To the editor:
Regarding “We Are Not Fighting Important School Issues” by Nicholas Kristoff (column, March 7):
I completely agree with Kristoff's column. The situation is grave not only for education but also for our beleaguered democracy.
I would like to add some nuance. I am working on a state-by-state analysis of the potential impact of racism, specifically anti-Black racism, on educational attainment.
What I have found so far shows that some children are very well educated. Asian American children (especially those whose families are from India). White children from families too wealthy to qualify for the National School Lunch Program. Children with college-educated parents. and Hispanic children who are not learning English.
Some students are in groups less likely to be taught to read effectively, such as Native Americans, children poor enough to qualify for the National School Lunch Program, and Black children.
For Kristof, this is nothing new. What is surprising to me is the enormity and arbitrary nature of the failures by the school authorities. Almost everywhere schools, especially in urban areas, are failing, socio-economically similar children are being taught more effectively in the nearest suburban school district.
One reason is money. Spending per student is associated with educational outcomes.
But part of the problem, most of it, is a matter of administrative decision-making. That means putting the best teachers in schools with the “best” students. In effect, schools are equipped according to parents' income. Providing more gifted classes to white students is perhaps an unconscious manifestation of everyday racism.
michael holtzman
Briarcliff Manor, New York
The author is a former consultant for the Schott Foundation for Public Education in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
To the editor:
Writers like Nicholas Kristoff believe that conservatives' focus on issues such as nudity in education, diversity, and critical race theory are simply a matter of misplaced priorities, a serious I'm making a big mistake. Conservatives are not wrong in their opposition to substantial improvements in American education. That's a feature.
Politicians like Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump can persuade voters that inflation is an existential threat to personal financial security, even though wage growth comfortably outpaces inflation. Do we really want our children to grow up with a better understanding of mathematics?
Even though most immigrants provide the labor needed in a rapidly growing economy, it is difficult to use photos of immigrants flocking to the border to convince voters that immigrants are a threat to national security. Do they want their students to become better critical thinkers if they can?
Students were asked to use logic and analysis to argue that politicians could easily use social media platforms without any evidence to convince voters that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. Do we want them to become good readers who can appreciate things?
Why do Republicans want America's children to be well-educated when the most educated voters consistently vote for everyone else?
lisa elliott
newark delaware
The author is a licensed school psychologist.
To the editor:
Nicholas Kristof's column miseducates by pointing out that: state Let's do better with school.
In Massachusetts, Kristoff cited an example, parents don't move for school.they choose a town or city They think they have the best schools and the money they can afford.
Rather than local property tax, Since the state provides most of the education funding, better schools tend to be in wealthier towns. Spending per student in Massachusetts varies widely by school district. The amounts range from about $14,000 in Dracut to almost $37,000 in Cambridge, according to recent data from the state Department of Education.
More money means smaller class sizes and higher teacher salaries. So Kristof's argument about which states have better education is largely beside the point about what's important.
michael jacoby brown
Arlington, Massachusetts
The author is a community organizer and former high school teacher.
To the editor:
Nicholas Kristoff makes some valid points in his column, but why he, and most of the media, are so dismissive of Donald Trump's despicable refusal to fund schools that teach critical race theory. I wonder if he ignored the promise that followed that statement.
“I will not give a dime to schools that require vaccines or require masks,” Trump said.
Hello, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough, measles, mumps, hepatitis, rubella, etc.
Indeed, once these vaccine-preventable diseases invade schools, concerns about whether teachers will focus on phonics or critical race theory will disappear.
Susan Ohanian
Charlotte, Vermont
The author is a retired reading teacher.
Become a Republican to vote against Trump
To the editor:
About “Trump’s Conquest of the Republican Party” (editorial, March 10):
I have been a registered Democrat for most of my adult life, except for a brief period when I belonged to the Green Party. I've been campaigning for Bernie Sanders. Earlier this winter, I changed my official party affiliation to Republican. I made that change simply as a way to vote against Donald Trump in the primary.
My plan after Nikki Haley's resignation after Super Tuesday is to hold a protest vote in New York next month. In November I will vote for Joe Biden.
That said, my registration will not change again. I'm not going anywhere. Republicans will cling to this lefty.
The Trump Party needs a new, belated birth of freedom among its members. That rebuilding must be sown by individual voters just like you.
Donald Mender
Rhinebeck, New York
Countering fossil fuel industry propaganda
To the editor:
About “John Kerry: ‘Deeply Dissatisfied’” by David Wallace Wells (Opinion, March 10):
Outgoing US climate change envoy John Kerry is “angry and frustrated” by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda efforts to undermine climate action and raise concerns about its costs.
Just recently, the American Petroleum Institute launched an eight-figure media campaign aimed at “dismantling policy threats” to the fossil fuel industry, stating that “products made from oil and gas…make everyday life more mobile and comfortable. and make it healthier.''
Most Americans, including policymakers, believe that burning fossil fuels causes pollution and over 8 million deaths one year.
Rather than bemoaning the industry's decades of misinformation, we need to actively counter it. Exxon and other fossil fuel companies followed Big Tobacco's strategy. Let's build on the lessons learned from successful tobacco control campaigns, including the Truth on Fossil Fuels and Health campaign, enforcement of the False Advertising Rule, and the Surgeon General's Recommendation on the Health Harms of Fossil Fuels.
Linda Rudolph
Oakland, California
The author is a consultant to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health and a member of the steering committee of the Fossil-Free Coalition for Health.
