Letters to the Editor: Aug. 27, 2022

House Bill 99 does not require that schools arm teachers or any other staff members. What the bill does do is reverts back to prior practice of allowing local school districts to make a local decision on if they will or won’t permit certain school staff members to be armed on school grounds. This is a local choice, not mandated by the state. Each school board will determine what is best for their students, their staff and their community. Armed staff in schools is nothing new. It has been going on responsibly since last century and has been popular in Ohio with appropriate training. For the first time ever, though, Ohio law defines minimum training for people authorized to carry firearms in schools. If a district chooses to allow staff members to be armed, the bill mandates up to 24 hours of school-specific training for these individuals - not hundreds of hours of training on irrelevant topics such as how to write a traffic ticket. Each school and community is different – rural and urban schools have different needs when it comes to school security and safety. It would be wise for all Ohioans to take a breath and to look at the facts before they decry the policy.

- Rep. Tom Young, Dayton

“Quiet quitting” is having a cultural moment. People are discussing it across social media. The phrase “quiet quitting” is somewhat misleading, as those practicing it are not actually quitting but are reducing their effort to the minimum level required. When enough workers do this, it is difficult for management to ignore. At its core, quiet quitting is about different values.

When values are redefined, it is common for those maintaining traditional views to experience confusion and resentment. Since management is responsible for ensuring performance, the shift towards quiet quitting complicates their task. As such, it is understandable if managers are not fans. However, expectations related to work change. At each point there is resistance from those who benefit from the way things are.

Working hard and doing more can be beneficial. For those with career potential, the “do more” approach could pay off. The structural reality of organizations is that at some point most hard workers will not be compensated for their extra effort. Expecting those workers to continue to do more anyway is exploitive. Quiet quitting isn’t necessarily a wise choice for everybody, but it certainly isn’t an irrational choice for many. If managers want employees to do more, paying them to do so is consistent with business theory if not always practice.

- Ross A. Jackson, Ph.D., Wittenberg University assistant professor

Kimberley Freeman’s observations on the deleterious effects of not providing in-school meals to students who may otherwise go without at least one nutritious meal each day should be of interest to everyone. The costs of not providing at least one assured plate of food daily is visited upon taxpayers in terms of poor student health and decreased risk of learning attentiveness of the underfed student. Underfed bodies and minds do not support a positive learning condition. Poor student nutrition can lead to poor health outcomes which manifests itself over the long haul in higher healthcare costs which we all must absorb. We should all be concerned as an underfed student population can have consequences for the student, and it can affect you in your pocket. It’s also the right thing to do. Make your voice and concerns known to those policy makers who influence the availability of food for students.

- Jerry A. O’Ryan, Centerville

Editor’s Note: Charles Pater’s contributed column on Aug. 20 was cut short in error for print editions. The full text of his column can be found on daytondailynews.com/ideas-voices.