Never underestimate importance of reading
Congratulations and a hearty amen for addressing a subject that I feel has long been ignored in many of our public and perhaps private schools in your Wednesday editorial, “Teach young kids to read.”
I will cite an example of why I feel so strongly about the importance of teaching young children to read. Forty-eight years ago when my daughter entered first grade in Norman, Okla., her teacher gave the parents a lecture at the first parent-teacher meeting. She told all of us that she would cover all of the required subjects in first grade but that her primary emphasis would be on reading.
She said that while a student might need to know that one plus one equals two, that can come later if they know how to read. She said that if a child left her classroom knowing how to read well, there is nothing in life that they could not accomplish.
We were given a choice to assist her in this task or, if we did not agree with her goals, she would work with us and the principal to transfer our child to another teacher. I cannot recall one parent who took her up on this offer.
Today, my daughter is still an avid reader and has accomplished much in her 55 years of life. She is the mother of three children, who all attended and graduated from college on academic scholarships. She attended community college and, after her children were in school, she worked as a volunteer in the school district.
Her success there led to an offer of a part-time job in the school district. Today she is a secretary in the office of the superintendent of one of the largest school districts in another state. I, as a parent, am quite proud of her accomplishments but I am quick to give the credit to a dedicated first-grade teacher who recognized the importance of knowing how to read well.
Alex Y. Bishop
Lt. Col. USAF (Ret.)
Rock Hill
We don’t need any more gun laws
In regard to Curtis Lemay’s letter, “Letter about guns made good points,”I have also read disparaging letters and comments on the rant by Diane Rudolph. She was out of line with her childish name calling as well as being wrong in her thinking.
Mr. Lemay is also spreading questionable facts about dealers not being required to perform background checks at gun shows. Licensed dealers are required to run checks no matter where the gun is sold. Fact is, Adam Lanza did not purchase the weapons. He took them from his mother. Therefore, the entire premise of using this situation to further enact laws concerning background checks is scurrilous.
Where did Mr. Lemay gather his facts that drug dealers, felons and lunatics purchase weapons at gun shows? Or was this something he pulled out of his hat? As for the “would-be insurrectionist,” that is a pre-crime. It is not yet against the law to have thoughts.
Adam Lanza was not old enough to purchase the weapons he used, so what good is a background check in this case? If he was old enough, he still had no criminal record. It would have been legal for him to have purchased these weapons. So what is the point of the background checks?
The usual knee-jerk reaction coming from the liberal agenda is to be expected. However, just as Joe Biden, point man for President Obama on this issue, has publicly stated, “Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now.”
There are ample laws on the books. More laws are not only redundant but will be no more effective than the current laws.
Rick Gwinn
Rock Hill
