Where do Palo Alto schools’ kids belong?
Regarding Katharine Lang’s May 3 Letter to the Editor, recommending against redistricting and instead “keeping the Los Altos Hills kids part of the wonderful greater Los Altos community where they belong”: I’m unclear about what she proposes for the 30+ percent of Los Altos Hills kids who are in the Palo Alto school district. To which wonderful community should they belong?
Barry Smith
Los Altos Hills
Covington school deserves recognition
We are writing to express our disappointment in your May 3 coverage of the recent California Distinguished School Award for Covington School.
To achieve the California Distinguished School Award, a public school must demonstrate the highest caliber of collaboration among all members of the school community. Administrators, parents and teachers file a lengthy report to the state showing proof of meeting high standards of educational performance. The state does not look solely at test scores. It also considers the whole picture.
Representatives from the state visited Covington in March and were highly impressed by the excellence they observed in all areas, including the classroom, the playground, the outstanding parent community, our teachers, our principal and our administrative and academic support teams.
We know that the redistricting is of great importance to our community at large, but we feel that the Town Crier has slighted our most important young citizens and their accomplishments.
We feel that this positive and extraordinary recognition by the state of California certainly deserved front-page space, not a small spot on page 25.
Terry Gianatasio
Sixth-grade teacher,
representing the
Covington staff
Measure C plans not binding
In your May 16 article about the $490 million bond measure in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, a district official is quoted as referring to a long list of projects as evidence of a real plan for the money. The actual text of the measure does not contain a binding list of projects but instead refers to master plans that expressly may be “amended from time to time” and then describes currently planned projects with such terms as “upgrades.”
When California voters amended the state constitution in 2000 (by approving Proposition 39) to permit the approval of a school bond measure with only 55 percent of the vote, several limitations were imposed, including that the measure itself must contain “a list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded.” Is Measure C justified given its high price tag, other public debt and other needs?
Gary B. Wesley
Mountain View
Loss of Westwind community asset?
I came to Westwind Barn about 19 years ago to volunteer with the 4-H Handicapped Riding Program and continue to do so. In the press, it has been stated that Westwind is a private club. I think some have confused the definition of a private club with a community. A private club denotes a person could be excluded from joining Westwind. This is far from the truth. Anyone can join whether you have a horse or not.
Unfortunately, a few have lobbied to break the lease with Friends of Westwind Inc. and change the governance. Friends of Westwind has managed the barn since 1978 very successfully. Members have put in an incredible amount of volunteer time to run the barn, make repairs, build a new arena, and year in and year out raise donations for improvements.
With new management, who will volunteer to do this? Does the town believe that raising the boarding fee considerably will cover the cost of running the barn? With the arena facilities now in need of expensive repairs and often crowded, Westwind is not that desirable. Does the town really understand what it takes to run a horse-boarding facility? Would horse owners be willing to board their horses at a facility where in a year things may change at the whim of a new town council? I think not.
It is a shame we could not have worked together toward the success of Westwind as a community asset, which already offers camps, horseback-riding lessons, therapeutic riding and much more. Sadly, I believe we have all lost.
Sara Fisher
Westwind 4-H
Riding for the Handicapped
Is a parade the answer?
We have three parades in town: Homecoming in the fall, the Festival of Lights in the winter, and the Pet Parade in the spring. They serve as celebrations of our diversity and unification within one town, and all three events are embraced by the entire community.
Pain from one form of rejection or another hits all kids at some point. With some good parenting, they can rise above any sensed discrimination and learn that their self-worth is based on earned respect.
What can we do, beyond parenting, to help incorporate all those who might feel disenfranchised? Is a costly parade, demanded by one small group, really the answer? Is this a city’s responsibility?
“Ask not what your town can do for you, but what you can do for your town.” This is the greatest conduit for community building.
Working jointly on projects is a productive way to quickly diffuse discrimination and build mutual respect. If the Gay/Straight Alliance group had organized a six-hour public service event and put the $16,000 back into our town (beautification, repairs, a project, etc.), they’d have easily earned the respect they want. Who doesn’t love a volunteer or contributor?!
Instead, the toll for one special-interest parade on our city seems unjust. If the added police services end up costing the city $8,000, I’d like to think that more than 20 GSA members justified the expense.
What do we really want to encourage in our youth? To act out with a demanded, costly, city-financed parade? I think not. To speak up for their beliefs? Indeed. To be engaged, productive community contributors, working with others for a common cause? Right on. THIS is what instills integrity.
Twinkie and Brad Lyman
Los Altos Hills
Was LWV ‘hornswoggled’?
I was surprised to see the League of Women Voters (LWV) being hornswoggled by the Bay Area’s sophisticated single-issue gay lobby into co-sponsoring the Gay/Straight Alliance parade in Los Altos (Letter to the Editor, May 10). These alliances are the lobby’s means for influencing heterosexual thinking in our schools and, unfortunately, more than tolerance is involved.
I refer the LWV to California Senate bill 1437, introduced by lesbian Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, which is supported by the alliances. The stated purpose of the bill is to require California schools to adopt materials including the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. We might think this is educational, but the bill goes further: It prohibits school instruction or activity that reflects adversely on this group. To present the pros without the cons is not an educational exercise; it is propaganda. Furthermore, the prohibition amounts to censorship.
Even today, after decades of educational efforts and the knowledge that it is completely preventable, AIDS is still being spread predominantly in the United States by gays and bisexuals. The LWV wishes to promote health and safety for all Americans, but will this health issue be discussed appropriately and fully in our schools, given the prohibition on discussing anything that might be construed as reflecting adversely on gays and bisexuals? The LWV has supported many fine issues in the past, but it is shameful to see it now promoting propaganda and censorship in our schools.
Antony Fraser-Smith
Los Altos
