LETTERS: Choices for parents in Southington; ARPA disappointment in Wallingford

Parent choice


There is an Increasing distrust of schools across the nation by parents for various reasons. Many schools have been pushing social agendas that parents disagree with. As a result, some have been pulling their kids out of public schools and placing them in private schools or homeschooling.

If school systems plan on continuing pushing social agendas in the classroom, then parents need an easier way to make choices. As it stands currently, students are automatically opted into these activities. Parents can choose to opt their kids out but need to contact the school system and make a request every time one of these activities is scheduled.

In addition, I was made aware that there is certain content within the school classroom curriculum itself that parents have the choice as well to opt their kids out of. Anyway, it is easy for parents to miss communications related to these activities with the busy lives we lead today.

For parents like me who choose to keep our children in public schools we need an easier way to opt our kids out of activities we feel are harmful to our children.

My proposal is that the Southington school system create a web page that lists activities/curriculum that some parents would deem controversial and offers check boxes so that parents can choose to opt out their child from activities they deem undesirable. The page could be updated as needed with activities added and removed.

Adding this tool for parents would make our lives much easier and help to reinstill some trust in the school system.

If you agree with what I am proposing I ask that you reach out to Superintendent Madancy and express your support for my idea: Phone Number 860-628-3202 or Email smadancy@southingtonschools.org.

Michael Kryzanski, Southington



“Wallingford councilors admonish EDC as officials debate intent of ARPA funding” (R-J 6/16). Admonish? I attended the 6/14 meeting. The agenda item could have been titled “Freedom of speech for me but not for thee.” It’s contemptible that some town councilors would seek to chill the freedom of speech and opinions of fellow town officials. Suggesting “investigation” of EDC for distributing a flyer alerting businesses to council discussions regarding allocating ARPA funds? Alleging that EDC members had engaged in “libel”? (R-J 6/12). Disgraceful!

I saw that EDC flyer; there was nothing untrue in it. Contrary to councilors’ claims, the EDC did not state or even imply anything “nefarious.” At issue is six councilors’ carving out a large chunk of ARPA funds for government projects — without first determining the needs of those directly, negatively impacted by the COVID pandemic. The first category of its intended purpose (Treasury Department Final Rule): “To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality”. Government projects are listed last.

The councilors are correct: government projects are allowed. But just because they can do something, doesn’t mean that they should. If councilors are uncomfortable or embarrassed at having their priorities questioned or criticized, perhaps it says something about those priorities. Otherwise, why be so defensive about the flyer and publicly lambast the EDC?

The bottom line, as I see it: It’s about the egos of six councilors who want credit. When election time rolls around, it’s easier to point proudly to some sexy project (Community Pool, a park, broadband, whatever), which is more visible than assistance to individuals, small businesses and nonprofits adversely affected by the pandemic. I’m deeply disappointed.

Patricia J. Kohl, Wallingford


More From This Section