Student Curriculum
To the editor:
DANVILLE, Ohio – I'm a teacher at Danville. I made a Facebook post talking about a recent issue and people suggested that I try sharing it with a wider audience.
Last week, Trump said that he wanted to start a commission to promote ‘patriotic education’ as a counter to what he says is an anti-American emphasis on slavery, because I suppose the best way to fight leftist indoctrination is with conservative indoctrination. It is always grating to hear pundits and politicians parrot these uninformed opinions and even more grating is the word “indoctrination” itself. It diminishes the ability of children and teenagers to discern and think critically about information, and it paints teachers as semi-authoritarian emissaries determined to assert their political agenda.
I deal with it particularly when it comes to the literature I choose or how I direct my class discussions. We’re either going too far with discussions of race, gender, human rights or whatever else might be perceived as anti-American; or, conversely, we’re whitewashing education by not emphasizing these issues enough. So I come with a novel proposition. A compromise, if you will.
Let teachers teach.
Fact: We are more qualified to make decisions concerning our curriculum than almost all of the politicians who make the ultimate decisions about the federal and state education systems.
Another fact: We are more qualified than one hundred percent of the people whose opinions on education are shaped by whatever they saw on Fox or in whatever Ben Shapiro YouTube video they watched.
So, as someone who works in education, trust me when I say that I will employ my master’s degree, familiarity with English ed. research, and personal experiences and philosophy to the best of my expertise to always create what I believe to be the most well-rounded and intellectually engaging experience for my students; and that if indoctrination in education is a concern of yours, you are more than welcome to pursue a career in that field and teach in a manner that you see fit.
Hunter Webster
Danville
Social Security Funding
To the Editor:
FREDERICKTOWN, Ohio – I am a senior citizen who receives monthly income from Social Security. There are 55 million of us, in addition to 10 million disabled Americans who also rely on Social Security. Social Security is the largest source of income for most retired Americans and provides 90% of the income for one in four seniors.
FICA payroll tax contributions from the current workforce pay for these retirement and disability benefits. In 2019, Social Security received $1,061.8 billion in payroll taxes and spent $1,059.3 billion, leaving a balance of only 2.5 billion. Today’s checks for retirees and disabled people are paid for by active workers. In August, President Trump announced that he was deferring FICA payroll tax deductions until the end of the year. A few days later, Trump said that he would consider eliminating FICA taxes completely if he were reelected.
Chief Actuary Stephen Gross of the Social Security Administration ran the numbers and calculated that if the payroll tax is eliminated on Jan. 1, 2021, Social Security would quickly run out of money. Disability benefits would end in mid-2021 and retirement payments would stop in mid-2023. This would be a financial disaster for retired and disabled citizens. In fact, the entire economy would suffer a serious blow if so many people were suddenly impoverished.
Trump has since tried to put a spin on his remarks by saying he thinks he could find alternative funding for Social Security. However, he is already tampering with the system; and without a clear plan, it could be damaged beyond repair. Retirees can’t take this risk. We don’t need the federal government experimenting with our monthly checks. I ask my fellow senior citizens to help secure our financial futures and join me in voting for Joe Biden for president.
Katy Ratliff
Fredericktown
Yard Signs
To the editor:
GAMBIER, Ohio – What if yard signs were about issues and not candidates? All we get are candidates’ names in bright colors with no indication of what they stand for. It is as though the person matters more than policy. As though an individual or a party is going to save us from whatever that individual or party tells us to be afraid of.
We are especially told to fear members of the opposition. "Do not trust Republicans," or "Watch out for Democrats" are phrases chanted across the nation. Yet we rely on people such as doctors, fire fighters and teachers to help us and our families regardless of their political party. There are no Republican doctors when we are in the ER or Democratic fire fighters when our house is burning. What matters is that they do their jobs well and impartially.
I suggest that we start treating our politicians as the public servants they are supposed to be. At the very least we should not let them hide behind party labels but insist that they describe in detail where they stand on important issues such as health care, education, infrastructure and economic reforms. They should tell us why they take those stands and how their positions address our real interests and needs. And here is a thought: In describing their policies, our candidates should not demonize the opposition but concentrate on positive messages of how they will work across party lines to get things done that benefit us all.
If candidates honestly lay out their positions, we the electorate are smart enough to compare what we hear and make reasoned judgments. We do that every day in important matters that directly affect us and our families, and we do so without any reference to political parties. When blasted with messages of hate and fear it is hard to make a reasoned choice and the hatemongers know that.
Sound impossible? Remember that divisive partisanship thrives because we vote for politicians who divide us, who tell us who to despise and so who to fear. If we really want to heal our divisions then we have to elect people who serve all of us first and their party second, if at all. Candidates who spew hatred while sowing division do not deserve our vote.
Edward Schortman
Gambier
.webp){kind=tracking}