Separate education plan and a way to pay for it
With the potential vote upcoming by the Hamilton County Commission on the superintendent’s education plan, I would like to clarify some issues.
The job of our superintendent, Rick Smith, is (1) to plan and present a vision for the best possible school system and (2) to serve as a CEO, directing the overall operations of the system. He can make financial requests and recommendations to the commission but is not responsible for providing funds.
As school board members, we are to approve or deny education plans and be responsible for the use of funds from the commission and other agencies. We are involved in the operations of the schools through the superintendent, who is the only employee to whom we give directions.
The nine Hamilton County commissioners are the providers of local funds. What they award the schools is added to state and federal revenues.
I voted for Rick Smith’s vision plan for the Hamilton County Schools system because it has many of the elements I think would make our system much better. I am not pushing for a property tax increase. There are many ways finances can be raised.
One I campaigned for is a fully funded Tennessee Basic Education Program (BEP) formula. The result of not having that has created many unfunded mandates and an unfair burden on local taxpayers.
Our county commissioners are responsible for tough decisions in the allocation of funding for schools and a wide variety of governmental services. Our school board, the superintendent, parents, teachers, state legislators and commissioners must work together for the well-being of our children and all citizens.
Steve Highlander, Board of Education, District 9
***
Participation should be youth sports goal
Your Sunday Life story, “Coaching Parents,” elegantly sidesteps the root issue and overlooks the 500-pound gorilla in the room. Overbearing parents are only the byproduct, a symptom of a much larger problem in youth sports.
What truly is the purpose of youth sports — is it really for community entertainment? Is it for the glory of the school? Is it to groom three or four from a student body of several hundred for a potential scholarship, or is it to boost one from several thousand who may make it to the pros? Or maybe, just maybe, is it to develop healthy bodies through broad athletic participation so that all of our kids will become active, fit adults?
The never-ending emphasis to field and play only the best to win trumps all other considerations. The important takeaway is what we carry forward into life.
Sadly, youth sports programs today fumble the ball on potentially their most important contribution — participation. Having the best coach in the world and the winningest team ever doesn’t help if you’re just an average kid sitting on a bench or in the stands watching others.
Denny Pistoll, Rising Fawn, Ga.
***
Expression essence of First Amendment
I was disappointed by the “blame the victim” attitude of the Times editorial on May 5.
Pam Sohn wrote that Pamela Geller’s group “blurred [First Amendment] freedoms” by seeking “confrontation rather than understanding.” That freedom, however, is not “blurred” but crystal clear.
Whether one agrees with the goals or the methods of the Geller group or not, one’s right to confront by expression is the essence of the First Amendment. And that right to confront by expression should not be subject to the AK-47-enforced veto of someone who is “offended.”
Himself under an Islamist sentence of death for mere expression, Salman Rushdie has said, “Nobody has the right to not be offended.”
Sam D. Elliott, Signal Mountain
***
Reader missing Missed Connections
This TFP reader misses connecting with Missed Connections.
Please assign your best investigative reporter to determine what happened to this vital feature. Inquiring minds want to know.
Lisa Shivers, Signal Mountain