder and Paul suggest that the Union spends teacher dues without permission against their interests in supporting candidates for Governor. This is not true as the teachers have a "check-off" to contribute to a PAC to support educational actions. Why wouldn't they support Wolf against Corbett in the last election? Philly schools have been without the support they need from the State. Teachers, counselors, and legions of support staff have been lost because the schools haven't been getting the money to run a system with many students in dire need of additional resources.

Philly schools have been shortchanged for decades but Bouder and Paul choose to blame all its problems on the one group that has to work in the environment created by people like them who care nothing for public schools or the students who attend them.

Norton shows she is a brave person when she comes down against bigotry. Who would raise their hand to say anything against that? The problem is she goes on to argue that Charlie Hebdo was virtually "asking for it," when they published the cartoons lampooning Mohammed.

In her article she makes a fundamental error in describing free speech. She states that "we are selective about the speech we protect."

No, we are not. It is precisely the most unpopular speech that must be protected and our First Amendment does not make the distinction and neither should we.

Making such a distinction as Norton tries to do paves the way to excuse the terrorists in Paris, something our society should refuse to do. I am astounded that a professor of political science at the U of P doesn't understand that.

I know almost everything James Paul stated [To fix districts' finances, address pensions, choice 9/2/2014] is false from my unique perspective: I taught for 35 years in Philly schools and now as a school board member of a nearby suburb.

Most of his claims are false. This is not especially surprising as he is part of the right-wing "think tank," The Commonwealth Foundation. Their Home Page includes, “Lies from PSEA Leadership,” the icon for "Unions & Labor Policy" is the Communist hammer and sickle. Do you think this is a tad one sided? Their entire purpose is to destroy unions and, along the way, eliminate public schools.

Paul says seniority causes the firing of "many terrific, young public school teachers" as if being inexperienced makes them "better" teachers - an idea that anyone who has ever been in a school knows is preposterous as they see inexperienced teachers leave in 5 years.

He makes the claim that charter schools are all success stories, yet all you have to do is peruse the Inquirer regularly to see that some charters are rife with corruption as owners/founders are caught time and time again double dealing. Several have gone to prison. Are these the vehicles we want to educate our children?

He claims that charters "outperformed district schools" but studies have shown that 80% of Philly students entering charters actually go to schools that under perform Philly schools they came from.

He saves his biggest "guns" for attacks on the State pension system. He is right. It is in trouble but not for the reasons Paul stated. When the pension system changed the teachers began paying the increased deductions immediately. Unfortunately, neither the State nor districts began to pay the additional amount required by the law for approximately 20 years. Then, in 2008, when the bottom dropped out of the stock market, the folly of this was revealed. Now, school districts across the State are soon to be required to pay 30%+ of teacher salaries to make up for the 20-year "holiday" they enjoyed and people like Paul are blaming it all on the teachers.

The effect? Districts across the State are raising school taxes. My district pulled back from building a new high school with several members stating the looming pension tax burden.

Then he goes on the favorite target - seniority rights. He blames all of Philly's problems on this. Yet my District has a roughly similar contract and pays substantially more, yet our high school placed in the top ten in the entire State. Perhaps it is because we spend considerably more per student - students who require far fewer expensive support systems than students in Philly.

Paul says seniority causes the firing of "many terrific, young public school teachers" as if being inexperienced makes them "better" teachers - an idea that anyone who has ever been in a school knows is preposterous. Inexperienced teachers don't stick around - most are gone in 5 years or less as they lack the experience to carry them through the burdens of urban schools.

I was intrigued by Karen Heller's article (Difficult man for a difficult job, 1/22/2013). In it she analyzes Gov. Corbett's appointment of City Councilmen Bill Green to head the SRC, the "creature" the State set up in 2001 to run the Philadelphia public schools, stimulated mostly by the dire financial state of the school system plus the high dropout rate and low performance of students.

Fast forward 13 years and, if anything, the system is in worse shape than it was when the State took over, and who does the Governor appoint? A person whose position paper on how to "fix" the schools specified vouchers and completely charterizing the system. Even she says that his position paper - published only 2 years ago - went nowhere and it is "probably a good thing" that it didn't. She states he claims to have "evolved," but gives no examples of this evolution.

Heller asserts Green's claim to fame and Corbett's support, is his "past support" for vouchers and charters and that this is "in keeping with Republican ideology."

Further, she notes that Green is "a difficult man" and that he is impatient and arrogant. That certainly sounds like great qualities for a job that requires conciliation and negotiation. It seems that if Green is confirmed, the SRC will have one more head whose interest is far from saving our schools and whose stated goal is, instead, their demise.

The Editorial of Aug. 25, 2013, "Crisis requires union action," stacks the deck when it claims that the teachers' union refuses to make any concessions and therefore the School Reform Commission (SRC) is justified in ignoring State law and preparing to bring some of the 4,000 laid off workers regardless of seniority.

When the SRC was started in 2001, one of the main arguments for its institution was that the Philadelphia School District was in debt. Now, 12 years later, the debt has ballooned.

A great job they've done, wouldn't you say?

The SRC has hired one Superintendent after another, paying over $1 million to get rid of the last - almost immediately after extending her contract. Isn't this malfeasance of the highest order?

You then go on to claim that because the SRC has driven the District over the cliff, the teachers are the ones who are responsible for paying for all the damages. I'm not one who usually goes along with conspiracy theories but the very one responsible for the untenable debt of the District uses that as an excuse to violate both State law & the contract it signed with the teachers. This, when the Philadelphia teachers already make far less than almost all teachers in the region, have class sizes far above the regional average and the most grueling working conditions. Let's not forget than many teachers spend their own money for supplies to make up for the shortcomings in District spending, year after year.

You can be sure that the teachers returned under this plan will be overwhelmingly the relatively inexperienced teachers - read "cheaper" - teachers, just what our students can not afford.

Can anyone doubt this is the real reason the SRC is doing this, other than to "break" the union?

On May 21st, voters – both Democrats and Republicans – will have the opportunity to set the future of our schools. This is not just about party – it is all about attitude. All you have to do is consider how our School Board handled the Mattison Avenue Elementary School issue. Is there anyone who is satisfied with how this was “solved?” If you have children in Mattison, you can not possibly think there is any part of this that was handled properly.

I taught in Philadelphia for 35 years and it only took me a few days after I started teaching to realize the people I had to establish a good working relationship with were the parents of my students. How far from that goal has our School Board drifted?

As I’ve walked the streets of Ambler in the past weeks I have found general disgust with the treatment of Ambler – and this was from both Republicans and Democrats. It was a feeling of betrayal, a general dismissal of the needs of the Ambler community.

My experience, my humanity, screams that the Board did almost everything wrong in the way the issue was addressed.

Today, the issue is Mattison. In a few years it may be another elementary school in Wissahickon. If this attitude prevails – if this Board, as constituted, approaches the problem the same way – what further disrespect can we expect?

Therefore, I beg you – Republican and Democrat alike – to come out and vote for a new Board with a new attitude, one that understands that it’s all about the students and that parents and communities are the strongest and most important allies any school can ever have.

Sherri Becker and I are on both the Democratic and Republican ballots, while Norma Nicolo and Tracie Walsh are only on the Democratic ballot. I hope you’ll check our web site at GreatSchoolTeam.org and join the FaceBook forums: Wissahickon Educational Coalition and the Mattison Home & School Association. See what we stand for; see what we offer the Wissahickon School District community.

Most importantly, come out and vote on May 21st. 

Ron Stoloff,

Candidate for School Director,
Wissahickon School District

On July 11, 2012, George Badey, candidate for 7th District of the US Congress was having a rally in support of the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) & asked me to speak as someone in Social Security & Medicare.

Hello, I’m Ron Stoloff, & I’m on Social Security & Medicare. I worked my entire life & for much of it I’ve watched as time & again the Republicans have tried to ‘help’ Social Security & Medicare by destroying them.

We knew all along what the real motives of the Republicans were. Fortunately, we were able to block all their attempts at destruction, but, now, suddenly, they’re talking as if they’re the only ones trying to ‘preserve’ Social Security & Medicare – but it is nothing but lies, lies & more lies.

To say the Affordable Care Act or ACA, takes money away from Medicare & raises costs for seniors is grossly misleading. ACA improves Medicare & provides Higher-quality, lower-cost care for seniors such as: 

• preventive services & wellness visits which are now free for us. 

• The Affordable Care Act has saved well more than 5 million beneficiaries close to $4 billion on prescription drug costs since it began closing the donut hole in 2010. It will continue to close the gap more each year. But does Meehan care? NO!

• Those in Medicare Advantage have enjoyed 16 percent lower premiums since 2010. 

• The Affordable Care Act eliminated the co-payments & deductibles for important preventive services such as immunizations, mammograms, & colonoscopies. Over 32 million seniors received these services at no cost in 2011. But does Meehan care? NO!

• There are over 11,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Rep. Meehan’s 7th district – OUR district - who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would have increased the average cost we paid for prescription drugs by over $500 in 2011 & by over $3,000 by 2020. But does Meehan care? NO!

• The ACA provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. There are eight employers in the district who have already signed up for this program. Nearly 8,000 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance. But does Meehan care? NO!

• Repeal would increase costs for employers & jeopardize the coverage for thousands of early retirees in the district. But does Meehan care? NO!

• The ACA improves Medicare by providing free preventive & wellness care, improving primary & coordinated care, & enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 out to 2029. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for well over 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district & cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years. But does Meehan care? NO! What would Meehan do then?

We have to support the ACA whenever we can – when we talk to our friends, our neighbors, our families. For more information see the WissahickonDems FaceBook page, or go to WissahickonDems.com.

We can not sit back & let something that we have been fighting for for over 50 years go down because the Republicans can’t stand to let our President have a victory, a victory that will mean a bright & more secure future for all seniors.
Thank you!

Re: Catholic students lobby for vouchers, 5/21/2012

I disagree with those calling for the State of Pennsylvania to bail out the Parochial Schools with our tax dollars. Parents who send their students to Parochial Schools, especially in the suburbs, are not fleeing “failing public schools,” they are making a decision to give their children a religious education. This is their right but don’t ask the rest of us to pay the freight on this.

In Pennsylvania, as Governor Corbitt relentlessly cuts financial support for public schools across the State, supporting Parochial Schools will only increase the pressure on public schools. This is not just districts like Philadelphia and Chester but where the long ignored requirements of pension costs will create demands on the public school budgets that will hit local taxpayers. If the State starts siphoning off funds to the Parochial Schools, homeowners will see their tax rates skyrocket.

At the same time the Parochial Schools are demanding State support they bristle at the suggestion that they become accountable to the State for their educational policies and curriculum. How will they teach Evolution, for instance? Will they be giving it equal time with Creationism? Parochial School parents see State support as their “right,” but how will they feel if the State then begins paying the tuitions for Madrasah? The State should only pay for schools that it controls, that accept every student and teaches a State supported curricula.

Ron Stoloff

Why should you vote for Ron Stoloff for School Board Director on November 8th? It’s very simple, basically - experience. While I have not served on the Wissahickon School Board before, I’ve spent my entire professional life in education. I taught in Philadelphia for 35 years in two of the more challenging high schools. I realized early on that my students were not performing up to their potential and because of this became involved in many educational reform plans. It was often easy to see that what someone from outside the classroom touted as the greatest program since sliced bread was not going to do the job and that the school would be shelling out thousands of dollars of scarce resources for nothing. While not all of the programs I took part in succeeded, virtually all of the one’s I rejected failed. Was this some uncanny prescience on my part? No. It was experience.

If I am elected to our School Board I will bring this experience of school and classroom life. I am the only candidate who has ever taught. We need someone who knows what’s going on in a classroom on our School Board and I am that person.

In the months that I have been going door to door in our community I have repeated this simple line hundreds upon hundreds of times and almost every time the reaction is the same, “You mean there’s no one on the Board who’s ever taught?”

I don’t advocate that all the Board members be teachers any more than they should all be business people or accountants. But someone needs to be able to shed a bit of light on how a classroom works.

I ask for your vote on November 8th to achieve that goal. Experience.

Ron Stoloff,
Candidate for Wissahickon School Director

The Republican Party candidates for the Wissahickon School Board’s refusal to attend either of the two Forums sponsored by a Wissahickon school organization is rather surprising, coming after the second of these Forums.

It is my understanding that Ms Ullery actually told the organizer of the Forums that she could not attend because of a scheduling conflict, even though Taylor said she would be willing to change the dates to accommodate her and the other candidates. As it was, only two of the Republican candidates bothered to actually say they wouldn’t attend, the rest didn’t even do that.

As far as Ms Taylor being partisan, why is that a problem? I’m certain if you asked any of the community attendees to the Forums, they would tell you that the sessions were not partisan and questions were encouraged from everyone. In fact, I sent an email to the entire Tea Party mailing list, provided to me by the Tea Party itself, inviting them to the Wednesday, October 26 Forum. I don’t know if any attended as there was no check of affiliation at the door.

Further, when the Tea Party held a Candidate Forum before the Primary all the Democratic Party candidates attended, despite what one might consider a potentially hostile venue. In contacts with the leader of the Tea Party that night, I personally thanked him for the opportunity to share my views with his membership and would again. It is not the organization that provides these Forums but a chance to meet our community that is important.

As far as all of the Republican candidates not getting an invitation, there is one possible explanation: they added another name to their list after the primary and most of us didn’t even know this happened until signs began to appear on the streets with his name. Even the Republican party signs show this confusion as they didn’t change their own signs, just added a separate sign with Charles McIntyre’s name on it.

This confusion started in June with the resignation of Roberts after only two years of her four-year term. The Board then appointed one of the Republican candidates, Eugene Murphy, to finish Roberts’ term until a special election in November for the two years remaining of her term. Then, Young Park withdrew his name from the four-year position and filed for the two-year term and the Republican Party selected McIntyre to run in place of Park for the four-year position. Because of this game of musical chairs with its candidates, you can, perhaps, excuse confusion of someone not informed of all these changes.

Further, if you accept the Republican assertion that Ms Ullery wasn’t invited; don’t the Republican candidates talk to one another? If the other candidates received the invitations, why didn’t they contact Ms Taylor and request that an invitation be extended to Ms Ullery. If, at that point, Ms Taylor refused they might have a point but this never happened.

When the articles appeared in the Ambler Gazette and the Patch after the October 12th Forum, they certainly knew the sessions were being held and since there was no mention of any overt partisanship during the sessions, they should have felt safe enough for all six of them to come and face two Democrats.

Alas, this did not happen and there was no opportunity for the parents of the Wissahickon School district to meet the Republican candidates.

Ron Stoloff,
Candidate for Wissahickon School District Director

Something strange happened at Wissahickon High School last Wednesday night (10/12/2011). The Wissahickon Parents Teachers Association had a meeting, expected all the candidates for the School Board to show up to answer questions and share their vision for our schools. However, only the two Democrat candidates, myself and Burunda Prince-Jones, appeared.

Why? Were they afraid to open themselves to scrutiny by the voters and parents of the District? Are they so confidant that they think they can’t be bothered meeting with their constituents? Are they deliberately disrespecting the parents of the Wissahickon School District and their concerns?

Burunda and I answered all questions posed to us. It was a shame that those attending didn’t have our opponents to question as well.

Perhaps they will find it in their hearts – and schedules – to show up at the next Meet the Candidates session, now scheduled for Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 6PM in the Wisshahickon High School Auditorium.

Ron Stoloff

Unpublished letter.
Re: “We’re firing our best teachers,” by Michelle Rhee, Inquirer, September 23, 2011

Because of it’s complexity it’s impossible to untangle all of the tentacles of this issue. But as a 35 year retired Philadelphia teacher I question Rhee’s main conclusion: that only “new” teachers can help our children.

She says that effective teachers produce more effective learning. As one of my former students used to say, “Duh!” But nowhere in her op-ed piece does Rhee prove the equation New = Good, Old = Bad.

As part of any school there is supposed to be an on-going evaluation process to weed out the poor teachers and help the weak ones to improve. People like Rhee and critics of our public schools and teachers’ unions leave out the most vital player here: the school Principal. They are supposed to observe and evaluate all of their teachers several times a year. The only problem is that they are not performing this vital duty and when they do, they routinely rate some of the worst teachers “Satisfactory.” This is not brain surgery – everyone in a school knows who the “bad” teachers are but for some reason far too many Principals haven’t been able to figure this out. Remember, all the “bad” teachers were evaluated by their Principals for 3 years before they acquired tenure but the signs are always there; ask any student, fellow teachers or the custodians who have to go into the wrecks of classrooms these teachers leave behind and they’ll tell you.

Why does this happen? Because far too many Principals are not doing their job of evaluation. Every study of school performance has shown that the key to any school’s success is the Principal. When Principals do not lead, schools fail.

To see the original Op Ed piece

  McColgan’s “solution” for the Philadelphia School District’s problems is not really a solution, any more than amputation is to an athlete’s sprinting problems. His reference to Delaware County is illuminating. He states this is his ideal – 15 school districts in a county only about 1/3 larger but 1/3 as many people. Creating multiple districts would not really solve the “calcified bureaucracy” but would actually create multiple bureaucracies, each with their own superintendents, central staff and purchasing, each with salaries that would drain resources from the classroom and with school boards fighting over scare financial resources.

A more relevant example would be Chester County where West Chester schools are distressed, taken over by the State and after years of efforts are still as bad as they were the day the State took over while other districts in the County are flourishing because they are not fiscally responsible for the problems of the schools where the problems are concentrated as the West Chester schools are allowed to fester.

A Philadelphia with multiple districts would actually solve nothing. The same schools would still draw the same students with the same poverty, victims of the same crime levels. Those in the “good” neighborhoods would still be “good” schools. Those in “dangerous” neighborhoods would still be “dangerous” just with more money wasted on bureaucrats instead of teachers, aides and classroom materials. You would no longer have the resources, the shared expertise that is possible in a larger district. Just because this has not been happening in Philadelphia is not intrinsically a size problem; it is a leadership issue. With the proper leadership, both in the schools and the political sphere, our schools can improve. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for many years in Philadelphia but amputation is not the answer.

Ron Stoloff

Re: Check Up; Despite its limits, Medicaid can save lives. By Robert Field July 18, 2011 (Scroll down to article.)

I was surprised to read in Field’s blog entry that he used the term ‘Obamacare.’ This derisive term was created by Republicans to diminish the importance of the Health Care Reform Act. In a quick check of his columns I discovered that he consistently uses this term, having found it in at least 15 of his blog entries.

I object to his utilizing this term, because he is buying into the Republican disinformation machine by using it. The only way you could consider this application is by referring to Social Securing as FDRCare and Medicare as JohnsonCare.

[My question to the Inquirer is, “Why did you print this?” Couldn’t you find some satirical writer to pen something that was not so uninvolved?

Lastly: since he’s not registered, he should put a sign on his door so the folks working for the candidates would know he’s not registered so they wouldn’t “waste” their time or materials on him.]

Re: Rendell weighs bill to expand self-defense law for shootings, November 21, 2010

To really understand how bad this bill is to expand the definition of “castle,” one only need to listen to Rick Taylor, (D-151) who was the sponsor of the original bill that was to expand the protection of Megan’s Law: “I was trying to make lives in Pennsylvania safer and protect the most vulnerable citizens,” he said. “It is not going to make children safer, but put more children at risk.” 

This bill, as it now stands, is such a perversion of the original intent that Taylor ended up voting against his own bill when it came back from the PA Senate saddled with the extension of the zone in which people can use deadly force from their homes to just about anywhere.

Not only is this wrong in concept but it appears to be in violation of the requirement that amendments have something that actually have something to do with the original bill.
Rendell should veto this bill that is opposed by DA’s, the State Police & many Police Chiefs. Their opposition is understandable as drug dealers are using the castle defense in response to charges in shootings in Southern Ohio.

Basically, the only group that is for the bill is the NRA as part of its knee-jerk response to anything gun related.

Ron Stoloff

I went to the One Nation, October 2nd rally in Washington, DC with thousands of others. It was great seeing the huge mass of people from all over the US, some who had ridden in buses for 2 days to get there. 

My trip was minor compared to others but we got up at 5:00AM in Blue Bell, got a ride to Mount Airy to get on the bus, walked about a mile to the Metro, stuffed ourselves in the trains then walked another mile to the rally. Afterward it was the reverse. 

I made it a point of taking pictures of all the different T-shirts the people wore and the signs. Of the signs only a few were the ‘attack’ type and those were from fringe groups that had no connection with the organizers of the rally.

What was actually said by the speakers wasn’t important; we just spoke with our feet and bodies.

I won’t be attending the Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear on October 30th as I’ll be too busy on Get Out the Vote activities. I’ll probably tape it and watch it after the election.

I didn't attend the Beck rally because I think he is a charlatan preying on the fears of our nation.

To the Editor;

It keeps getting worse. [“16 city principals lack credentials.” Wednesday, May 19, 2010]

First, Superintendent Ackerman hires someone who just quit bare moments before being fired, then never checks to see if the certification is in place. Now it seems that she was totally unaware that 16 other administrators are illegally holding such important leadership positions.

Explain to us why Ackerman received a $65,000 bonus from the District for “Superior Leadership?” Ackerman should give back the bonus she received – obviously she didn’t function in the proper supervisory role.

The total lack of accountability astounds. We hear from the head of the Administrators’ Association that it’s “too complex” for them to take the time and effort to make sure they have the qualifications for their jobs. Yet this same District is vigilant in rooting out teachers who are unqualified for the same reason – firing 47 last year. Why not fire the illegal Principals, as well?

Yet, how does the Board respond? The Board will send a representative to Harrisburg to get the Emergency Certifications. Who’s paying for the gas? The salary? The paperwork? Why should the Board pay? Talk about a double standard!

Two things should happen, immediately:

To the Editor:

The ink is not even dry on the Health Care Reform Act and we see that Pennsylvania Attorney General Corbett is joining the attorney generals of Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Washington in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Great to be in the august company of Alabama and Nebraska!

Is it merely coincidence that all of these just happen to be Republicans? Could they be using our tax money to continue the obstructionism that the Republicans have been waging for over a year to block even the consideration of the bill that finally became law just today?

Perhaps Corbett has it in his mind that he’s running for the governorship of Pennsylvania and he thinks this will play well to his base?

When — and if — he is on the ballot in November, I hope we all remember how Corbett has misused his office and our tax money for such blatantly political purposes.

Ron Stoloff,
Blue Bell

Actual article.

© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property

Governor Edward G. Rendell

I voted for you four times – twice each for mayor of Philadelphia and Governor – besides the times you ran for District Attorney and the primaries, as well.

I no longer live in Philadelphia and now reside in Blue Bell in Montgomery County but I still have an abiding interest in that city, as I thought you did. But the actions of your Administration regarding the Convention Center expansion and the reneging on the deal made for the buildings on North Broad have given me reason to reconsider my expectations.

I met you several times in 2006 as I ran for the State House of Representatives against Kate Harper and one of the complaints I constantly heard as I campaigned was that no one can depend on the word of politicians. I defended your Administration, saying it was different and that they could depend your word.

With the recent movements on the Convention Center, I think I was wrong.

Those historic buildings should be preserved, as the “deal” required, so they can be absorbed into the façade so the Center’s face on Broad Street will not be some giant, blank slab.

You should do the right thing about this, else who will ever consider any arrangement with the State to be anything but mere empty words?

Sirs,

Smerconish’s article (What we lose now that newcomers don’t assimilate) expresses an interesting type of blindness: what his grandparents did was good, but when “new” immigrants do the same thing – keeping their name – it suddenly becomes a bad thing.

What part of the name “Smerconish” is a “good American name?”

Why didn’t his ancestors change their name to Smer or Smith, for that matter, so they could “melt” into America with nary a ripple? But keeping the name Garcia is wrong?

Perhaps he isn’t - as he denies – a xenophobe, but merely a hypocrite.

I taught in a mainly Hispanic Philadelphia high school with a strong and successful ESL (English as a second language) program and have seen what Smerconish doesn’t see and/or understand: The immigrants want to learn English so they can get better jobs and care for their families. Their children are learning English both in school and on the streets so that many second generation Hispanics don’t understand Spanish at all.

As to what is an “American name,” Hispanic surnames have been a part of America certainly since we took over large areas that had been Spanish colonies in Florida and the Southwest. Smerconish mentions his name having been shortened from Smerakanich but this still didn’t produce an “American name.”

Perhaps my mother’s family experience would help explain part of this. They came from Lithuania and their name was Oleroshofsky. When they reached the immigration official and gave their name he had no idea how to spell it. He said that since they were Jewish, they should take a “Jewish name,” Goldstein (actually a German name) and that is what they became. Others shortened their names but another huge ethnic group – Italians – did nothing like this and I don’t hear Smerconish deriding this group for keeping their names. 

I think Smerconish has missed still another reason why some people changed their names. It wasn’t just so they could become Americans. Their reason for being here was proof of that, but they wanted their names pronounceable – but who can’t pronounce “Garcia,” now or 100 years ago?

A last reason for people changing their names, an ugly one: protection from discrimination.

An example is my father’s brother, unable to get a job because he had a “Jewish name,” cut it and lied in his employment application. This cannot be dismissed as the cause of many first generation-born of immigrant parents for changing their names.

Today, this is because of discrimination laws, less of a problem. But would Smerconish want us to consider people without “good American names” un-American?

As a retired Philadelphia school teacher for 34.9 years, you can add me to the list of those angered by the deal to give Folasade Olanipekun-Lewis $180,000 in severance pay. [Pay deal angers district parents, page 1, Wednesday, August 29, 2007]

When I retired two years ago my pension was, and forever will be, reduced because I chose not to come back in September for 22 days, leaving my students and school in a long search for a certified teacher.

But Folasade Olanipekun-Lewis, an employee for a mere two years, gets a bonus for quitting a job that she doesn’t seem to have done. On her watch she saw the School District fall into a huge $73 million deficit. I wonder how many firemen would get a bonus for doing nothing while a building burned? But here we have Nevels, on the way out, handing out a golden parachute to someone whose job was to be the financial officer of the District and obviously didn’t do it. Folasade Olanipekun-Lewis had no contractual requirements for severance pay. She resigned voluntarily, yet, in the face of dire economic straits, she is given one.

How many teachers, art and music classes, books, class enrichment trips, paper and other resources now being savaged in the budget cuts would not be eliminated were Folasade Olanipekun-Lewis’ “parting gift” not been given? While it is obviously true that her $180,000 is but a drop in the bucket toward the monstrous deficit, what is this telling the teachers and students of Philadelphia schools about their relative worth to the District? “If the folks on Broad Street fail in their jobs, they will be rewarded but if teachers or students don’t raise those test scores, the fires of damnation will descend upon you!”

We often hear about accountability. Where, then, is the accountability when a person who seems to flit between jobs every two years fails in her job but gets a $180,000 reward?

What is the message we are sending?

I read Smerconish’s article and heard in the background the same refrain for about the 10,000^th time: “We must do something about this illegal immigration or the US will be swamped by these ‘illegals.’”

But there are really two, separate, discussions going on here:

1. Illegal immigration. No one can argue that the US can and should be able to control its own borders and who comes into the US to live and work.

2. Change. These “people” are “different” and the US will be changed for the worse because of “them.”

If you shift back to the time that Smerconish’s Great-Grandparents came over to the US from Eastern Europe – legally, of course – the reaction was frenzied and hot and not much different from what you hear on the streets and talk shows today:

1. These people are so different – his family was from Eastern Europe.

2. They are taking over – “They” seemed to be everywhere.

3. They will make this neighborhood/town/city/country different from what it is today – our church, schools and stores are changing.

4. And, most importantly, they don’t speak English and don’t want to learn English. “Why in a few years, English-speaking people will be a minority in the Good ol’ US of A.”

It is this last that causes part of the greatest concern since it seems to the established population the new people are not interested in learning English when in reality it is 180 degrees wrong. The newcomers want to learn English. They understand the necessity of being able to speak English so they can broaden their job potential and so they encourage their children to learn English, though this is hardly necessary as by the second generation, the children often don’t even speak their parent’s home language.

The parents, however, have a much more difficult time as the very people who bewail the lack of English proficiency are uninterested in putting forth the resources that were used in the 19th and 20th Centuries to “melt” the immigrants of those days into the general population.

True there are foreign language newspapers, such as Al Dia just as there were Yiddish, German and Italian papers so that the immigrants can keep up with the news in both the old homeland and the US. But have you looked at a recent copy of Al Dia? A good part of it is in English because so many of the children of Spanish speaking parents can’t read Spanish so, to keep it’s readers and advertisers, English has been added.

The same thing happened to The Forwards, originally a Yiddish-only newspaper.

What the outsider doesn’t realize is not that the older immigrants are refusing to become proficient in English but new immigrants come in unable to speak English. The same thing happened when Jews moved from Eastern Europe in the late 1800’s and stores began to include Yiddish in their signs outside so potential customers would know what the store sold.

There is one, very interesting, change in the way the new immigrants are different from the old: the old changed their family names – to Smerconish, for instance. The new immigrants change first names to “American” types and the pronunciations. If the parents don’t do it, their children do.

As far as Joe Vento and his sign at Geno’s Steaks: following his rules, his own grandfather couldn’t order a sandwich and what is the sense in that?

The protests outside the Inquirer were a good sign: people know how to protest peacefully. They felt they had no need to burn down the newspaper office but that by the sheer act of marching outside the offices let their displeasure be heard.

I wish that their fellows in Lebanon, Syria and other locations around the world had that same knowledge but while their religion is the same, their experience is not. The people outside the Inquirer live in a democracy, where religion, the press and their right to complain about anything are protected by the 1^st Amendment.

In most of the nations where the violent protests are taking place there is no history – no right – to do what the Philadelphians did on Monday.

That said, I found the writing on one sign ludicrous, “Islam = Peace.”

Pardon me? Didn’t they see the Danish embassies burning? Didn’t Islam spread from Medina to Mecca, to Africa and Asia by the sword?

But Islam is no different from most other religions; the Christians felt it was OK to kill others, even other Christians, who held different religions dear. The ancient Jews annihilated cities in “the Land of Milk and Honey.” They all felt justified by their faith, as have countless religionists over the millennia, to slaughter those who don’t pray either to the right god or the right way.

While most Americans have moved to the “live and let live” concept, too many across the globe still believe that they have the right to kill anyone who disagrees about religion or, at the least, ridicule them and have no idea that poking fun at someone’s most basic faith is hurtful and then react with shock that the target of their ridicule is offended.

That is the real point of this entire nasty incident.

Goodman and King (Pa.’s big test: Improve dropout rate) are blaming colleges for a host of problems they are not responsible for.

True, colleges have a large dropout rate but this is hardly their total responsibility: for the last 30 years college has been totally over sold. Colleges are being encouraged to provide virtual open enrollment to students who are unprepared for the demands of a four-year institution.

At the same time we are short of technically trained workers, colleges are cranking out English and history majors who have few places to go, except waiting tables.

For many of the students who are admitted to colleges a better bet would be a trade school or community college where they could snare an Associate’s Degree in some technical area that is going unfilled. The student would have a job, little or no crushing debt and the U.S. would be better able to compete in the world markets. Instead, they come out destitute and frustrated, with little prospect of a decent job to support themselves and their families, and end up functioning as a brake instead of an accelerator for the national economy.

So the Pew Foundation wants to change the name of 30^th Street Station to Ben Franklin Station. 

In the name of all that’s traditional, “Why?”

As the article notes there are plenty of places and streets named in Franklin’s honor. When is enough, enough?

We’ve changed the names of Philly streets all too often recently; (Delaware Ave., East and West River Drive) let the city be.

If the Pew Foundation wants to change something to honor Franklin, let them change the name of the Pew to the Franklin Foundation and leave the city alone.

I understand that the Republicans have set up a vote this evening to try to force the Democrats and other Anti-Iraq War people to vote to "cut and run, surrender," etc.

This is obviously a set up. If you and other Democrats vote to support this measure, called by Republicans the "Murtah Option," it will doom Democrats to be the Chamberlains of today.

I, as most thoughtful Americans, realize the War was a grave error - and a trumped up one at that.

But we can't withdraw at this point - we are trapped because if we do leave, the Iraqi government will collapse and civil war will break out and the terrorists - who had little strength in Iraq before we invaded - will triumph and the US will be the laughing stock of the world.

The Democrats have to vote to "support the troops" even though they shouldn't be there in the first place.

But we must come up with an alternate proposal - we just can't say, "Bush is bad," and be done with it.

We must lead, something we haven't been doing a lot of, recently.

Oh, great! The very people who have run, hysterically from the Public Schools are now at the gates fighting to get in – sort of.

Those who want no part of the Evil System that teaches such oddball stuff like Humanism and Darwinism now want their kids to take the positions of students who are actually part of the school community.

It would seem to me that when the parents took their kids out of the public school system they did exactly that – took their kids out of the system – entirely.

Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer (R., Blair), an advocate of the bill said, “We should be diverse. We should get to know each other.” How oxymoronic can we get? If home-schooled kids want to get involved in diversity let them stop hiding in their homes from the very diversity Jubelirer speaks of.

The article also quotes Susan Richman, a founder of Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, who says that home-schooled kids have their “own” institutions such as volleyball and an annual Shakespeare production.

How about taking in public-schooled kids? After all, she says, “What does it hurt? It may be a valuable interchange.”

Sirs,

Kensington High School, long a troubled school, is being “fixed” by dividing it into three, separate parts.

I was disheartened to discover that what the School District really did was build walls, hire more administrators and basically flush $2.3 million down the administrative toilet. It seems the efforts to fix schools has become an employment project for administrators at the tune of $80,000 per year for each new administrator. How many tutors or additional teachers could be hired for this huge amount of money – money that would go directly to helping the students?

When asked about using this money to actually help the students – via smaller classes or tutors, the Mr. Bichner, head of all high schools, said it “would not be fair to other schools in the district.” What isn’t “fair” about doing what is necessary to help students vs. building Berlin Walls up the middle of a school? Will a concrete block wall do anything about the skills the students bring into 9^th grade? Kensington had Small Learning Communities (Academies) for several years of about 500 students but what it didn’t have was stability at the top as Kensington suffered from the “Principal of the Month Club” as the leadership changed each year or even monthly.

The final point, made in the last paragraph, about other, larger, schools such as Northeast, sees no need to “fix something that isn’t broken.…” suggests the problem is not just size. What Northeast does have is a forward-thinking, stable administrator. Is it the problem that the Board can’t find an administrator capable of handling a 1,200 school and can only find those strong enough to handle 500? I suggest that the Board put down the cement trowel and look into fixing what actually is broken – leadership.

I was hardly surprised, though still outraged, that such convicted Watergate criminals as Colson and Liddy and Nixon apologists were denying Felt the honorable ground, saying he “betrayed his oath.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

These men were part of a nefarious plot to steal an election and pervert the legal system of the United States. No wonder they are unhappy they were caught.

Felt deserves a statue erected in his honor – while the convicted criminals and their fellow travelers who deny his greatness have no honor.

Sirs,

Once again we hear the cry of, “We should only pay good teachers more. The bad teachers should not be paid more until they clean up their act - or we should fire them, outright.”

This sounds great until you try to find some form of valid measurement. True, some teacher’s students do better than others. But the real question is, “How much did the teacher do with the difference?”

I teach in an inner-city high school and two colleagues, after years of fantastic teaching and great frustration, transferred to prestigious magnet schools in Philly. I know these teachers did not change their methods but now, “suddenly” their students are jumping leaps and bounds in performance tests.

Can we guess why?

Could it be anything connected to what their students bring into the classroom? Or didn’t?

I am tired of people who haven’t taught telling me that I should get bonus pay just like an assembly line worker. What other worker has to worry that someone will sneak into the factory and disassemble all that he did today? Will the worker be penalized because the steel had major flaws that caused the car to fall apart on the way to the loading dock?

This happens to our students every day where just getting to school via SEPTA and the required $9 per week carfare is a major drain and strain on their families. Where students have to run a gauntlet of violence, sex and drugs all dragging them down and putting them in danger on their way to school each morning.

And, wonder of wonders! In April a person at the Warton School told us that the suburban Colonial School District in Montgomery County is using this method and “takes into account the socio-economic background” of the kids. What about the difference between free bus service, safe streets and virtually violence-free schools?

Are they controlling for that, too?

Top

Defending against another attack on teachers & contracts

July 7, 1997

To The Editors,

I read, with interest, the latest diatribe by David Boldt (Friday, July 11, 1997, R1) against the teachers in Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers and promoting vouchers. What made this article different from most of his in the past was his “fantasy” discussion with Hornbeck over the arbitrator’s decision concerning the Keystoning of Olney and Audenreid High Schools. I could just as well envision a “fantastic” discussion with Newt Gingrich in which he totally agrees with President Clinton. Just because I can dream it, does not make it so.

Further, he lambasts the PFT for trying to enforce its contract. Let me see: it is fine to violate agreements if the perpetrator is doing it for a “good” reason. I wonder how the Inquirer would feel if I appropriated a week’s worth of newspapers and gave them out for free, so to increase the understanding of the people of Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs of the issues of the day. I dare say that the Inquirer would consider this theft, regardless of how many times I protested that my actions were for the greater good. This is a nation of laws, not of men. Since Hornbeck wanted to help education in the City, he had to follow the rules he and the School District agreed to. The arbitrator agreed with the PFT that he followed not one of the steps in the contract - he did not even try.

In another of Boldt’s points he quotes a researcher’s study that children who transfer from the public schools to a private or parochial school will see their chances of graduating go up. I agree totally. Those parents who took the time to move their children obviously were parents who were involved in their children’s education. But you do not have to have the student leave the public schools to achieve this. I have seen in my 28 years of teaching in the Philadelphia public schools in what some would call the most “deprived” schools in the city, that the greatest controlling factor in grades, promotion and general, all around success, was not the poverty level or if the student went to a “good” or “bad” school, but if the parents were involved. If the parent keeps after their children, making sure they attend, does their homework and come prepared and on time, the children will succeed.

Then there is the old chestnut about the Union only trying to protect “mediocrities.” That is not what the PFT does - it gives the members representation when they are charged with some infraction and makes sure that the Administration does its job in documenting what they charge. If the Administration can do this, the teacher is gone. But Administrators are notoriously derelict in their duties - only 20 or so teachers are rated unsatisfactory each year. Even I agree that is preposterous. But Administrators whine that it is “too hard” to do and takes about “55 hours” to remove a teacher. If they cannot - or will not - do their job, perhaps these Administrators should be the first on the list to go, charged with incompetence and dereliction of duty. When I see this, then I will know that the Administration has really made a commitment to change.

I am enraged by the discussion in this paper and the speeches given by the Superintendent of Schools focusing the blame of failure in schools in general and two schools in particular. Virtually all these accusations are being made by people who have never been in a classroom except to breeze by on an inspection yet have no understanding what makes a class work or not and for the most part could not survive the period of time necessary to gain this knowledge.

Our students come to school with tremendous burdens. The question is not “It is a shame about how many fail!” but should be, “It is almost a miracle that this many succeed!” Many of our students must run a gauntlet of violence on the way to school, ignore the Siren Call of drugs, prostitution and hopelessness that seeks to lure them from their path.

I am impressed each day when I see their faces, seeing the clouds that sometime cross them but knowing that they think enough of what I do in class each day that they fought such adversity to get to school.

I have taught in the Philadelphia school system since 1969 and have loved almost every minute of those years. I know there are problems and therefore I have been involved in many reform movements and will continue to do so in the future. I have seen enough in these years to know that the problem is only seldom in the classroom but most importantly in Principal’s office. I worked in a school where the principal was obstructionist bordering on insane, I know of another school where the principal locked teachers out of school one day, locked them in the next. In this case it was only when he threatened the life of the Superintendent that anything was done about him. In one school a teacher came to work drunk. Yet, instead of following procedures and having him tested, he took this man into his office until he sobered up. Study after study of successful schools show that the one thing they have in common is a principal that is the educational leader. Most schools that fail do not have this. Blaming teachers for this failure is akin to blaming an army of brave men and women for losing a battle because they were ordered into a slaughter.

A colleague of mine worked alongside me for many years in an inner city high school. He was a dedicated teacher who tried and usually succeeded in the classroom. However, the years left a toll on him and finally he threw up his hands and transferred to a “better” school. He is happier now and there is far less stress. According to Hornbeck, this teacher was terrible in the inner city school and suddenly, when he transferred, became a better teacher. If anyone believes this, they have never been in a classroom. But, then, Hornbeck has never taught in a school like those he seems to revel in attacking.

Schools in Philadelphia need support not attack. Yes, there are teachers who should not be in the classroom. Administrators, whose job it is to supervise and lead the teachers complain that it is “too difficult” to weed out the poor teachers. Their solution? Transfer them so they become someone else’s problem instead of doing the job they are paid to do - supervise. They complain that it takes 50 hours to “get rid” of a poor teacher. If this work is too difficult for them, then they should retire, quit or in some other fashion get out of the way and let someone else do the job. Fifty hours? Is that so long a time to spend removing a teacher that affects nearly 200 students a day in five classes and an advisory? It is my experience of some 27 plus years of teaching that a much higher proportion of administrators are derelict in their duties than teachers. If teachers are given the leadership and support from both the principal’s office and the home we can do our job and it does not take a complete flushing of the teaching staff to accomplish this.