This is from today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/21/private-schools-can-teach-state-sector

The writer discusses the motivations of those in elite schools, the effects of their class on their futures and the ramifications of the lack of intellectual competitiveness on a society. Of course, she is right; children who are smart and are born into an elite do better. Children who are smart and are not born into an elite can do better. But the school system is currently designed so that children who are not smart and not born into an elite get, at least, a modicum of education. And, as there are more and more of them, for reasons, I think, that are economic, pure and simple, the bar is falling lower. People who have little time for their own intellectual development hardly have time to encourage their children's intellectual development. But here is my problem: do parents have a responsibility to educate their children? That sounds like a rhetorical question. But I am not being facetious. Here is an article about the affects of computers on children from today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html?em

Parents are responsible for purchasing computers and monitoring their children's computer time. Studies show children who are on the computer too much (they defined the time in the article) suffer socially and academically; this has nothing to do with school. But on another level does say something about the direction of current intellectual inquiry; to have unlimited computer time is to have a degree of wealth and children with unlimited computer time have decreasing academic scores. So, I guess, my question is are parents making their kids dumber? Are they being irresponsible in the quest for education? Do the elite realize their children are also part of the growing group of stupid children? I gather schools are having a difficult time with children less and less able to do the basics; the elite want their children sheltered from ignorance, but are they doing anything to actually limit the growth of ignorance in this society? Or are they participating in its spread?

A Coincidence

Two articles appeared in the Guardian:

A story about teachers that inspired successful people, most of the teachers are pre-1990:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/19/teacher-inspired-me

and a story about teacher, head of the school, who killed herself because the stress in her life, be it school or personal, was too much:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/19/school-head-stress-death-inquiry.

Is this irony?

And, then, there is the American problem. Presidents of a number of colleges have had their salaries increased despite the current economic situation, the cost of tuition and the quality of their graduates: (from the New York Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/education/18college.html?hpw

It makes one wonder....

Evaluating Teachers

From the New York Times, Jan 16, 2010 edition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17sun2.html

One of the teachers' organizations in the United States has developed a proposal by which teachers may be evaluated and new teachers mentored. It sounds like a good idea and to criticize it probably unfair; but, the reality is, more teacher bureaucracy in no ways encourages teachers or children in the classroom. Whether or not the union supports the idea is irrelevant, most teachers do try to teach and do try to do their best; however, processes of evaluation in no way supports their endeavours except to pad an individually successful teacher's resume. Tools are still unavailable to some classes and the individual problems of students cannot be handled in a factory like setting; children are not widgets and adjusting management cannot really solve student problems.