Letters to the LA Times | http://lat.ms/MqTQCR
Who should do dental work?
Re "Dentist groups wary of health trend," June 3
June 8, 2012 :: It's time to give priority to dental health needs over the self-interest of professional dental organizations. No amount of scare tactics on the part of the American Dental Assn. can refute the solid evidence that properly trained therapists can perform basic dental procedures in a safe and cost-effective manner, particularly among children.
I have witnessed dental therapists in New Zealand doing basic procedures on children in close relationship with the public schools. I saw no evidence of unsafe or risky treatment.
In California, we already have a highly trained group of potential therapists — dental hygienists — a good portion of whom do not work a full schedule.
Giving hygienists the opportunity to train as dental therapists might be worth considering.
William K. Solberg
Los Angeles
The writer, a dentist, is a professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Dentistry.
Letters: SAT sense
http://lat.ms/LvMjTX
Re "College Board fails the test," Editorial, June 1
June 8, 2012 :: The Times helped win a small but symbolic victory for our nation's youth. On Tuesday, the College Board, which owns the SAT, backed off it plans to allow students in an expensive summer program to take the test in August, which would have been unfair. Still, the unfairness of the SAT continues.
In reality, the SAT correlates strongly with family income. It's time more colleges and universities take a stand against the SAT in the name of a level playing field based on academic merit, not household income.
Charles Murray, a contributor to the book "SAT Wars," believes that action by top colleges such as Harvard or Stanford would push us past the tipping point. If the College Board can see the unfairness in testing affluent kids early, then surely Harvard and Stanford can figure out the unfairness of a test that predicts affluence more reliably than success in college.
Joseph Soares
Winston-Salem, N.C.
Letters: Kids and court/Caring for kids
http://lat.ms/LahUrT
Re "The cost of delay," Opinion, June 4
June 8, 2012 :: I am pleased to see Jim Newton's continued interest in improving the dependency system, and I was troubled by some of the issues with the L.A. County children's courts that he raised, such as unnecessary trial continuations. However, he confused the issues.
As a law student, I have represented both children and parents through child advocacy clinics and internships in San Francisco and Alameda County.
Newton implies that any case that takes a long time is a bad thing. That's not always true. Newton confuses the difference between a delay and a service plan for reunification. Service plans take time. The law gives a parent an opportunity to rehabilitate and prove his or her fitness to the court. Without this built-in "delay," every kid who ever entered the dependency system would be ripped from his parents and placed in foster care.
How would you calculate that cost?
Doug Skelton
La Verne
No comments:
Post a Comment