City Life:

The advantage of having well-informed readers is that they are always there to support you, even when you are wrong. In my case, I offer two corrections, thanks to the sharp eye of Laura Boss, Newport-Mesa Unified School District spokeswoman.

Boss pointed out that the dates of the two school bonds, Measures A and F, were passed in 2000 and 2005, not 2002 and 2004, as I reported. And that dollar amount I stated, $492 billion, is actually $492 million. No excuses other than rushing to beat a deadline, though that is no excuse at all, really.

I took issue with both bonds, but particularly the Measure F, the second bond, which was proposed using this language: “Whereas, the Measure A and the state matching funds were not intended to finance all of the current or future facility needs of the district and there is further need to improve, rehabilitate, repair and renovate educational facilities within the district ... ”

I said at the time — and I still wonder — why they made us go through the expense and hassle of a second bond if they knew the first one wasn’t going to provide enough money.

Boss gets high marks for raising the level of communication. My requests for interviews or information are responded to quickly.

In her e-mail, Boss also noted that I wondered why the district was not on board with the national TV turnoff program, which was last week. Television for kids is bad and is almost always replaced with reading. So it seems natural to me that we should get both arms around the cause. She wrote back that, to the contrary, the board has passed a resolution supporting the movement “for at least 10 years, if not the full 12 years” since then-board member Wendy Leece suggested it.

I am pleased that the board passes the resolution each year. I would bet that it is more than most school boards in the nation are doing. But passing a resolution is the minimum one can do and be able to say that your district supports the program.

TV Turnoff Week is over. Does that mean it’s OK for kids to watch? Is TV now any less harmful for them? The American Pediatric Assn. doesn’t think so.

Embracing a no-TV program in the district is a process. It’s a continuing program that becomes part of the development of our children.

It is hard to understand why this school district, which is strapped for cash and pushing for all graduating high school seniors to attend college, does not further support a program that does not require one additional teacher or staff member, can be promoted using inexpensive but proven methods of communication and which has proven to work to help get kids to read more, which most educators will tell you is a key to higher grades and test scores.

About five ago, then-school board President David Brooks said of Measure F, “The new modernizations at our schools will help to ensure educational success for our students.”

If he is right, I’ll report it. But I contend that we did not have to guess whether the bonds would ensure educational success. We could have used a program that has proven to work. And maybe we could have saved some of that $282 million along the way.

There’s some irony here today, too. A week after I’m free to write about anything, I’m writing about kids.

STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer. Send story ideas to smi161@aol.com.