Times’ schools editorial confuses SSVC role
Wednesday’s Chattanooga Times editorial on Signal schools is unfortunately based on a complete misunderstanding of the role of the School System Viability Committee (SSVC).
A group of residents proposed creating a separate school district. The Town Council correctly decided that before it took any action, it should make sure such a district would be able to improve quality and would be financially viable. The SSVC was formed to answer these questions, and to identify potential obstacles.
We were instructed not to resolve the questions about control of the buildings and the inclusion of Walden and unincorporated county residents. The community would justifiably disapprove of an unelected group spending taxpayer dollars to litigate control of the school buildings or negotiating to resolve how Walden and unincorporated residents would be included.
The editorial said “Signal has been able to show no real value-added gains.” I disagree. We devoted 10 pages in our report to the ways in which quality could be improved.
The next step in the process will be for the Town Council to decide, and input from community members will be vital to its deliberation. Your editorial unfortunately confuses the roles of these two groups.
John Friedl, SSVC chairman
***
Thoughts, prayers are empty words
Three hurricanes causing major damage – thoughts and prayers.
Shootings in Las Vegas, Orlando and Texas – thoughts and prayers.
Wildfires, floods and famine – thoughts and prayers.
Climate change, ecological devastation and ocean pollution – thoughts and prayers.
Government corruption, military adventurism, congressional thievery – thoughts and prayers.
Rape, murder, and pedophile priests – thoughts and prayers.
The most useless phrase mouthed by those who want to appear concerned but offer no action or solutions? Thoughts and prayers.
It’s past time to remove this ridiculous do-nothing, means nothing, never-worked-and-never-will trite phrase from meaningful conversations. Save it for when you have nothing intelligent to say.
Stephen Greenfield, Cleveland
***
Misleading headline on tax cuts article
A recent headline and wire story conclusion that “… the tax cut benefits the wealthy …” is misleading and contradicted by both the example cited in the article and other facts.
The exemplar family, presumably of four as is common, has a $90,000 income, takes the standard deduction and pays $7,015 in federal taxes under current law, including exemptions and credits.
Under the proposed law, taxes are $4,120, including credits. That is a tax reduction of 41 percent. Tax reduction for a family of two is 24 percent, a family of three is 26.5 percent, and a family of seven is 100 percent.
For the 2016 median family income of $59,039, the tax reduction for a family of four is 48 percent. More telling, a $49,900 family-of-four income in 2016 (34 percent of families) pays no tax under current law, and that rises to $55,667 (40 percent of families) under the new plan.
That is not “little aid for many in middle;” that is major middle-class tax relief.
Please limit news articles to facts. Confine your bias to the opinion pages.
Robert Phillips, Signal Mountain