Letters to the Herald

For the April 15 issue.

Parents ultimately responsible for teaching children morality

To the editor:
   
As a follow-up to the April 8 article summarizing the East Windsor-Hightstown League of Women Voters’ School Board Candidate’s Forum held on April 5 at Hightstown High School ("Challenger claims taxes could be lower"), I am taking this opportunity to clarify a statement I had made that was quoted out of context.
   The forum moderator asked all four candidates what our opinions were on the topic of educating our students on issues relating to bullying of gay and lesbian students in our schools. My response was that tolerance should be taught first in the home, with supplemental support from the guidance counselors in the schools.
   I firmly believe that we as parents should be teaching our children to be accepting of others, no matter how different someone else may be, and that our schools should supplement the education we have provided at home. This is not limited solely to an individual’s sexual orientation, but applies to race, religion, creed, body shape, household income, native tongue and status of the family unit, just to name a few.
   President Bush and Congress worked together to fund character education initiatives in public schools in 2001. "Character education" involves teaching children about basic human values including honesty, kindness, generosity, courage, freedom, equality, integrity and respect. The goal is to raise children to become morally responsible, self-disciplined citizens. That is our nation’s goal for our children and I share that goal for my own children.
   I do not, however, expect the East Windsor Regional School District to teach character education in a vacuum. We should talk to our children about equality, integrity, respect, kindness and bullying at home first. I expect our schools to educate our students on New Jersey’s Core Curriculum Content Standards and I would hope that parents will raise their children to become morally responsible, self-disciplined citizens.

Randy Shuler

Hightstown





The writer is a candidate for the East Windsor Regional Board of Education.

Headline was sensational; article confused organizations

To the editor:
   
For quite some time now, the subject of illegal immigration has been right out front in the print medium, radio/television talk shows and television news. I think it would be a safe bet to make the statement that many of us have had conversations with out friends, family members or associates on this subject. The event that occurred Sunday, April 3, took place right in our own back yard.
   When I completed the article it seemed that the title, "Anti-Immigration Group Kicked Out of Diner" (April 8) was overblown and misleading. The staff writer for the Windsor-Hights Herald states that the Washington Township police asked both the United Patriots of America and the picketers to leave. Both groups complied with the request.
   The April 8 article aroused my curiosity about the various groups involved in this incident. So, to start, I obtained various reading material from each group to enable me to become more informed with their purpose. I would like to provide my fellow citizens with this very accessible information: Mercer County Hispanic Association, fax: 609-695-7618; UPA, www.unitedpatriotsofamerica.org; N.J. Division of Civil Rights, www.njcivilrights.org; Minutemen Project, www.minutemanproject.com.
   The author of this piece included two paragraphs in this article concerning another organization, the Minutemen Project, which places members of this Arizona-based group on patrol on the USA-Mexican borders. I do not understand the connection the author was attempting to make between the UPA and the Minutemen Project. Simply put, it seemed out of place to be mentioned in this article. I have verified with the MMP that there is no affiliation between the groups.
   The author states that there has been some recent controversy tied to the Minutemen Project. She cites that three Minutemen are under investigation for reportedly restraining a 26-year old Mexican man on the border. Just so happens that a videotape of this event played for a couple of days on the tube. But as it turns out, an investigation by the Cochise County Sheriff’s office cleared the volunteers of any wrongdoing.

Vincent Citarella

East Windsor



Teachers’ union urges votes in favor of district budget

To the editor:
   
We, the teaching staff of the East Windsor Regional Education Association, feel a great responsibility to the parents and children of our regional school district. Providing our students with the skills necessary to pass standardized tests is taken very seriously. However, as classroom teachers, we are more than sources of information and skill builders. Part of our responsibility is to guide and nurture our students to become self-disciplined, self-motivated, and civic-minded citizens.
   Unfortunately, currently there are challenges that all of us must face as investors in our children’s education. Legislation S-1701, which tightens caps on school funding and school surplus, the state of New Jersey’s $4 billion deficit, rising property taxes, and No Child Left Behind with mandated programs without financial support from the federal government are just a few of the challenges we face.
   Acting Gov. Richard Cody has called for a flat funding budget for public schools even though school enrollment has risen year after year, which accounts for much of the increase in schools’ costs. Flat funding means less funding for our students, diminished program offerings and increased class size.
   This situation presents a bleak future for our community, our schools and the students we serve each day in our classrooms. It is going to take an all-out effort just to maintain what we currently have in our schools, let alone seek further investment. As a community, we see the need to work together for the best interests of our children. Teachers and parents need to make education their top priority. Our legislators in District 12 must get the message that we demand a viable, fair plan for property tax reform. The 2004 caps law must be revised so schools are not harmed.
   We encourage families to become active in their children’s education by visiting our classrooms as volunteers or serving on academic and social committees at all grade levels. We encourage frequent communication with your child’s teachers and your consistent attendance at board of education meetings. We request the information provided by interest groups and shared with our community members be truthful and accurate. Reports that our teachers’ salaries are $11,000 higher than the New Jersey state average and more than $6,000 higher than our neighboring districts are wrong and misleading.
   Voting "no" for our school budget based on this misinformation would be devastating to our district. At this juncture, a "no" vote is a vote for elimination of programs and an increase in class size for our students. We are sure that this is not the intent of the taxpayers in our community. To vote "no" for our school budget will only hurt our children.
   As teachers of EWRSD we are rising to the challenges placed before us. We need the support of the entire community in our efforts to place our children in the forefront of our competitive world.
   On April 19 vote "yes" for the 2005-2006 school budget.


The East Windsor Education Association executive board

Hilary Greenfield, executive representative



School budget misconceptions need to be clarified for voters

To the editor:
   
Some thoughts pertaining to the proposed district budget:
   One side: Voting "no" on the budget will send a message to the Board of Education with regard to taxes and they’ll have to change it so there won’t be a tax increase.
   Flip side: Actually, it goes from the board to the two town councils for review. They can make cuts, keep it as is, or even increase the amount. The latter would be the "worst case scenario" for those wanting to protect their pocketbooks. Mr. Bolandi was quick to denounce this as a "probability." Suffice it to say that voting "no" may not attain the desired results. By the way, the board is clear on the message regarding taxes: They don’t want an increase either.
   One side: The teachers’ salaries/benefits cost is too high, so I’ll vote "no" on the budget and maybe they’ll reduce that expense.
   Flip side: This is, until 2006/2007, a "fixed" amount. There is a contract in place until then. So if teacher salary/benefits is your "bone of contention," realize that the budget vote is not the arena for such a fight. Make your feelings known when the contract is up for re-negotiation. Where the budget is concerned, realize that more money means more going toward student programs, less money takes it away. There can be no effect on the teacher salary/benefits package because that’s what it means to have a contract.
   One side: I’m planning to vote "no" on the budget and if I go to the open forum tomorrow, 10 a.m. at the high school auditorium, I might get swayed into voting "yes," or worse yet, end up undecided.
   Flip side: Congratulations! You have an open mind. Come to this meeting and risk getting informed before you vote. Our superintendent will not necessarily say what you want to hear but will tell you what you need to know. Attending does not commit you to voting one way or another.
   One side: I don’t (won’t) have any children in the district, so what do I care about the budget and what it will do for someone else’s kids?
   Flip side: Better find some remote place to live out your hermit life because if you live or work in any community, you will be affected by the people around you. The children of today are the professionals of tomorrow. They may discover medicines that can add quality to your life, be it your health care worker in your elder years, be it your neighbor, and so on.
   Realize, too, that improvements to our schools, in particular how it will ultimately affect those infamous (and often misunderstood) test scores, can impact property values. Many home buyers investigate a community’s school system before buying a house in that area.
   I support the vision as presented by Mr. Bolandi, the teachers of this district in their ability to teach, the students in their right to learn. I support the EWRSD (bare bones) budget as I am convinced it is in the best interest of the community. Every vote counts. Please go to the polls and vote yes!


Marianne Nicklaus

East Windsor



Pohl’s allegiances should lie with Twin Rivers’ residents

To the editor:
   
I would think that Scott Pohl, as a representative of the Twin Rivers unit owners would take a more neutral position and not attempt to keep score on litigation (see "Homeowner association bill would hurt people," letter to the editor, March 11).
   His bias is obvious and his interest in any legislation should be limited to those issues which are for the good of all of the homeowners which he should serve in his fiduciary duty. The fees that he objects to are nominal.
   Read all three bills which are pending on the issue and perhaps the legislature will approve a hybrid which is in the best interest of the unit owners, those who are suffering most under the current legislation.

Lamouria Boyd

Newark