Democrats need a better handle on math

Your Saturday report on the Nevada High School Proficiency Exam controversy could not better reflect the basic philosophy defining the Democrat and Republican mind-sets.

Regarding the 60 percent fail rate for first-time takers of the math portion of the exam, the position of Republican lawmakers is that the exam points out a shortcoming that should be corrected. Either improve the math curriculum or explore the possibility that the exam is flawed and correct it. The Democrats, on the other hand, advocate that the students should ultimately just be passed and allowed to graduate with a diploma so they will feel good about themselves and not feel “hopeless.”

And of course, math is really not all that important anyway, as state Sen. Valerie Wiener, D-Las Vegas, admitted to having little to no math skills herself.

Now, fast-forward to the national debate on the financial state of America and our out-of-control deficit spending and debt. Republicans advocate reining in spending and fixing the massive entitlement problems. Democrats, to the contrary, advocate just continuing down the same path of reckless spending and continuing unsupportable entitlements so as not to make the recipients (aka voters) feel “hopeless” and damage their self-esteem.

Perhaps if some of the Democratic leadership had a better handle on math they would realize that eventually the money will run out and that a financial policy (or a diploma) based on hope will not get you a job.

J.J. Schrader

Henderson

Failed test

To the editor:

Ed Vogel’s Saturday report on the High School Proficiency Exam states that almost 60 percent of students fail the math portion on the first try. Can this be true?

And the solution the Senate Education Committee came up with is to allow students to graduate, even if they don’t pass the math test after six tries?

I thought the purpose of public education was to give students the tools they need to function in the real world, i.e., get a job. Don’t most jobs require some basic math skills, no matter how small? If they aren’t taught those skills, who loses? Not the teachers. They already got theirs. It is the students, the employers and, ultimately, society who lose.

At the end of each year, tests are given to determine whether they have mastered the curriculum sufficiently to be awarded a diploma. The diploma says to all the world that this student put in the necessary time, effort and study to accomplish the goal.

Under these circumstances, how can you blame the taxpayers for not supporting increased funding in education?

William A. Wilderman

Las Vegas

Big fan

To the editor:

I wanted to send a letter to tell you how much I enjoy reading Corey Levitan’s “Fear and Loafing” column. I learn so much from his column. I watch his videos, also.

Mr. Levitan does a great job, and I look forward to his articles every month.

I lived here in 2006 for a while and got hooked on Mr. Levitan’s articles. I moved back to Indiana for three years and kept up with his videos online. I am now back in Las Vegas and look forward to his column.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Levitan. You are a fantastic part of the Review-Journal.

Dorothy Burkett

Las Vegas

Trump card

To the editor:

Oh, my god. The Trumpster is not entering the presidential race. Please tell me that this is no different than four years ago, when he did the same thing.

The Donald is 0-for-2 now. He has failed twice to follow through on his bragging and has left the arena. In the words of a media huckster and not-so-astute statesman wannabe, “You’re fired!”

DALE WOOD

HENDERSON

Money plan

To the editor:

Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins wants to raise the property tax to offset a money-grab from the state (“Steep job cuts could go deeper,” Tuesday Review-Journal). OK. We do that, and we again have enough money to pay our county bills.

But what if state officials decide they still need more money? Oops. We’re right back where we started.

Marvin Miller

Las Vegas

An overreach

To the editor:

President Barack Obama has proposed an executive order that requires federal contractors to disclose the political contributions they have made (“Disclosure ‘as a political hammer,’ ”April 28 editorial). This is another attempt at government overreach.

The order would force contractors to reveal any political donations as a condition of being allowed to bid on a contract to work for the federal government. It also forces the directors or company officers to reveal their personal donations. This same requirement would not be forced on unions.

The issue of contracting ought to be decided on the merits of the contractor’s bid and the value to the government, not on political contributions. This is government gone wild.

Natalie Adams

Las Vegas