Better a Fortress than a Funeral

Better a Fortress than a Funeral
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 4, 2013

As a strong proponent of armed security in America’s public, private, and charter schools, the juxtaposition of the news article written by Eric Weddle and Mary Beth Schneider, “School gun bill raises concerns,” and the letter to the editor penned by Charles Murray of Carmel “Proposal to arm school staff members has flaws,” both appearing in the April 4 Indianapolis Star, raises good points and questions that can be resolved forthwith.

Addressing Mr. Murray’s last question regarding the consultation of educators in the composition of the proposal for Indiana to mandate that one in-house staff member be required to carry a firearm, while I cannot answer his question, as someone who has taught in suburban and inner-city public and charter schools in New Jersey, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, my experience dictates that such a proposal is a step in the right direction.

I would offer an amendment to the mandate portion of SB-1, which was initially designed to “provide grant incentives for school districts to hire resource officers,” (The Indianapolis Star, p. 8, 04/04/13). The amendment, offered by State Rep. Jim Lucas (R-Seymour) mandating the armed in-house employee, should allow for such action to be taken, but the decision should be left to the individual local schools.

Should such a mandate pass, Indiana would be the first state in the union to have such a requirement, should Gov. Mike Pence sign the bill into law. As an aforementioned supporter of firearm toting security on school campuses, I am not squeamish about a mandate. Giving the option to the local school districts presents a greater opportunity for such a bill to pass with wider support.

To alleviate some of Mr. Murray’s legitimate concerns pertaining to who should be the school employee to carry a firearm, what about that person’s absence or eventual retirement, and what about that person’s close proximity to students in a classroom, I envision security personnel being an off duty police officer, retired military personnel, or a member of the Reserves. This is a cadre of available human resources.

As for the cost, another legitimate issue raised by Mr. Murray, police and Reserve personnel are already paid for by their respective employers and this would be seen as an extension or continuation of their duties. The salary of retired military personnel could very easily be absorbed by eliminating a mid-level administrator.

This is a feasible plan that within SB-1 would set the parameters of training requirements and the certification of the armed personnel just as teachers and other educational staff have their certification requirements. While a rush to judgment to pass any bill simply for the sake of enactment would be irresponsible by the legislature, so to would not adopting a law that would provide for the safety of Hoosier children.

While no plan is perfect, nor can one armed security staff member be in all places at all times, this plan is certainly better than no plan at all. We are not going to curse the darkness when we are able to at least offer a flicker of light.

Another point in favor of armed security would be the potential to reduce home grown or in school violence such as bullying or worse. Mr. Murray indicated that Columbine had an armed guard and that did not prevent the heinous mass shooting that occurred there on April 20, 1999. While Mr. Murray is correct, that should not rule out passage of an amended SB-1. One failure should not dismiss the potential for myriad successes in preventing bullying and/or a home grown catastrophe especially with prior disasters as examples from which to learn and be better prepared.

Securing all entrances and exits along with increased camera presence will also help prevent another Newtown, CT.

For those who object to passage of SB-1, remember, banks have armed security guards. Why not where our most precious of resources spend the majority of their days? Parents should not have to worry whether or not their child will return home safely at the end of the day.

And for those who object to seeing schools resemble an armed fortress, better a fortress than a place where memorial gardens are planted.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Transparency a Two-Party Responsibility

Transparency a Two-Party Responsibility

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 1, 2013

There’s a fine line between protecting an individual’s privacy rights and downright secrecy; and the Indiana House has pole vaulted over it in its complete abandonment of transparency according to “House opts for secrecy,” the article written by Ryan Sabalow in the March 26 Indy Star.

While protecting a citizen’s privacy is vital, there are ways to provide the public with information to which they are entitled pertaining to the spending of taxpayer dollars.

A party-line vote on an amendment availing the public to documentation regarding appraisals and relocations failed, thus keeping such information “permanently secret,” according to Sabalow.

The amendment, written by Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) didn’t garner any Republican support when it is typically the GOP calling for governmental transparency. Instead it was Rep. Jerry Torr (R-Carmel) among others who said such transparency would damage the state’s negotiating power and that appraisals could include photos of the properties in question, thus leading to miscreant behavior.

A solution to this quagmire could simply provide financial statistics to the public while eliminating any publication of photographs. This way the taxpaying public knows how the money is being allocated and the state would still bear the responsibility of explaining the motives for such expenditures.

This isn’t brain surgery. But then if it were, the state house would empty out pretty quickly.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Stop Cursing Cursive

Stop Cursing Cursive

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 14, 2013

With apologies to the late Waylon Jennings, “Mammas don’t let your babies grow up to” have Jack Lew’s signature. The Secretary of State designate has a signature resembling that of the icing on a Hostess® cupcake – all swirl and no substance – thus strengthening the case to mandate cursive writing in all elementary schools.

Within two days of each other, The Indianapolis Star printed a news article and an editorial juxtaposing one another on the issue of keeping cursive writing a part of the educational agenda in the Hoosier State.

Scott Elliott’s article “In favor of the written word,” (01/09/13) conveys the desire of State Senator Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg) requiring cursive writing be returned to the Indiana curriculum. Leising filed legislation both in 2012 and will do so again in the upcoming legislative session in the wake of the State Department of Education’s decision to no longer require the teaching of cursive writing in 2011.

According to the Star, the State Senate overwhelmingly supported Leising’s bill by a vote of 45-5. The bill never reached the House floor, however. Clearly not a partisan issue, as the Senate vote depicts, Leising did not, however, have the support of House Education Committee Chairman Bob Behning, a fellow Republican from Indianapolis. Behning believed then and still does as of this week, that it is “inappropriate” for curriculum to be mandated by the legislature.

And apparently newly installed State Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz (D) is not a supporter of the Leising bill either, according to her spokesman, David Galvin. “Cursive should be under the purview of the State Board of Education,” Galvin said.

Since the elimination of the cursive writing requirement, such a decision to teach or not to teach the skill has been left to individual schools to determine. This clearly is short sighted as cursive writing is a needed skill for people’s signatures, the ability to read antiquated documents, and simply convey information when a computer or laptop is not available.

So short sighted that in Matthew Tully’s commentary “Put your pencils down and pay attention,” (01/11/13) he took, albeit tongue in cheek, pot shots at cursive writing in a manner that was pedantic, myopic, and patronizing.

Should we really return to the days of Jim Crow when people who did not know how to sign their own names simply made their mark with an “X”? That would be a tragedy.

While Tully said he could “go either way” on the actual teaching of cursive writing, he opposes a mandate at the legislative level. But, in doing so, he mocks potential letter writers suggesting critics would contact him via pen and paper as opposed to “one of those fancy computer gizmos.” Well, LOL, Mr. Tully as is oft-posted on-line, as I complete this column and post it to my blog.

This issue first came to my attention in 2011 after the decision by the I-DOE and from my two nieces living in Westfield, one who had already learned cursive writing and one who would not, but wanted to. I wrote a column then, “Keeping Cursive is (Write) Right” (07/11/11) that was ignored by the Current in Westfield, but can be found on my blog.

Mandating the teaching of cursive writing throughout the state of Indiana via legislative edict ensures a level of consistency. Keyboarding can and should still be taught, but side by side with cursive writing.

“Having taught middle and high school, handwriting ranges from the creative to the illegible and students with poor handwriting skills tend to get frustrated and not write enough, thus making the handwriting even more difficult to interpret by teachers.

Not all applications can be filled out on-line. Paperwork in doctor’s offices, checks and thank you notes still require handwriting. Neatness ensures accuracy, while the alternative could be costly financially or even medically.” (“Keeping Cursive…”)

Without sounding overly paranoid, when our antiquated power grid fails, and it will, pen and paper will once again rule the day. When, as a writer, I have a middle of the night epiphany, I reach for my pad and pen, not laptop at my bedside.

There’s even a cursive font on the computer, Tully is familiar with it as he used it in his column. More knowledge and abilities are good things, not things to shun and mock. Some traditions just shouldn’t be abandoned.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Dems Crying over Spilled Milk - Theirs

Dems Crying over Spilled Milk – Theirs

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 8, 2013

Democratic legislators in Indiana who walked of the job in both 2011 and 2012 now suing to recoup their lost remuneration to fines should have their case tossed out of court by Chief Justice Brent Dickson on account of its frivolous nature.

Not only should the Democrats’ pay be forfeited and the fines stand, but they should also face recall and/or impeachment for dereliction of duty and failure to represent their constituents.

This is not about picking on the Democrats. The same treatment would befit Republicans who would behave in the same truculent and irresponsible manner as the Democrats. This is about the principle of elections having consequences. At present and in the years in question above, the Republican Party holds a majority. It is up to the Democrats to play the cards they are dealt, stay on the job, and fight for their stances on the issues before the legislature.

Walking off the job is the same as a strike. Strikers are not paid nor should the recalcitrant Democrats who, like a petulant six-year-old decided to take their ball and go home, or more importantly, flee the jurisdiction to the Land of Lincoln.

According to a Marion County judge “the House had the power to impose the fines, it could not ignore state law by seizing pay without due process.” (“Democrats trying to regain pay docked after walkout,” The Indianapolis Star 01/04/13)

Fair enough; give the Democrats their due process. Did they walk off the job? Yes. Does the House have the power to fine them? Yes. Case dismissed; fines stand. Next time, stay put and do your jobs. Otherwise come election day, the rank and file will find other, more responsible citizens to do them.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Lugar Lebensraum Law Needed

Lugar Lebensraum Law Needed
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 28, 2012

Hoosier or not, Senator Richard Lugar has admirably represented the citizens of Indiana in the nation’s Upper House since taking the oath of office in 1977, and once again faces the voters seeking a seventh six-year term.

Hoosier or not? How is that even a question? When people think of Indiana, they think of basketball, the Indianapolis 500 and Dick Lugar.

Not so fast, folks. The Marion County Election Board in a strict party line 2-1 vote on March 15, determined that the Lugars, both the Senator and his wife Charlene, are not eligible to vote in the precinct using their former address on Highwoods Court from the time when Dick Lugar was elected to the United States Senate. This was initially reported in the Indianapolis Star (www.indystar.com).

The back story is that upon taking office in the nation’s capital, the Lugars sold their home on Indianapolis’ Westside and have lived in their McLean, VA house ever since. While most elected senators and congressmen have a local residence in the state they represent as well as in the DC area, Lugar’s lone real estate connection to Indiana is a Marion County farm. The farm, located in Decatur Township is owned by Lugar and his siblings, but tenants are renting the house on the property.

However, the Highwoods Court address is still listed on the Lugars’ driver’s licenses and they continue to vote in the precinct where the home they no longer own is located.

The state constitution actually permits those people representing Indiana to retain such a residency while absent from the state. The Star editorial of March 16 called the residency issue “nonsense,” as Lugar is a native Hoosier who served on the Indianapolis school board and was elected mayor of the city prior to ascending to the United States Senate.

What is not nonsense is that any resident of Indiana, public or private, should be allowed to declare a residency that truly is not their home. That smacks of voter fraud all day long. Someone else owns and lives in the Highwoods Court home formerly owned by the Lugars. How can they claim it is their legal residency and vote under that address?

Consistency is needed between the Indiana Election Commission that allows Lugar to seek reelection and the Marion County Election Board that has denied the Lugars the right to vote in the former home precinct.

The Lugar Lebensraum Law ought to be passed declaring it illegal for any person to claim residency on a property they do not own or rent. Furthermore, candidacy for public office should be denied to anyone not a legal resident of the state of Indiana. It would seem to be common sense, but then again…

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

This column appeared on: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-indianapolis/sanford-horn

Fed Gov't Taking Food From Needy

Fed Gov’t Taking Food From Needy
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 18, 2012

Last week the federal government once again overreacted, stretching its hand far beyond where it ought, punishing American citizens in need at a time when need is at its height since the Great Depression.

While the state of the economy continues slumping, and people are in dire need of food, the Obama administration is pulling the plug on federal aid to Community Provisions in Seymour in Southern Indiana’s Jackson County simply because the director, Paul Brock asks clients if they wish to pray with him.

Brock said he does not require anyone to pray with him in order to receive the food they need in such trying times. Yet, Brock indicated that many who arrive at the pantry do, in fact, pray with him simply because of the predicament in which they find themselves – unemployed, underemployed, homeless or simply unable to provide for their family this week and they believe in a higher power.

Because clientele are not required to pray with Brock or any other Community Provisions’ personnel, there is no violation of the national Emergency Food Assistance Program (EFAP) that avers “no political, religious, or any other non-related activity can be conducted as a condition of, or in conjunction with, receiving commodities or prepared meals.”

This is an operation, the food pantry, attempting to do more with less, for more people who have less, and in a manner affording people a sense of respect. People can certainly use more prayer, but if they opt out, there is no denial of supplies or an effort to cajole those who do not wish to, or have time to pray with Brock.

Yet, in a child-like manner, the federal government is taking its food from Community Provisions to be distributed via three other agencies in Jackson County. However, the food could be returned to Community Provisions, the local operation working with Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana, the administrators of the federal program in the Hoosier State, should Brock cease from his prayer inquiries. Brock said he will continue to ask people if they wish to pray with him and good for him and those who will take comfort from the gesture of faith.

If the federal government took less from hard working Americans, they could get out of the state food pantry business and local Indianans, who will have more of their own money, could fund the food pantries in their own state.

The federal government, in its anti-religious bent has improperly interpreted the EFAP adding insult to an already injured group of struggling Americans simply attempting to provide for their family with a modicum of dignity.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

This column appeared on: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-indianapolis/sanford-horn

Do Your Job, Or Lose Your Job

Do Your Job, Or Lose Your Job

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 5, 2012

A sad and pathetic irony hovers over the capitol building in Indianapolis just days into what should have been the opening session of the 2012 legislative season.

That irony is the renewed threat of the overwhelming majority of Democratic legislators to once again flee Indiana to the Land of Lincoln shunning their jobs while thousands upon thousands of Hoosiers remain unemployed.

The bigger irony is the reason for the Democratic feckless abandonment of their sworn duties on behalf of those voters who sent them to Indianapolis in the first place – their objection to the passage of right-to-work legislation that could see thousands of the jobless return to the rolls of the employed and off the government dole.

The majority of the Democrats, led by House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer (South Bend), are attempting to filibuster by not allowing the House to even be gaveled into session in the first place. Bauer said the Democrats would only return to their elected jobs if the Republicans would agree to hold statewide hearings on the right-to-work issue first.

The behavior of the Democrats last year was demonstrative of their unwillingness to be honest brokers and play by the rules. “If you meet one request, they suddenly have 11 more,” said House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) of the minority party which is preventing legislative business from being conducted.

Under right-to-work legislation, supported vigorously by Governor Mitch Daniels (R), the rights of workers who opt not to join a union will be protected. Opponents to such legislation, like union leaders, say this bill would give representation to workers who did not pay for the privilege. Ultimately, passage of the bill will create jobs and promote economic growth, which should be goals of all House members, Democrat and Republican alike.

While the Republicans outnumber the Democrats 60-40 in the House, it is still the responsibility of all members to show up to work, pitch their “A” game, take their lumps if they are on the short side of a vote and forge ahead to the next battle. So, the Democrats can either show up and do their jobs, or they can sheepishly skulk out of state and eventually lose their jobs – that choice is theirs, just as it should be for workers to join or not join a union.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Give Voters More, Not Less Info

Give Voters More, Not Less Info

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 18, 2011

Edwin Clark of Warren made a good point about having all candidates listed on electoral ballots, even those running unopposed in his letter to the editor on Saturday, September 17.

Adding to Mr. Clark’s comments, unopposed candidates’ names should be listed on the ballot to give voters the opportunity to vote against that person with a write-in of their choice. Omitting unopposed candidates from the ballot gives a false sense of unanimous support.

While one party did not put forth a candidate for one reason or another, which is also a problem in the body politic, the voters still should have an opportunity to cast a ballot either for or against that unopposed candidate. By keeping the unopposed candidate on the ballot, that will serve as a reminder to the voters that he or she is a candidate for a given office and also a reminder that he or she is liked or disliked to the point that voters will offer a write-in choice of their own.

When the ballots are counted, should an unopposed candidate receive a low vote percentage that may encourage the opposition party to run a candidate in the next election cycle. By low, that could realistically be any number below 80 percent.

Any candidate seeking public office, whether opposed or unopposed, should have his or her name listed on the ballot for the consideration of the voters. To what costs was Rep. Kathy Richardson (R-Noblesville) referring? This law she authored as a bill should be repealed in the interest of giving the voters more information, not less.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN

[This item appeared in The Indianapolis Star.]

Tax Dollars for School Choice

Tax Dollars for School Choice

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

August 30, 2011

John Sherlock of Indianapolis is misguided. Not to pick on Mr. Sherlock, but he sure needs to get a clue about whose money is whose.

In a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star on Sunday August 28, Sherlock jumped to the popular misconception that tax dollars are the government’s money to do as it will. “It is totally inappropriate for parents to expect to use taxpayers’ money to fund their children’s education at religiously affiliated schools,” wrote Sherlock.

Just where does Sherlock think the government procured said “taxpayers’ money?” That should be a rhetorical question, but clearly needs answering. As though it should be the question to a Jeopardy! answer in the category of “Stupid Answers,” the TAXPAYERS, Sherlock.

As the adage goes, follow the money. Parents earn money on the job. Part of that money pays the property taxes on their house – tax money used to fund the public schools. Perhaps these parents choose not to subject their children to the failing public schools of Indianapolis. Since the money used to fund the public schools they choose not to use originated with the parents, why not have that money stay with the parents to send their children to the schools of their choice?

In his letter, Sherlock referred to giving money to parents who in turn give it to religious schools as a ruse for what he believes is the government funding of religion. The ruse, Mr. Sherlock, is that the money belongs to the government in the first place.

As for those renters with school-aged children, part of their rent paid to the landlord is used to pay the property taxes on that apartment building. That portion of the property taxes used for public education funding should also be returned to those renters wishing to enroll their children in a religion-based school.

Libertarian thinking would defund all public schools and make parents responsible for financing their children’s education 100 percent. But, for the same reason citizens without children pony up to keep the school doors open, there is a societal benefit to having public schools funded by those who do not have children.

Without public schools, even miserably failing ones, more youths would be roaming the streets uneducated. Ultimately the burden of their support would fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers, funding the unemployment and food stamps of the public school uneducated children.

On second thought, why not privatize the entire public school system, by enlisting corporate sponsorship of the schools, just as they would a sports stadium. This would create a competitive arena, grant the corporations a nice tax write off, and for sponsoring schools, the corporation would endear itself to the local community who would, in turn, buy their products. It’s win-win.

Under a system of privatization, bloated costs could be reduced and expenses would be meted out more efficiently because corporations have stockholders and boards of directors to whom they answer. The corporations would have a vested interest in the success of the students as potential future employees as well – again a win-win.

In order for such a plan to work successfully, the rank and file must dispel themselves of the misguided notion that taxpayers’ dollars belong to the government and not the people earning them.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Keeping Cursive is (Write) Right

Keeping Cursive is (Write) Right

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 11, 2011

Like a well-executed bunt in baseball, cursive writing is sadly becoming a lost art.

“I want to learn cursive,” my seven-year-old niece Lauren said. “I don’t want to just print,” said the rising Oak Trace Elementary School second grader.

That Indiana has removed cursive writing from its curriculum is a curse against the current and future generations of school children. Just because 45 other states have done likewise does not make it right. Replacing cursive writing with keyboarding does a disservice to students who will ultimately suffer.

Writing, like reading and arithmetic of the vaunted “three Rs” of academia, is a vital leg of children’s learning. Like a three-legged stool, eliminate one leg and the stool becomes useless. Students need a foundation in cursive writing to compliment the skill of using the keyboard as not everything they write in life will be composed on a computer.

Education experts have determined that the third grade is the optimum time to commence learning cursive writing. At that age and grade cursive writing instruction is ideal to enhance motor skills.

“The computer is important, but that’s just pressing buttons,” my 10-year-old niece Elysa said. “With cursive, you are doing the work – working your hand muscles,” said the rising Westfield Intermediate School fifth grader.

“School is where you should learn to write,” said Elysa. “You need to write your signature in cursive” and it “shows your personality,” she said. “We started learning cursive in third grade. We used handwriting books and the Promethean Board,” said Elysa, referring to the interactive white board.

Having taught middle and high school, handwriting ranges from the creative to the illegible and students with poor handwriting skills tend to get frustrated and not write enough, thus making the handwriting even more difficult to interpret by teachers.

Not all applications can be filled out on-line. Paperwork in doctor’s offices, checks and thank you notes still require handwriting. Neatness ensures accuracy, while the alternative could be costly financially or even medically.

It’s unfortunate, even tragic, that far too many schools have eliminated physical education, art and music enabling students to expand their horizons. It is even more detrimental to see watered-down history/social studies curricula as well as English classes where spelling no longer counts or where grammar is not taught. Eliminating cursive writing is another nail in the coffin of a formerly exceptional American educational system.

Don’t write off cursive.

Sanford D. Horn is an educator and writer living in Westfield.

Punished for Responsible Behavior

Punished for Responsible Behavior

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 7, 2011

Make no mistake – I, in no way, condone drinking and driving. In fact, the penalties for such an egregious offense are not nearly severe enough.

Strike one should cost the intoxicant his or her driver’s license for two years and a $10,000 fine payable to a drunk driving victims’ fund. Strike two should cost the guilty party his or her driver’s license for life – yes, life, along with a $50,000 fine. Should a drunk driver kill someone a death sentence should be attached. There is no excuse for any person to slide behind the wheel of a vehicle having imbibed beyond the legal limit.

That said, a recent decision made by the Indiana Supreme Court upholding the conviction of a woman for public intoxication while riding in a vehicle as a passenger is outrageous.

Opting to do the right thing and not operate her vehicle, Brenda Moore took the responsible path and enlisted a friend to drive her home. However, for the offense of a burned out license plate light, Moore was arrested and charged with public intoxication.

While the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the initial conviction, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld that conviction in a decision it reached on June 28. The Indiana Supremes voted four to one retaining Moore’s conviction, noting that the law was properly obeyed as public roads are considered public places.

However, was Moore in public by riding in her vehicle? If so, does anyone riding on a bus or other mode of transportation run the risk of facing arrest should they be under the influence of alcohol when they avoid driving their own vehicle? It seems like a classic Catch-22 – damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

If the letter of the law has been appropriately followed, the intent certainly was not. Clearly Moore was attempting to behave in a legal and appropriate manner by responsibly choosing not to drive herself home knowing she was polluted by alcohol. For her sober decision, Moore should not have been subjected to arrest.

Certainly this is no plea to ease the laws as they stand. That would simply be injudicious. Instead, an intoxicated person riding in his or her own vehicle or even a public mode of transportation not causing any harm to another person or creating a disturbance should not be charged with a crime. It is essential the Indiana legislature revisit this law and amend it.

Sanford D. Horn is an educator and writer living in Westfield.

Skipping Senior year - A Step in the Wrong Direction

Skipping Senior Year – A Step in the Wrong Direction

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 8, 2011

With remedial classes overflowing with unprepared so-called college students, the notion of permitting them to skip their senior year in high school is terribly irresponsible.

That Governor Mitch Daniels is relying upon the conversations with relatively immature high school students to determine a need for legislation that passed in April to allow for the aforementioned senior year skip is also irresponsible. (“Skip senior year, go right to college – or not?” June 7, 2011)

The passage of such legislation allows for rising seniors who have completed their core requirements to bypass their last year of high school and head off to college. Nothing is said of earning the requisite number of credits required for graduation. Such legislation will prove deleterious to the affected students.

With the educational crisis the United States as a whole is mired in, students should be required to take more, not fewer, classes in the areas of American History, government, mathematics, English, writing, basic business and ethics, foreign language and science. This would better prepare the students for the rigors of the college classroom, as well as the so-called real world.

The United States’ ranking versus other countries is both embarrassing and demoralizing. How does the richest country on earth justify cities whose schools graduate 30.5 percent of its students? (http://www.wndu.com/education/headlines/17184036.html) That is a recent figure regarding the Indianapolis schools. In Alexandria, VA, from where I just moved, the graduation rate was 70.4 percent – and that is in a school system spending $18,323 per pupil, one of the highest figures in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (http://www.localschooldirectory.com/district-schools/101/Alexandria-City-Public-Schools-District/VA)

Governor Daniels’ plan is not a cost cutting measure either. His plan is to use the money saved by not having that senior in a high school classroom; that money would be used by that same student to attend college. This plan is suspect, as funding for high school and for college comes from different sources.

American high school students are already ill-prepared for life on a college campus as the Star article denotes. “Slightly more than half of students at public four-year schools graduated in six years, and only 29 percent did so in four years.” Juniors bypassing their senior year will not improve those statistics.

These students will be a year younger and certainly a year less mature than the traditional college freshman. They will, for the most part, still maintain friendships with their current friends who will be seniors in high school. They will miss activities such as homecoming, the senior prom and other rites of passage that they will forfeit in bypassing their senior year.

Instead of listening to rising high school seniors bemoan their boredom and then shipping them off to college, they need greater challenges their senior year to better prepare them for college. The core curriculum needs to be expanded.

Balance the left brain and the right brain with more art and music classes. More, assuming there are any in the first place. Add classes on economics and ethics. Certainly tomorrow’s leaders can’t be any worse than the current crop of miscreants held up as alleged role models. As a society we can do better than the Bernie Madoffs, Rod Blagojeviches and the Anthony Weiners of the world.

Add more skill-based electives such as journalism, photography, graphic arts, more computer classes, more industrial arts and home economics. High school should be a place where a student gets as well-rounded education as possible so that he or she can make better informed decisions about what to study in college. Once in college students will hone in on a particular major and course of study they will have chosen having experienced a myriad subject matter in high school.

To those critics who suggest the costs will outweigh the benefits, a public-private partnership should be considered.

School systems could hire professional musicians to teach music and float from campus to campus, thus needing fewer of them. The same with professional artists, chefs, journalists, businessmen, etc. Their fulltime employers would pick up the tab for these part-time teachers and would get a tax write off for that value.

This would be a win-win situation. High school students would be exposed to a greater selection of educational materials and employers providing these instructors would benefit from the positive publicity as being active members of the community. The schools, of course, would need to provide some training in classroom management – but that is something from which all teachers would benefit.

From personal experience as a middle and high school teacher of social studies and American history, I welcomed a member of the business community into the classroom as part of the Junior Achievement program. I would then incorporate those visits into my curriculum and lesson plans.

A segment of Friday’s classes would be dedicated to a stock market competition amongst my classes and students divided into teams. This not only had history and economics components, but was cross-curricular with the math classes as well. The experience proved both fun and educational for the students who left with additional skills that they might not ordinarily have gotten.

With the educational crisis in the United States reaching pandemic stages, we, as educators, parents, business leaders and yes, even elected officials, must reinvent the wheel, or there may not be anyone capable of steering the school bus to the front door of the school.

Sanford D. Horn is an educator with a Master’s in Education living in Westfield, IN.

New In Town, but Paying Attention

New In Town, but Paying Attention

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 1, 2011

I must take issue with Matthew Tully’s commentary “Primary day: There’s a reason to care. Really.”

In his somewhat amusing, sad but true thoughts about primaries, if he wanted to encourage people to get off their collective duffs and out to the polls on Election Day, he should have mentioned Westfield.

I’ve been in town a mere 96 hours and even I know there is a mayoral primary between Mayor Andy Cook and his challenger Russell Cameron. Yet, Tully ignores the Westfield race and gripes, rightfully, about the paucity of challengers in the numerous single-candidate races.

Then, I question the inconsistency of Jon Murray’s article, “Area’s mayoral contests, schools take the spotlight.”

While Murray discusses the mayoral race in Indianapolis, along with Mayor Greg Ballard’s opponents, as well as the participants in the Carmel contest, four GOP mayors in Indianapolis suburbs, including my new home of Westfield, were mentioned as facing opposition, yet nary a mention of their names.

This explains the Duma-like rate of incumbent reelection. Being in town 96 hours, I do not have a dog in this fight – this year.

Sanford D. Horn moved to Westfield last week and is looking forward to getting involved in his new community.

Cowards and Crybabies - Hoosier Style

Cowards and Crybabies – Hoosier Style

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 27, 2011

With adult supervision being restored in the governor’s mansions in Madison, WI, Columbus, OH, Richmond, VA and Trenton, NJ, the GOP is keeping its promises of cutting budgets – and not with a scalpel, but with the necessary hacksaw.

In abject cowardice, most of Indiana’s Democratic House members fled the Hoosier State to shun their jobs, jobs that the voters elected them to perform. As fast as they fled, they should be fired via recall. This Wisconsin-style hissy-fit is demonstrative of the Democrat party’s unwillingness to conduct their sworn duties, inclusive of which is to participate in the budgetary process. A budget that includes the salaries these scofflaws are still collecting while on the lam.

House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer (D-South Bend) basically gave House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) a laundry list of demands a la a hostage taker, except it is the Dems who would return if their demands are met.

Bosma, responded to Bauer that “we weren’t going to concede to a list of demands, and that he needed to get back here,” to the capitol. The government is not in the business of negotiating with hostage-takers, even if it is other members of the government making the demands.

The hooky-playing Democrats are behaving like petulant three-year-olds who are not getting their way on the ball field and have decided to take their ball and go to Illinois. When the minority party is on the potentially short end of the legislative stick, they must take their lumps and live to fight another day. The voters made their choices, and it is up to the representatives to do just that – represent, not run away.

A voucher bill directing taxpayer dollars toward private schools may make sense as the people paying to use the private schools are not utilizing the public schools for which their tax dollars already support. Why should parents sending their children to private schools pay double or more simply because the public schools are failing and they want better for their children? We should all be demanding better public schools or vouchers to enroll our children in schools where they can actually learn in a safe and positive environment.

As for the right to work bill prohibiting, as a condition of employment, union membership, this too just makes sense. No worker should be forced to join a union simply to earn a living. Clearly, that the Democrats are objecting to this bill is demonstrative of their cozy relationship with unions – just look at where much of their campaign contributions come from.

That Governor Mitch Daniels (R) is unwilling to take on the Democrats and seeks to avoid a Wisconsin-style battle is disappointing. Governor Scott Walker (R) has demonstrated courage in his convictions that the budget in his state needs more than just a trim around the edges and is not afraid to take on those who seek to bankrupt the Dairy State. Daniels’ name has been mentioned quite a bit as a potential 2012 GOP presidential nominee. If he plans to see that to fruition, he needs to toughen up and demonstrate that he is battle-tested and ready for the national campaign.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.