Rep. Levesque’s letter on Hollis-Brookline Common Core discussion was disappointing

To the Editor:

It was very disappointing to read the misrepresentations and accusations in Representative Levesque’s letter to the editor in the April 4 issue of The Journal.

First, she described the discussion at the co-op meeting of the Common Core standards as a “very one-sided debate.” The co-op meeting is not a structured, point/counterpoint debate. Every citizen has opportunity to view his opinion. No effort is made to ensure both sides of any of the numerous issues are equally represented during this phase of the meeting. A two-thirds vote is required to curtail discussion. As I recall, five or six people spoke in favor of repeal before the representative made her comments against it; she was then followed by two or three more people supporting repeal before the topic was moved to the vote.

Secondly, she portrayed the vote in the New Hampshire Legislature that defeated repeal of Common Core as “bi-partisan, despite the instructions of the Republican voter guide.” Of the 201 votes not to repeal, 184 were from Democrats and 17 from Republicans – a mere 8.5 percent. This in no way is the spirit of a bi-partisan effort. Further, only three Democrats voted in favor of repeal. Evidently, the Democrats are more inclined to kowtow to their voter guide.

Representative Levesque then characterized Mr. Pauer’s motivation to file the petition for repeal as an “attempt to disrupt and dismantle public education.” Really? Are we to believe Mr. Pauer has invested the time and money required to successfully run for the school board because he is on a mission to destroy public education?

Representative Levesque cited the outstanding academic accomplishments of Hollis Brookline High School. Perhaps Mr. Pauer, and the vast majority of the citizens attending the co-op meeting, recognizes that it is the imposition of the mediocre-at-best Common Core standards that poses the greatest risk to undermining our record of success.

Next, she noted that the overwhelming vote to repeal “has no force of law.” This is true. It will be interesting to see if the future decisions of the elected school board members will reflect the concerns of their constituents or if we will be disregarded.

Finally, the representative contends that this has become a “politicized issue.” Given what’s at stake, I don’t find that surprising. If she finds dealing with “politicized issues” distasteful, perhaps she should reconsider whether being a state representative is something for which she is well-suited.

NORMAND BLEAU

Brookline