We welcome your comments. Send them to email@example.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com, our Facebook page, or our Twitter feed, @roccitynews. For our print edition, we select comments from all three sources; those of fewer than 350 words have a greater chance of being published, and we do edit selections for publication in print. We don't publish comments sent to other media.
In an October 22 column in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman reports that in addition to extensive ongoing teacher training in Shanghai primary schools, there is also "parent training." One teacher contacts "the parents of each student two or three times a week to keep them abreast of their child's progress."
Friedman goes on to note that the teacher says, "I tell them [the parents] not to beat them [their children] if they are not doing well." Rochester parents shouldn't beat their children either, but this bespeaks the intense involvement of the parents with their children's weekly progress in school.
The biggest contributor to the failure of the Rochester primary educational system is likely the lack of constructive involvement of all parents with their children's education. As corroboration, an earlier article in City noted that some young children failed to appear in a free summer school program even though door-to-door transportation and meals were provided.
The failure of young children to participate in such a program can only be the failure of their parents.
TERRENCE L. FINE
Mary Anna Towler decries the possibility of Republicans getting rid of Obamacare ("Games Republicans Play," Urban Journal). She doesn't have a thing to worry about, but what if it was true? It's part of the political process.
The anti-gun nuts keep trying the same thing with the Second Amendment, which is law, is part of the Constitution, and was codified at least twice by the Supreme Court. Ms. Towler writes that the 2012 election was a referendum on the new law. Then the 2010 election was a referendum against it, especially since the election came shortly after it became law.
By the way, Obama repeatedly changed the law after it became law, which is unconstitutional. Only Congress can do that.
The Democrats created Obamacare all by themselves because (at the time) they had complete control of the government ("Romneycare's Launch Wasn't Successful, Either," News Blog). They didn't want or need any input from Republicans on how to cover the small percentage of Americans who didn't have health insurance.
The Democrats opted for the Big Government Solution and would have preferred the Single Payer Plan if they could have gotten all of their members to agree. Instead of allowing free-market insurance competition across the country, they created government-controlled "exchanges," raised taxes, expanded Medicare, and forced mandates on everyone, creating the mess we are witnessing today.
The creation of Obamacare was unilateral. Opposition to it was bi-partisan. Now the Democrats want the Republicans to help "fix" and "implement" their disaster called Obamacare. However, the Democrats own Obamacare in its entirety.
The Republicans won control of the House in response to the Democrats' creation of Obamacare. They weren't elected to help perpetuate a bad solution. The good news is that eventually the country comes to its senses. Prohibition was once "the law of the land" as Obama proclaims Obamacare to be. But prohibition was repealed when people saw it was bad legislation.