Low test scores, Trump transition, ranked choice voting

Seek other factors for low test scores

I’m curious why the only “factors” attributed to the decline in student proficiency on state English exams were problems with computerization of the tests and community wealth levels [“Less than half of LI students proficient in English,” News, Nov. 25].

Yes, districts in the lowest category of proficient students are among the Island’s poorest, but they also have larger populations of ELL students — English language learners. They were previously known as ESL students — English as a second language, which was not mentioned. It would seem obvious, therefore, to consider this as a major factor in the district results when students’ first language is not English.

These results need to be investigated further before readers are led to believe that the system is broken or unsatisfactory.

— Tom Sena, Merrick

A reader made good points that school systems, especially on Long Island, are not meant to be more than academic mills, pushing students toward college “Give students pick of H.S. diplomas,” Letters, Nov. 21].

It took years to wake up and begin teaching high school students the basic skills of balancing a checkbook, how the stock market works, marketing, and what to expect in the workplace. It’s time to really educate our children, not only in academics but in practical courses. Students should have a choice of a college or trade path, or even a more defined technical-related program.

Big problems in this approach include having the money, instructors and desire to teach modern approaches with non-college-oriented courses. It costs to have the shops and labs available to teach students how to fix cars, be a plumber, and fix computers. It’s time to ditch the attitude that a college degree is for everyone.

Get students prepared for the realities of the world while they are young and have choices besides college.

— Joel S. Moskowitz, Plainview

New ’25 team needs transparency office

We’re stuck at another crossroads in our national politics. President-elect Donald Trump is choosing administration sycophants with dark political identities “Gaetz not only troubling pick,” Editorial, Nov. 22].

I propose an addition to the Cabinet: the Office of Transparency, a bipartisan panel to examine decisions made in the dark. Its only mandate would be to publish its investigations publicly. The electorate is thereby educated.

Secrecy is raw meat to the abuse of power, its sustenance and enabler. Transparency is its most potent antidote.

To keep safe, we all hide secrets. However, secrecy in government can breed conspiracy and corruption and make accountability meaningless. Remember what Michael Corleone said in “The Godfather Part III”: “Never let anyone know what you are thinking.”

— Hank Cierski, Port Jefferson Station

I’ve been a student of military history my whole life, and with the way Donald Trump is picking his cabinet, I fear for our nation. I see no picks having independence, just serving as Trump pawns. With no one allowed to make quick decisions, our country is in trouble.

The reason Israel was so successful in its wars was that its enemies’ moves on the battlefield or other places could not be made independently without permission from their leaders.

Waiting in a critical situation for orders from the boss can be dangerous.

— Gene Reynolds, Ridge

Ranked choice voting: Its time has come

The problem with our two-party system was clearly explained by Nicholas Antonucci “Two-party system is failing America,” Opinion, Nov. 20]. One suggestion for reform was to use ranked choice voting. I agree.

It would allow at least three people to be on the ballot without fear of one being a spoiler. Examples of spoilers: In 2000, Ralph Nader probably helped George W. Bush beat Al Gore in the presidential election, and earlier, in 1992, Ross Perot probably helped Bill Clinton beat President George H.W. Bush.

A carefully designed ballot would make ranked choice voting easy and effective. It has already been used in several states, counties and cities. It should be used in our presidential elections.

— Stewart Karp, Roslyn Heights

“New York failing independent voters” [Opinion, Nov. 12] was right on target. Few states allow independents to vote in party primaries. The political parties of every other state are doing themselves a disservice because in almost all cases, certainly in national elections, the independent voters are the ones who determine the winner. As the number of unaffiliated voters continues to grow, restricted party primaries will become more meaningless.

— Howard Frauenberger, Malverne