Orange Trustees’ Stand Draws Fire

Bringing needed social services to elementary schools is one of the most innovative ideas I’ve heard of in a long time (“Orange Trustees Say Social Services Fight Has Only Just Begun,” April 13). Each school and its population is different, and decisions about what is needed for the children there should be made by those who know them best, their parents and teachers. Lampson School in Garden Grove is showing the way to solve many of today’s problems by providing what its children need in order to learn. The conservative school board members opposing this are way out of step.

Since no tax money is being used, why do some school board members in the Orange Unified School District think it’s their business anyway? I thought the “conservatives” were for local options wherever possible. But not in their schools! They’ve shown their true colors, insisting on a return to the “good old days” when school was for academics only.

But today’s parents are facing far different problems than those faced by parents just a generation ago. We need to find ways of taking care of today’s children today. The most obvious place is their neighborhood school.

If we don’t take care of our children today, we will have no future. I salute those volunteers and teachers at Lampson who have found a way to bring necessary social services to the schools.

DOROTHY A. YOUNG

Costa Mesa

* Those parents who want government to become their children’s nanny have plenty of countries to choose from if they want to emigrate somewhere where the nanny state is the norm. They have no right to pick on the Orange Unified School District board for letting responsible parents do their job by keeping government out of the way.

Government can’t do a better job, not with all the money in the world, than parents can.

MATT ISAACS

Tustin

* Let me get this straight. The same self-proclaimed “Christians” on the Orange school board who a few years ago objected to Halloween activities are now against school lunch programs and medical services. So it’s “satanic” for my 5-year-old daughter to wear a Little Mermaid costume and it’s “Christian” for the district to punish poor children because their parents don’t make enough money?

Am I the only one who thinks this is loony?

TIM LANG

Orange

* If the Orange Unified School District believes that a school’s sole purpose is to educate students and plans to cut out all nonacademic activities, I guess that means my son and daughter can say goodbye to football games and dances, huh?

Oh, I forgot. Right-wingers only eliminate programs that affect the poor. Whew! I’m safe! Hungry children may get their one balanced meal a day cut out, but at least my daughter can go to the prom.

SUSAN WELDON

Orange

* I was livid when I heard about the grant ban that the Orange school board wants to impose. I’m appalled that school board members who supposedly represent me and thousands of others who reside within the boundaries of Orange Unified School District could so blatantly fail to heed the wishes of their constituents.

After being confronted by roughly 400 of his constituents at the school board meeting April 11--the vast majority being opposed to the grant ban--board President Martin Jacobson said, “The meeting hasn’t really changed my mind,” and that he would continue to back the grant-ban proposal.

I teach at a public school in Colton. I know firsthand how difficult it is for students who have not had breakfast to focus on their schoolwork. It would be wonderful if the Colton school district had the advantage of a breakfast program similar to that in Orange.

BEA TOMASELLI TIRITILLI

Santa Ana

* With reference to the latest issue in the continuing saga of the Orange school board’s insensitivity to the needs of underprivileged students, I am outraged at the callous and cavalier approach these five members have displayed in their short term in office.

First, the board refuses to accept federal funds that are sorely needed to provide texts and supplies for students, and now these same self-righteous, mean-spirited members have voted to deny feeding the needy and providing medical checkups. Are they unaware or indifferent to the fact that a student attending school underfed, or feeling ill, or hard of hearing, or unable to see the chalkboard clearly is a poor candidate for paying attention in class?

I agree that schools are primarily for teaching, but why punish the children if their parents or parent cannot fulfill parental obligations? These “fat cats” are probably actively involved in fighting for the rights of the unborn while ignoring the needs of those already existing.

I would propose that all five members be recalled on the basis of their lack of humanity.

EVELYN SHOPENN

Professor

Rancho Santiago College

Orange

* The five trustees of the Orange Unified School District who propose a ban on all nonacademic grants are really just trying, in their own mean-spirited way, to say to the parents utilizing the grant-provided services (health and dental services, counseling), “If you can’t afford to raise your children without assistance, you shouldn’t have had them.”

Such a message would be reasonable, were it not for the children who will be hurt by it in the long run. If the trustees vote to ban the grants that provide breakfast to children who would otherwise go without, or dental care to children whose painful teeth would otherwise be left to decay, I wonder if they’ll be able to look at themselves in the mirror when the children denied grant-provided services today are the ones requiring taxpayer-provided services tomorrow, i.e. prisons, teenage pregnancy programs, child abuse services, etc.

It may not take a village to raise a child, but if the parents alone need assistance, and the money comes from sources other than the village taxpayers, shouldn’t the village provide the parents all the assistance available?

KELLY DAVIS

Huntington Beach