MAILBAG - Nov. 2, 2000

Pilot’s Coast district endorsements off base

Your editorial of Oct. 31, titled “Our education choices” lacked the

very discernment its rhetoric dispensed.

Jean Forbath is supported by the union because of its objective to

eliminate KOCE, one of the crown jewels of the Coast Community College

District. KOCE is supported by hundreds of thousands of residents of

Orange County because of its contributions to extended and continuing

learning opportunities for young and old alike.

KOCE is dependent upon support from the community and federal

government as well as a small portion from the community college budget.

What good will it do if she follows the union dictates and destroys such

a valuable program?

Your editorial also erroneously stated that Forbath was a college

professor. She has never been a college professor as you espoused. That

prestigious title is reserved for persons with demonstrated ability,

including the appropriate academic degrees and experiences. Part-time,

substitute community college teaching is not the appropriate experience.

As for your support for (Daniel) Kittredge, I find that his

involvement with the Bolsa Chica wetlands is hardly the executive

experience required of a candidate seeking the position on a board of

director’s multimillion-dollar educational institution. You conveniently

forgot that the Coast Community College District is a world-class

community college district that is known worldwide for its creative and

cutting edge programs including extended learning, international

programs, marine education, technology and KOCE.

Both Paul Berger and Armando Ruiz have relentlessly maintained the

vision that will ensure quality educational opportunities for all

students. I further believe they can and will continue that service far

into the future.

RONALD B. LINSKY

Costa Mesa

Vouchers give parents a chance to exercise choice

Gay Geiser-Sandoval’s Oct. 24 column proved her strong connection to

the present public school system prohibits her from seeing the

possibilities of true reform.

Public schools teach children that sexual lifestyles other than

heterosexual should be perfectly acceptable. For families who disagree,

the voucher system will allow parents to place their children in schools

that are consistent with their beliefs. However, for the majority of

people I would assume the above argument is a weak reason to decide for

or against vouchers.

Geiser-Sandoval also claims a strong concern that private schools will

not have any new regulations placed upon them without approval from the

state Senate or by a two-thirds vote of the people. That doesn’t frighten

me. It is one of the most important safeguards of the initiative. Without

it, private schools could easily become nothing more than an extension of

the public school system because of regulations placed upon them by the

state.

I am voting for Proposition 38 because it allows parents a choice. Far

too many students, usually in poor districts, are trapped in public

schools that no longer properly educate them. These children are not

given the same opportunity to succeed in life, and ultimately too many

give up trying and end up a burden to society.

Our public schools have plummeted from once being the envy of the

world to now struggling just not to be last. Public education’s

continuous answer to the problem is more money and experimental learning

programs that end up contributing to the problem rather than solving it.

It makes no sense to support a system that has shown no significant

improvement decade after decade.

I’m voting yes on Proposition 38 to give each family a choice of the

school they consider best for their children. This will help public

schools, not hinder them because nothing gets people more motivated for

improvement than good old American competition. The best schools will

thrive and if there are schools that refuse to improve, at least those

who attend will do so by their own choice.

DONNA MARTIN

Newport Beach

Drug courts are needed, not Prop. 36

Dave Fratello, campaign manager for Proposition 36, and anyone else

who backs this measure is wrong.

We need the drug court. It is an alternative for problems that can be

solved in recovery programs, not jail cells.

Eliminating addiction will eliminate the problems that go with the

territory -- robbery, assault, sales, as well as drug overdoses and

hospital stays.

Of course we could spend more money on prisons and inflated salaries

for staff rather than drug courts. Orange County is beginning to look

more and more like a police state when it slams the door shut on

alternative solutions.

Although new jails are a popular solution, we need something

different. Introducing programs such as drug courts provides a way out,

even though it is just the first step.

Prisons and jails are the problem, not the solution for alcoholics and

addicts. The drug court is a solution.

ROY WARD

Newport Beach

Readers would like to see more from candidates

Candidates should not be required to pay to have their statement in

the voter guide.

However, since they do, the Daily Pilot could provide a real service

to the public by printing a special page that contains statements by all

the candidates.

That would certainly be more newsworthy than printing pictures of

readers in various places in the world. Does anyone care about that

besides those shown? Everyone should care about what the candidates have

to say and sometimes it is difficult to attend a forum where they are

speaking.

AGNES K. DUBBERLY

Costa Mesa