Teachers, students need passion, too

There is remarkable energy when teachers are given the latitude to be driven by passion, too.

Common Core standards and test preparation leave little wiggle room for passion. After retiring from 40 years of teaching in Hawaii schools, with countless students winning state and national awards, I literally sighed to see the renewed emphasis on tests, felling the chance for students to create their own literature.

Students come to appreciate writing when they can choose their own genre and fumble with the expression. In this way, they come to know discipline and understand the self-satisfaction of a struggle.

For example, I would have a student pick a foreign country and research it thoroughly. After instruction, that student would be asked to write a story set in that country with the story’s character displaying the country’s cultural nuances. I would be hard-pressed to make room for this passion in today’s test-driven classrooms.

Raynice Messier
Pearl City

Creativity abounds in Common Core

Yong Zhao’s unfounded criticism of the Common Core state standards does a disservice to your readers ("Yong Zhao," Star-Advertiser, Name in the News, Oct. 25).

Zhao falsely claims the standards would stifle creativity and narrow instruction. Common Core is not lesson plans or teaching methods, but internationally benchmarked, rigorous standards that define concepts students should understand and be able to do at each grade to be prepared for college and jobs.

The Common Core was crafted by teachers, parents, higher education officials, business and community leaders from Hawaii and across the country.

For example, the standards ensure students can read more complex texts and understand mathematical processes instead of memorizing answers. It requires higher critical-thinking skills and emphasizes original student research.

Perhaps Zhao should visit some of Hawaii’s Common Core classrooms, where creativity is alive and well as students build robots and solar-powered cars, create aquaponics gardens and award-winning art and media work.

Melanie Brooks, Fifth-grade teacher, Kahului Elementary School
Kahului, Maui

Drones needed to fight terrorism

Your newspaper published another diatribe against American use of drones and the resultant civilian death ("Drone strikes violate rights, U.S. interests," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Oct. 27).

The war on terror is a war. It has no defined borders, but is a war nonetheless. War is hell. How many innocent civilians died in World War II in London, Dresden and Hiroshima?

The result of ceasing drone attacks would be to give terrorist leaders a free pass to plan for America’s destruction. They can kill as many Americans, their allies and other innocent civilians as possible. As long as they surround themselves with a few civilians, they can plan suicide bomber attacks on shopping centers. Many innocent civilians will die. Are they planning another 9/11? Is that the result these anti-drone commentators want?

Richard Saas
Honolulu

Obama the threat, not the tea party

John Conner’s parroting of the current vernacular describing tea party members as hostage-taking terrorists is a laughably blatant invocation of the double standard surrounding the use of incendiary rhetoric ("Tea party members taking U.S. hostage," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Oct. 27). Further, it’s ludicrous to suggest that those attempting to derail an overt assault on our constitutional republic by a petulant want-to-be dictator should be imprisoned.

President Barack Obama is in the process of fulfilling his campaign pledge to "fundamentally change" America. Consider his policy that provides for indoctrination in our educational institutions with Common Core; the crushing of our free-market economy under the weight of unsustainable entitlements; and his own disregard for the balance of power in manipulating the Affordable Care Act 16 times without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution.

And now Conner would stifle the voice of dissent. Fits right in with the program.

Steve Hinton
Haleiwa

Same-sex marriage a basic civil right

Regarding same-sex marriage, today it would be inconceivable for a venue to prohibit a wedding between black and white people; interracial marriage is now accepted as a basic civil right. The rhetoric used by critics of same-sex marriage is the same now as it was then. You could copy and paste "interracial" for "same-sex."

Similarly, it is as common now to quote the Scriptures to oppose same-sex marriage as it was just a few decades ago to oppose inter-racial marriage.

Simply put, what is the difference?

Ken Berkun
Kailua

Religious freedom also a basic right

In the debate over same-sex marriage equality, where is the balance between the competing claims of religious freedom and equal treatment?

The current draft of the proposed same-sex marriage equality legislation fails to respect the rights of those who adhere to traditional moral values.

Just as those who are conscientious objectors to service on the battlefield are afforded legal protection from such service, so should those who believe same-sex marriage is a deviation from traditional moral values on religious grounds be excused from providing their services to same-sex nuptials, such a florists, bakers and wedding planners.

To do less is not equality, nor is it respectful of First Amendment rights. Tolerance and equity, yes; abrogation of rights, no.

Robin McCulloch
Laie