Teaching with computerized lesson plans?

In response to the article “Should teachers put price tags on lesson plans?” [page one, Nov. 15], my first feeling is one of repulsion.

Teachers are paid to teach our children using the knowledge they learned in school, not by plagiarizing what other teachers do. Plagiarizing is the one thing teachers drill into our children’s minds through all the years of schooling.

The article discussed sharing ideas among others, which in my opinion is still OK, but the idea that my children will one day be taught by computerized lesson plans enrages me.

I pay taxes to provide an education for my future children and the children of their children, not to provide school educators an easy way out of their responsibilities of creating interesting ways to provide our future providers with the knowledge to live.

— Brittany Hake, North Bend

Giving students the basics

I would like to comment on The Times editorial “State should join race to reform education” [Opinion, Nov. 15].

The issue of tying teacher pay to student performance is a poor idea, and will not raise academic achievement.

Could we instead be talking more about giving students the basics? Many classrooms do not have up-to-date textbooks or enough money to buy supplies for classroom projects and activities.

This year my district lowered our individual stipends from $350 to $200 to buy classroom supplies, but our classroom sizes went up. Our class sizes are too high. One of my colleagues teaches science to more than 32 students in a room not equipped for science instruction.

How do you propose we fairly measure the worth of an art, music or physical-education teacher? Are there not some subjects where the standardized testing model does not fit?

I teach one high-school class of mostly special-education students. These students historically do not perform well on written standardized tests. Would I be making a smart move to not teach these students anymore? I am pretty sure that my students need me there in that classroom with them.

— Kelly Roger Hayes, Seattle

A note from Bishop Blanchet on charter, Catholic schools

Local K-12 education has been in the press of late. Gov. Chris Gregoire visited a school to help the state win coveted federal grants, local high schools have discussed high-school graduation requirements, Seattle Public Schools is wrestling with new boundaries, and columnists have devoted columns to investigating how poverty affects student performance.

In all this talk about education, it is surprising that no one has mentioned how Catholic schools are an important part of the educational landscape.

Washington’s Catholic school system is the second-largest so-called district in the state, educating more than 30,000 students at a fraction of the cost public schools spend per pupil. While Catholic schools spend less per student, the results are far from inferior. Studies show that Catholic schools are strong academic institutions where students succeed.

While Seattle public high schools argue over whether or not a D is sufficient to get credit, the Catholic high schools in Seattle send 99 percent of their graduates to college, and about 57 percent of them receive scholarships to colleges.

This record of academic success is remarkable.

Many argue that Catholic schools are elite institutions. Not true. Catholic schools are most successful with poor and minority students. A quick glance at the demographics of a sample Catholic high school in Seattle would show that nearly 40 percent of its students receive financial aid.

Catholic schools ensure success regardless of students’ race or income level.

It is good to see education in the news, but it’s time to include all the players, including Catholic schools. This is not a new idea. Forty states have charter movements that include Catholic and private schools. Perhaps it is time for Washington to make sure all its schools have a seat at the policy table.

— Patrick Fennessy, director of admissions and communications,

Bishop Blanchet High School, Seattle