In early April, I addressed the Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees about the potentially dangerous situations that occur whenever student-athletes drive to extracurricular activities. An article concerning this issue, written by Katherine Petersen, appeared in The Sun shortly afterward.
As a veteran English teacher (27 years) and baseball coach (22 years), I know that we have been placing our students in jeopardy since the early 1980s. That is when our district sold its buses and restructured its transportation personnel to save money. Insurance, fuel and vehicle maintenance costs were eliminated. So were safety concerns.
When that decision to abolish district buses was made, the athletic teams did not have to travel great distances. The farthest trip we made was from Fremont High School to Lynbrook. We were primarily self-contained. Today, with five districts forming the Santa Clara Valley League (De Anza and El Camino divisions), our teams travel to Milpitas, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Saratoga and Los Gatos for contests.
We rely on parent volunteers and student drivers to get players to the sites. With crowded cars, inexperienced drivers, unpredictable highway conditions, time deadlines and pre- and post-game teenage emotions, we have created a potentially deadly scenario.
Tragically, last week the life of a Serra High School golf member was lost as he and his teammates drove to a school-sanctioned athletic contest. They were following the same policy our district has adopted. Kids were driving long distances to unfamiliar locations, and the result was five students injured, one dead, families and friends grieving and a school district wondering how this happened.
Before any student is hurt, let us as a community examine proactively how our schools are handling extra-curricular transportation. The time to restore district buses is now, not after lawsuits that result from a tragic accident.
Let's stop gambling with the safety of our youth. Restoring buses is the responsible thing for us to do.
Sid Castro
Fremont High School
The floodgates are about to be breached. I am appealing to the citizens of Cupertino and their City Council to stand firm against this appalling prospect. Lockheed Martin has pressured NASA to reinterpret regulations that now hold them in check. NASA regulations forbid using the facilities for commercial purposes. It should stay that way. A reinterpretation of the Reimbursable Space Act would open Moffett to commercial uses. Lockheed Martin's agenda is to ship commercial satellites out of Moffett, cementing Moffett as a commercial shipping site. Huge cargo planes will be needed to carry the commercial satellites in containers 40 feet long by 15 feet high by 15 feet wide. Due to these large dimensions the only commercial aircraft capable of transporting it is the Russian Antonov 124. This aircraft is prohibited from landing at San Jose Airport because of its size and weight. Lockheed Martin has admitted that they could ship via Oakland Airport. We do not want it at Moffett. Once the door is open to Lockheed Martin, their competitors in the satellite business will be clamoring to ship out of Moffett also. DHL, FedEx and UPS are also anxious to ship out of Moffett. The floodgates need strengthening.
Another concern is safety. This area is a highly impacted air traffic area. To open Moffett to this kind of commercialization would increase air traffic to unconscionable proportions. We did not move to this area 25 years ago to be near a commercial airfield. It will devastate property values and the quality of life.
There are many life-enhancing uses for Moffett, such as film studios with an operation similar to Industrial Light & Magic Corp., which integrates the computer industry with the growing multimedia needs of the film industry. An extension of the UC-Berkeley or Santa Cruz universities, a huge aerospace museum, and continuation of Ames Research are some educational uses. These benefit the community and enhance education. Call your representatives in your community and in Washington to make your feelings known.
Norma Gould Reiss
Los Altos
I am responding to the person who wrote in your April 23 edition about the greedy teachers who are threatening to strike due to an impasse in the contract negotiations between their union and the Fremont Union High School District's board of education. For the record, these "greedy" teachers have received a paltry .078 percent wage increase in each of the last three years. Less than 1 percent a year in salary increases is not enough to keep up with the cost of living. Four years ago, teachers agreed to a contract based on a formula for wages tied to property tax revenues which never materialized; thus the low salary increases tied to another formula based on vague promises of revenue increases. Obviously, teachers don't want to be burned again by a school district which continues to treat its teachers as less than human.
Yes, I am one of those teachers. No, I don't want to strike. Teachers are professional people who put in long hours in the evening and on weekends grading papers for zero overtime pay. We care for our students, and our caring has resulted in four of the five high schools in the FUHSD being named Distinguished Schools. How does the school district reward the efforts of its professional staff of teachers? By dragging out contract negotiations for an entire school year, hoping teachers will be too tired when the end of the term approaches to argue. A strike is not what anyone wants. Teachers are dedicated to the needs of students. But the school board's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith with its professional staff means that a strike is more than likely.
Grace Voss
Sunnyvale
[ Back to Contents Page | Sunnyvale Sun Home Page | Archives ]
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, May 7, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.