Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As someone who spent nearly 30 years teaching in public schools, I have been following the school resource officer issue closely. The article in the Friday Star Tribune "Advocates defend ban on student restraints" (front page) as well as reports on local TV stations require me to respond. In a video clip played by KSTP from a news conference held by those lawmakers, parents and activists, an individual stated that school staff "like to inflict corporal punishment." I am not sure where that individual gets their information, but I find such claims offensive. There are few things I disliked more than hearing the rising crescendo of "fight, fight, fight" when doing hallway monitoring during passing periods. Mandated to intervene, I can assure you I did not enjoy pushing my way through the onlookers, knowing that I could be assaulted when separating the students.

Having SROs in schools is controversial; there are pros and cons. It's certainly worthy of an adult conversation. However, Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials making political hay out of Democrats not being concerned about school safety is as absurd as those refusing to acknowledge that some children's behavior is utterly out of control and in need of restraint. I did not want to be spat upon, bit or injured in any way when I was forced to intervene. No adult wants that, including SROs. Prone restraint achieves that and is not employed because school staff get their jollies out of it. I do not know if a legislative special session will accomplish anything, but I am certain that those who are willing to accept and normalize aberrant antisocial behavior will not make schools safer for children and staff.

John Severson, Minneapolis

•••

Regarding "Police presence in schools needs the new limits" (Opinion Exchange, Sept. 6): Much discussion about police (SROs) in schools. Schools feel they need the support. Police feel they will be put in jeopardy if they are required to abide by the current new law regarding what they can do to/with students and feel the new law leaves no clear direction as to what is allowed. Here is a thought: The new law makes no reference as to how long a restraint can be used. We all are familiar with the George Floyd case where he was restrained for nine minutes by a police office in a position where he was gasping for air. So, if a restraint is needed (including on the floor), then restrict how long that restraint can be used. A minute should be enough to control a situation and call for help and not endanger the student. The equity of use of force is another issue.

A recent letter writer says that "when you go through the news cycle for a week or so, you will find no real problems plaguing us whose root causes are problems in math or reading" ("Don't let test scores mean too much," Sept. 7). I disagree with that statement for two reasons.

The first reason is that the modern world is complex, and navigating it as an individual requires the ability to read, write and understand basic math. A person who can't do those things is likely to struggle to find employment and manage their own finances. In addition, without the ability to read well, how is an individual to understand enough about the world to participate as an informed citizen and make good choices regarding whom to select to represent us politically?

The second reason math and reading are important is that so much of our modern life depends on science and engineering. We need people to design bridges, computers, automobiles, cellphones, solar cells, batteries, airplanes, rockets and so many other things. And we need scientists to continue advancing knowledge in climate change, biology, virology and many other areas. Without the ability to read and understand complex concepts and do math, we can't do science and engineering.

It is essential that students learn reading, math and science in order to function in our modern world. Test scores are how we measure how well students are learning. Ignoring that information just doesn't make sense.

James Brandt, New Brighton

Opponents argue that the 2040 Plan would reduce single-family properties for people of color. I do not understand that argument. Is the plaintiff team saying that there are many homeownership options for people of color in the Kenwood, East Isles or Linden Hills neighborhoods — that the building of fourplexes in those areas would be a barrier? The areas in Minneapolis most amenable to new home construction are where there are available vacant lots. So that argument holds no water. The city of Minneapolis needs to do a better job selling the environmental benefits of the 2040 Plan and calling out the specious arguments arising on the other side.

Dennis West, Minneapolis

As a 13th Ward resident, I feel compelled to respond to Kate Mortenson's recent commentary on why she is running for Minneapolis City Council ("Why a City Hall clash of moderates matters," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 8). I have heard Mortenson speak on several occasions and have found her to be long on promises and short on a grasp of reality. She presents herself as a leader who will "get things done" but her understanding of how things actually happen in City Hall is surprising in its naiveté. The office she is seeking requires a willingness to do the hard work as part of a team, not as someone with all the answers who would rather be in the spotlight. She has disparagingly referred to the incumbent as a "manager" rather than a leader. What the 13th Ward and all of Minneapolis need right now is someone with a proven track record, and that person is Linea Palmisano.

Judi Sateren, Minneapolis

Last year, late summer, I submitted a letter regarding boulevard and park tree watering during such dry and hot weather. Jennifer Brooks, in her column "Buckets in tow, they save city's saplings" (Sept. 3), pretty much reiterated the same sentiment. This summer has been no different if not worse than last summer. It's not difficult to observe the stress these new trees are under. Also, if you take a good look at some of the older and better-established trees, you can see the distress on them as well. It's very costly to have these 10,000 new trees planted, watered and kept alive every year. Then there's the cost of removing the dead ones and, if you're lucky, new ones planted the next year. Aside from the fact that these are beautiful, aesthetically enhancing additions to our city landscape, they come from your and my taxpaying dollars. Please think about doing your part. It's not difficult.