THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 24, 1995 TAG: 9509210212
SECTION: CAROLINA COAST PAGE: 08 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 132 lines
Who are the most important people to consider in making the decision concerning two high schools or one high school? We all know that the only answer is - the STUDENTS! Therefore, let's look at the decision to have two small high schools from the student's viewpoint. The students will see:
A very limited curriculum. The present diversified curriculum will have to be abandoned due to the reduction in staff and the high cost of offering low-enrollment classes.
A heterogeneous (mix all ability levels in one classroom) curriculum, a curriculum that will be restricted in providing for differences in abilities and interests.
A reduction in extracurricular activities. It is impossible to provide a variety of activities due to the limited staff and the limited number of students. We all know small schools have difficulty offering football (and the other varsity sports), band, theater arts, etc.
A limitation in facilities. A small high school with a reduced enrollment cannot justify the building of special facilities. One example is labs designed and equipped just for computers, physics, chemistry, biology and the basic general sciences.
The students and taxpayers will see an increase in cost. Budget limitations will be a necessary consideration. It is easy to understand that it costs more dollars to run two high schools. Two high schools mean two cafeterias, two gymnasiums, two athletic fields, two principals, two administrative staffs, two parking lots, two libraries, two auditoriums and so on. As we have all noted, taxpayer revolts throughout this country have resulted in a reduction in staffs, curriculum and extracurricular programs. Two high schools will cost more, and the students will have less.
We all realize the School Board's decision relative to this question is extremely difficult and requires many considerations, but I ask that each board member not lose sight of the No. 1 consideration: the students.
A few words about my background: I am not only a Dare County taxpayer, but also a recently retired high school principal. My experience includes 16 years as principal of a high school with 1,000 students. The school was identified by the National School Recognition Program as an outstanding high school. Also, as president of the County Principals Association, I visited many small high schools and found all of the limitations cited above.
Fred O. Dietzel
Southern Shores What's the $1 for?
We recently had to take our personal time off work and travel many miles to go to the Division of Motor Vehicles office in Elizabeth City to take care of business that required us to be there in person. We barely made it by the 5 p.m. closing, and there was a long line of people (some evening or weekend hours should be available to accommodate the residents of North Carolina who work or have to travel a distance to reach the DMV).
While there, I asked what the mandatory $1 fee per vehicle was for when paying for license renewal by mail. No one in the DMV office could answer my question. Last year, it was noted on our bill that the $1 fee charged for each vehicle was for postage and handling fees; this year, there was no explanation on our bill for the fee (in our case, we were required to pay an additional $4 to pay our bill by mail).
At DMV, the additional monies collected from North Carolina residents who use the mail system are not included in the vehicle registration fee policy of North Carolina.
It's time to change the law. Those of us who are not privileged to have a license plate agency in our community should not be charged a fee for paying by mail.
Joan Williams
Moyock More fish for everyone
Here we go again! The alliance to save fisheries is just another wedge to split two groups of us who have the same interests, namely sport and commercial fishing.
Any of us who think with our heads instead of other body parts knows there's plenty of room for commercial harvest of any renewable resource if the resource is managed properly. Since it's obvious our elected officials can't or won't do it, we have to find a way to work together for one goal: more fish for everyone.
Every thinking fisherman knows the only way to improve our fish stocks is to clean up their spawning grounds and protect them during that time. Sounds so simple, doesn't it? You're right. And it's worked so well in many other places around this country, I can't believe we squander money battling each other instead of pooling this money to be used for politically independent research.
Ted Goodwin
Buxton Fishermen, learn to share
As our family devours our last breakfast on the Outer Banks, we are overtaken by an urge to comment on a column in this area's local newspaper.
From a tourist's point of view, we don't understand why billboards advertising the Outer Banks can't advertise your commercial and recreational fishery side-by-side as of equal importance to this area. We sure enjoyed both. We enjoyed a fishing charter and even tried our luck fishing from the beach. We had fun.
The next day, we visited the local fishing docks and watched seafood being prepared for a local restaurant which we dined at that night. What a treat to eat fresh seafood.
Dare County fishermen need to realize how lucky they are to have so many miles of beach and water to enjoy your sport or to earn an income. You need to learn to share. Both fishing interests are of equal importance to Dare County's tourism, and a billboard should be erected to say so.
Bill & Joan Smith
Louisville, Ky. Stabilize the inlet first
Here we go again! Another halfway approach by the Owens/Basnight/Owens conglomerate. We are now going to spend another $100 million to build a new bridge so we can send the tourists to their destination more expeditiously.
You great pronounced supporters of the Oregon Inlet Jetty project, haven't you forgotten something? The ``old'' bridge, which is still performing quite well, has gotten the way it is by an unstable inlet. Can any study, environmental or sensible, support spending $100 million to build another bridge over the same unstable inlet?
Now let's get back to our commercial fishing industry and our sports fishing industry out of Oregon Inlet, Wanchese and Manteo. Don't they deserve a break by having the inlet stabilized before any new bridges are exposed to the present unstable waters? Let's also give the rescue people, the Coast Guard, a break for a change and bring the inlet under control before we build a new bridge to satisfy political promises.
Come on Owens, Basnight and Owens - let's show our jetties support for once. Don't go all out for a new bridge before the most glaring problem in Dare County is solved. Let's build the jetties first. Don't kid yourself that the federal funding is a sure thing; remember, even if it is, we are still footing the bill!
Dan Gray
Chairman
Dare County Republican Party by CNB