Adam Platt ("LRT as engine: Churning or not?" May 3) properly concludes that the Twin Cities does not have a congestion problem — something that I can attest to, having spent time in many cities with real congestion issues. What struck me most was his conclusion: "Thus, I end up back where I started a decade ago. The Twin Cities doesn't need rail transit. It's a costly form of social engineering." Which he then attempts to ameliorate by adding: "But the case for LRT is more compelling if you focus on all the people riding the lines and the vibrancy and development along them that is contributing to a renaissance in our downtowns. Chicken or egg? Good question." (Social engineering.)
Should limited resources be invested on social-engineering projects? Given all of the other truly compelling needs, I would propose that the answer to that question is no.
Loren Berg, Rio Verde, Ariz.
• • •
Platt has some good ideas. For example, he points out that people just don't like to ride buses. That may be elitism, yet it is a fact to be reckoned with. But he admits he is the culprit who sold the decisionmakers on the questionable idea that the purpose of light rail is to promote development along adjacent areas. We are to spend one or two billion dollars in order to increase the tax base? That smacks of voodoo economics. If we would admit that the real purpose of transit is to transport people from point A and A prime to points B and B prime, then we would route the Southwest light rail along existing roadways — for example, along Hennepin Avenue, where the streetcars once ran, then perhaps west on Lake Street or Hwy. 7. Then we would avoid destroying beautiful neighborhoods and spending hundreds of millions on bridges or tunnels.
To those of us who have only watched from the sidelines as this debate rages, the whole plan seems fundamentally flawed. Yes, throw it out and start over.
Edward J. Schwartzbauer, Edina
OPT-OUT MOVEMENT
Maybe students simply want to make better use of their time
Like most articles on standardized testing and opting out, a May 3 story ("Opt-out option on tests backfires") did not identify the standardized test the students were not taking. As I understand it, the test they are opting out of is the MCA, Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment. This test has nothing to do with graduation, nor do colleges use it in judging applicants. As the article states, high-performing students are realizing that their precious class time is better spent studying course work that will affect their grades and chances for college. So, when they discover they don't have to waste their time preparing for it and taking it, they opt out to make better use of their time. There is no plot. It just makes sense.
The article did not respond to the Better Ed vice president's rather naive reply after he'd been informed that the dip in MCA test scores he'd attributed to a regression in student comprehension was actually due to brighter students opting out. He said: "I understand some of the reasons for the movement, but I haven't heard what other form of accountability really looks like." Well, for a person whose organization is pushing to dismantle the Minneapolis School District, you'd think he'd have knowledge of options like basing assessments on the students' actual classroom work, wouldn't you? Or how about doing what other countries do and conduct school-quality reviews (no testing — rather, a comprehensive review is done by a team of qualified professionals)? Or how about student portfolio assessment, which shows the depth and scope of each student's understanding of what is being taught? Standardized tests can't do this.
Standardized testing continues under its own inertia, even though it has been proven faulty. It's a huge moneymaker for testing companies. The opt-out movement is needed to stop it.