Letters to the Editor, Sept. 4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Sept. 4

By:
Finish the square,

remove the eyesore
To the editor:
   I was disturbed to read Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed’s admission (The Packet, Aug. 28) that the Palmer Square Corp.’s hesitation about building the 97 units remaining in its plan to complete Palmer Square is tied to a 10-year dispute with the borough’s elected officials over including low- and moderate-income units in the mix.
   The economic logic of this form of "blackmail" escapes me. The 97 units at, say, $400,000 each represent a critically needed increase to the borough’s taxable base of $39 million, or about $850,000 per year in property taxes.
   So, in the 10 years of this dispute, we have missed out on at least $7 million in property taxes.
   One could build a couple of low-income units from this windfall and still come out on the positive side.
   Let’s try logic and compromise, rather than ideological stubbornness, to resolve this issue; finish Palmer Square and remove the current eyesore.
P.J. Stevenson
Cleveland Lane
Princeton
Cartoon deceives

public about budgets
To the editor:
   Mike Thompson’s cartoon, "The George Bush Social Security Lockbox" (The Packet, Aug. 31), was rather cute and as a conservative Republican, I enjoy watching liberals make fools out of themselves. Mr. Thompson is either totally uneducated in the workings of our federal budgetary process and the country’s economy or is quite willing to deceive and lie to the America public in order to get his people back in power.
   Anyone who understands how our economy and budget processes work knows that there is no such thing as a "Social Security Lockbox" or even a Social Security reserve fund. Monies collected from the American people in the form of Social Security deductions and payments are basically IOUs, or promises to pay back at a later date. The monies paid back are taken from budgetary revenues collected at that time, not monies that have been held in some special account labeled "Social Security monies."
   In our budgetary process, decisions are made on where to spend money and this is balanced against the money collected by the government from all sources. If more money is collected than is spent, we have a surplus. If less money is collected than is spent, then we have a deficit. The perfect situation is to have neither a surplus nor deficit, but this very seldom occurs. The reason we have had a surplus, in simple terms, is because the government has collected more in revenues than it has spent. And that is not necessarily a good idea. By giving money back to the taxpayers, the government can help stimulate our economy and, in the process, will use up the surplus.
   This is a good idea.
Joel Aptaker
Andover Circle
Princeton
Editorial lacks

depth, understanding
To the editor:
   As a member of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education, I am responding to your editorial, "More studying won’t result in better grades" (The Packet, Aug. 31). I do not speak on behalf of the board, but am writing to express my own personal opinion.
   Your statement that the configuration controversy is a philosophical debate lacks depth and understanding. Certainly, as in any debate, differing philosophies may be argued, but our current troubles are based on facts. The board is finally looking at details that should have been considered before it voted, 5-4, to pass a configuration resolution last October. That resolution contained a gaping hole that left undetermined how the district would utilize the 300-400 empty seats at the Upper Elementary School.
   For those who do not understand why empty seats are a problem, let me explain. The UES houses fourth- and fifth-grade students. The October resolution created a second 4-5 school, giving the district too much 4-5 space and not enough K-3 space. So extra space does exist, but in a 4-5 setting.
   The resolution stated that "specific use" of the UES space would be determined at a future time. That time came in April when the board’s redistricting committee asked for direction. Should it devise a redistricting plan that would include the extra space at the UES and, if so, what parameters should be used to select students? This question led to a discussion of configuration, a topic you suggest was forced open by new board members. Note that the question was raised at a meeting on April 17: Election Night. The identity of new members was not even known at that time.
   In examining how to fill the UES seats and house all our students, the board has looked at several options. Since last summer, we have considered a magnet school, a primary "school-within-a-school," sending overflow third-graders to the UES, converting Maurice Hawk to K-5 (other elementary schools would remain K-3, with one 4-5), using the "extra space" for non-instructional purposes while increasing class size and/or adding on to facilities to increase capacity. Out of these concepts, no single plan has emerged as the favored choice.
   Then, there is K-5. For many years it was the intention of this district to eventually implement a K-5 system. K-5 still enjoys a great deal of community support, but cost and capacity concerns forced K-5 to fall dormant last October. Unfortunately, the numbers that drove those fears may not have been accurate. Several board members, myself included, feel that K-5 never got a fair shake. It looks like that’s about to change.
   In August, the board unanimously voted to establish a Cost and Capacity Committee. Your editorial suggests that this committee, indeed this entire discussion, can be blamed on new members Diane Hasling and Hemant Marathe. I would point out that Ms. Hasling was out of town for the August meeting and it was I who made the motion to establish the committee.
   Your editorial says that it is "time to move on," but with so many unanswered questions, that would be irresponsible. Last year’s board passed an incomplete resolution. Many of this year’s members seem determined to fill in the blanks. It is my hope that, at long last, we will have the information we need to make an intelligent configuration decision. It is then, and only then, that we will be able to move on successfully.
Dee Dee Dodson
Franklin Drive
Plainsboro
Students thrive in

current configuration
To the editor:
   The controversy over the configuration of elementary grades (K-3/4-5 or K-5) in the West Windsor-Plainsboro School District reminds me of the debate over the Family Life Curriculum some years ago. Parents are worried about having their children grow up too soon. Parents and board members discount the reasoned judgment of administrators and teachers. The debate drags on and on, hampering the board from reviewing the effectiveness of curriculum and employees. Parents are distracted, spending hours at lengthy, unproductive Board of Education meetings rather than at home with their children.
The two-tiered approach to elementary education has worked for years in the West Windsor-Plainsboro school system. Housing very young children apart from older elementary students has enabled not only the development of specialized programs for students but also the maturation of students in discreet stages. The success of the WW-P middle schools is due, in part, to this staged approach. The transition from upper elementary to middle school is not so great a leap, since the students have already successfully moved between primary and upper elementary schools.
   Parents worried that children would be exposed to taboo concepts in the Family Life Curriculum, concepts that were beyond their reasoning skills. On the contrary, students thrive when they understand ideas in a factual and mature context. So, too, do they thrive in the current grade configuration. Parents, teachers and administrators must give the students the tools and knowledge to grow. It is time to set aside this debate and move forward with the mandate to educate our community’s children.
Sandra Shapiro
Wycombe Way
West Windsor
Configuration debate

practical, not emotional
To the editor:
   I think you neglected some key issues in your editorial (The Packet, Aug. 31) regarding the configuration decision in the West Windsor-Plainsboro schools. While there are some personal philosophies involved, as you stated, the primary stumbling block at this point in time is that the administration appears unable to develop a plan to house the students under the K-3/4-5 configuration.
   The administration’s most prominent suggestion at this time is not at all K-3/4-5, but a mixed K-2/3,4,5. The initial proposal, offered in October 2000, looked nice on paper, with flow charts indicating where all the hypothetical students would go year after year. Unfortunately, there are not enough seats for the students in the K-3 schools, as of September 2002, as the administration proposed.
   I applaud the board for reviewing all reasonable configuration options. They are elected representatives, and they should not sit by idly as the administration comes up with more "Band-Aid" approaches to educating our children. Some of these include increasing class size and adding temporary classrooms to our K-3 schools, while 11 empty classrooms collect dust in a "4-5" school. Thank you to all the WW-P school board members who are using their common sense and intellect to solve this problem. As you can see, this debate was re-opened for sound, practical reasons, not for emotional or philosophical ones.
Laura Nash
Prospect Avenue
Plainsboro