The Courier's Feb. 2 article "District parents seek help from county school board," reported that two individuals are dissatisfied with how the Cupertino Union school district resolves its parents' complaints, but what the article didn't explore is why these parents are unhappy. Is it possible that they are unhappy because the school district didn't agree with them?

One of the parents the Courier interviewed (Melissa Hilton) has been very outspoken regarding the district's move to a middle school format. The district and many parents have listened to her complaints for several years now, but the district didn't stop the move to middle schools.

This may be why she ran for school board in 2003 and is still vocal against the school district today.

Is the problem now that the district is no longer agreeing with her wishes, and she is crying foul?

The voters in this district didn't vote for either of these parents in 2003. Maybe this is because the majority of parents don't agree with them.

I have had a complaint in the past and know of other parents that have had complaints with the district.

In my case, I met with Superintendent Bragg; I felt heard even when I wasn't agreed with. I worked with the district and came to an agreement, but understood that it wasn't my job to make the decision.

As parents we can give input to the district, but we are not the decision-makers. We elect the decision-makers, and if we don't agree with the district, it is our right to take our children's education elsewhere.

These parents have the ability to do just that, as I do. A school district has the responsibility to answer to all the parents and its employees, not only to the few that complain the loudest.

Cupertino Union School District has public forums for every major decision that has to be made.

Parents have many ways to be involved both at school sites and at district levels. Maybe Lynette Lee Eng and Hilton need to find ways to work with the district and not against it. All I hear is "sour grapes."

Laura Di Pol

Cupertino

District always treats parent with respect

I read the Feb. 2 article "District parents seek help from county school board" and was very concerned with the way the Cupertino School District Administration was depicted in this article.

I have attended practically every school board meeting in the last two and a half years. Frankly, I do not agree with this portrayal. Yes, I know there is a perception by parents that the school board doesn't care, but mere perception does not make it a correct one.

I am a very outspoken parent in the district and speak my mind on every issue that I have an opinion on. Sometimes I agree with the school district, and sometimes I don't and I say so, publicly.

I have never felt threatened or intimidated in any way at any time. The board members and the superintendent have continued to be polite, friendly and respectful of my opinions, and I do not fear any sort of reprisal. The very thought is ridiculous.

I come from a culture where speaking out against the 'Administration' is a terrifying notion. The only reason I feel confident enough to do so is because there will be no reprisals against me and my children.

Look how smoothly the district finances are run in this nightmarish time of budget cuts. See how hard the district works to try and better the curriculum, including even the arts in our children's education. Yes, things may not be perfect, but how many of us are perfect? Some parents do have a very militant attitude towards the administration, and will speak out only to complain or see only what's wrong. What about the harsh way they criticize? Isn't that unfair to expect respectful treatment towards people you yourself are being disrespectful towards, yourself?

It is wrong to be so critical of a school district that tries so hard.

Suman Ganapathy

Cupertino

Article exposes Courier's disregard for the truth

In the Feb. 2 article about the "We the Parents" group at Stevens Creek Elementary School, the Courier unwittingly exposes its disregard for the truth and/or liberal bias.

The Courier writes, " ... outlets like the Fox News Channel, which brought conservative talk show Hannity & Colmes to the Flint Center on Dec. 8." The Hannity & Colmes program is not a conservative show, nor is it a talk show. Quite to the contrary, it is a TV news program hosted by Sean Hannity (with a conservative perspective) and Alan Colmes (with an equally strong liberal perspective) who report, discuss and analyze news items. They also interview guests with equal fervor and controversy, in what Fox calls "fair and balanced" reporting. Both men also have entirely separate radio talk shows (not on Fox) which emphasize their respective, and usually diametrically opposed, political views.

The Courier also reports that Newt Gingrich, when interviewed by Katie Couric on Jan. 12, referred to a California high school where a teacher was barred from distributing copies of the Declaration of Independence. So what? How did this juicy tidbit find its way into the Courier's article? Stevens Creek is an elementary school--not a high school.

Finally, the Courier reports that one of the "We the Parents" founders emphasized ADF had lied in its press release that led to 3,000 threatening messages to the school, and " ... any one of those 3,000 people could have come in with an AK-47." That may be true, but it is a far less likely occurrence than George Soros visiting the school to hand out thousand dollar bills to the faculty and students. The Chicken Little Syndrome now rules the Courier.

Gordon Frolich

Cupertino