THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 16, 1997 TAG: 9702130147
SECTION: CAROLINA COAST PAGE: 02 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letters
LENGTH: 166 lines
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed $59.5 million bond package that the Board of Education plans to present to the Dare County commissioners this month.
I would like to go on record as one citizen who does not feel the present plans for the bond referendum are truly in the best interest of all Dare County citizens.
First of all, I do not support a second high school for students north of Oregon Inlet because I do not believe separate is - or ever will be - equal. Take a look at First Flight middle and elementary schools. Then look at Manteo middle and elementary schools. Yes, they are separate. But are these facilities equal? How about the facilities at Cape Hatteras School? How would the parents of children who now attend First Flight Elementary School like it if their children were going to school at the K-12 school in Buxton? Again, separate is not always equal.
Furthermore, how can taxpayers be asked to support a second high school when the school board has not yet ironed out details like what kind of curriculum will be offered at the new school or how the board will decide which students will go to which facility? Taxpayers should not be asked to accept blind promises. Let's clarify these details before we move forward with a bond referendum so we will know exactly what it is we're voting for or against.
Another reason I believe the commissioners should not accept the current proposal is I do not feel that the school board has sufficiently considered all of the alternatives presented - alternatives that could save taxpayers millions of dollars. For example, Mr. Louis Midgett, former chairperson of the Board of Education, contends he has documented evidence that Manteo High School CAN be enlarged to accommodate up to 1,400 students. So why is it necessary to build a new school at this time?
Likewise, it is my opinion - and that of many others - that the Board of Education needs to listen to the teachers, students, parents and taxpayers who have spoken out on this topic. At each of the hearings on this bond package, numerous citizens have protested the plans to build a second high school on the beach. Many have asked questions which have either not been answered or which have been answered with misleading or inaccurate information. Isn't it time we got the facts? Shouldn't the taxpayers have something to say about how their tax dollars are going to be spent? Shouldn't our elected officials feel compelled to listen to us?
Finally, I think the Board of Education needs to remember the lesson each member was taught as a child: ``If you don't take care of the toys you have, you don't get any new ones.'' Virtually every school in Dare County is in desperate need of significant repairs. If we can't take care of the schools we have now, do we really need to build new ones? I think not.
Lisa P. Bridge
Manteo One high school with two campuses
In view of the concerns raised about maintaining a strong curriculum for the high school students of Dare County, if a second high school building is built north of Oregon Inlet, I want to suggest a model that the high school task force on which I served as vice chair in 1992 did not consider.
The question is not really, ``Do we need another school?'' That need was established in 1992. The current populations in grades 1 and 2 - even without the in-migration which probably will occur - will yield in 10 years high school enrollments in grades 11 and 12 of 324 and 330 respectively. Those students are already in here. The question has become: ``How shall we organize the high school program?''
The 1992 task force recommended: ``Build a new 800-student high school in the vicinity of the First Flight schools . . . with a future expansion capacity of up to 1,000 students.'' Manteo High School was built for 720 students and now houses 979. By 2006, the high school population in the northern area will be close to 1,400 students - based only on current enrollments in elementary schools. The state's projection is for 1,590, considering other factors as well.
Since it now appears that high school parents and students favor keeping together as many students as possible at each grade level, it is time to study the option of locating grades 9 and 10 in one place and 11 and 12 in the other - one school with two campuses. Calling it ``Dare County High School'' could go far toward making the community see it as one school. Such a plan allows full curriculum offerings at every grade level and enough flexibility for students who are far ahead or falling behind to be assigned still to the appropriate level, because transportation from both sites goes everywhere.
The grade level division can work very well for both academics and athletics. For more than 20 years, Alexandria, Va., has had two schools with grades 9 and 10 feeding into their nationally recognized T.C. Williams High School of grades 11 and 12. The course selections and the varsity athletic teams of T.C. Williams are the envy of the state. The lower-level schools have junior varsity athletics only. And hardly any students drive to these schools.
At some future time when there are enough students for two comprehensive schools of 800 to 1,000 students, a future school board could decide to go back to a more traditional way of assigning students to a school close to where they live. However, since in Dare County hardly anyone lives really close to the existing high school (more than 60 percent of the students live in the beach communities) the divided grade level option might be preferred even over the long term. We need not decide that now.
What we should do is move forward with a building program to meet needs for the immediate time and near future. Much of the public school capital funding available from the state could profitably be dedicated to our deferred maintenance and remodeling projects. But it is clear that bond funding for new high school space is needed here and now.
I intend to vote for the bond issue when it comes up.
Diane Henderson
Southern Shores Judge's comments, conducts criticized
Last Sunday, ``The Coastland Times'' ran an article entitled ``Plea Bargain Reduced Rape Charges to Assault.'' First, may I commend The Coastland Times on their reporting of this case. I am still having problems reading and comprehending what took place in that court room. And I know I am not alone.
I can understand the frustration that Amber Davis and Robert Trivette must have felt. Somehow, we must find a way to help victims be able to testify without the fear of reprisals, embarrassment, or shame. I would offer my prayers and sympathy to the young girls and their families. I wish these young victims could have found the courage to have testified so future victims would be spared. But there are adult women who have not been able to do that. And these victims were children.
I condemn the action of Judge J. Paul Wright. His comments and conduct toward the accused was absolutely reprehensible. I cannot believe that the citizens of Dare County would want such a judge in their court system. Actually, I cannot see any human citizenship anywhere wanting this person for any position.
The state of Virginia has as their motto: Virginia is for lovers. Judge Wright (I can't even believe he has that as his last name) sent a wrong message with his actions in this case. North Carolina is for rapists. That's not my choice as a state bumper sticker.
Do you share my views on judge ``Wrong?'' Where can we write? Judicial Standards Committee, P.O. Box 1122, Raleigh, N.C. 27602.
Better yet, get others and send a petition. How about the possible future governor, Marc Basnight? Speak up. Let the powers that can prevent this or who can take action know what you think. Voters, remember! Single parents, mothers whose children have grown up as decent, responsible adults, let the judge have your input. Judge Wright would not know ``unfortunate upbringing'' if it bit him in the . . .
Mary Gillen
Kitty Hawk Special interests killed fisheries reform bill
A large injustice was committed Monday when a group of coastal residents voted to kill the fisheries reform bill presented by the Moratorium Steering Committee. These people, who were charged with representing the interests of all North Carolina residents, apparently only represented personal and local financial interests.
The Moratorium Steering Committee spent in excess of $250,000 of taxpayers' money studying the problems facing our fisheries resources over the last two years and came up with the best possible approach to change the alarming trend of declining fish catches.
Look at the people who voted against this bill: Former Rep. Jonathan Robinson, commercial fisherman; Gerry Smith, a seafood dealer from Carteret County; Doug Brady, a seafood dealer and commercial boat owner from Carteret County; Rep. Jean Preston from Carteret County; Bryan Gillikin, a boat yard owner from Carteret County; Rep. Robert Grady from Onslow County and Sen. Beverly Perdue from New Bern, whose vote changes with the tide, and who seconded the motion to take the proposals to the General Assembly a few short weeks ago. Let's also not forget Sen. Charlie Albertson, who refused to cast the tying vote.
A member of the committee cited the legislature's Seafood and Aquaculture Commission Co-Chair Jean Preston for exhibiting no leadership during these proceedings. She purposefully gave the chair to Sen. Albertson, apparently so she could vote against the proposals. If the chair of the committee does not have an open mind and lead the group to the right decision, who will? If the intention all along was to kill any reform, why not do so before spending over $250,000 and wasting two years of the committee members' lives?
Former Rep. Robinson stated, ``There is no crisis.'' Is crisis management how North Carolina residents want their public trust resources cared for? I think not.
Doug Hoffman
Greenville