Dec. 14 Letters: Fixing classrooms

December 13, 2013

Partnerships work

Re: Your Dec. 10 editorial, "Fixing the classroom."

When Sputnik challenged America in 1957, the government responded by funding advance science and math education for teachers across the nation. Colleges and universities faculty were asked to teach modern science and math in summer courses lasting six to eight weeks. Teachers were paid stipends to replace lost summer jobs. Practicing scientists and teachers created new textbooks, which were trialed in high school classes and revised.

In 1960, I taught the new Biological Science Curriculum Study text that stressed molecular biology and evolution. We worked from paper bound books that emphasized laboratory work, including a six-week long laboratory block on microbiology. These were exciting years as high school teachers were taken seriously by practicing scientists.

If we want to improve science and math education one path is clear: fund a new coalition between the Virginia's universities and public school teachers. This path worked well until the Reagan administration drastically reduced funding in reaction to the renewed emphasis on evolution and human biology.

Wayne A. Moyer, Ph.D.


We constantly cry something must be done about poor education and about the ever expanding war on poverty. Yet those two problems have been allowed to explode, seemingly, without ever examining the major roadblocks to resolving each, those who lead the efforts. They generally are people commanding high salaries who may have good intentions but who have never worked with a "bottom-line" concept — return on investment.

Instead, their plan has been to [tout] programs with a lot of show [but] little substance.

Yes teachers can be blamed, but [also blame], list:

parents, school boardsx and legislators.

Above all, [consider] that no one seems to be connecting the money spent [on education] to the return on that investment.

M.B. Freeman


The most effective education reform that we could do does not require any research, money, or government oversight. There are two simple things we could do that would greatly improve the quality of students graduating from our schools.

• First, allow teachers and administrators to reward students that do well, and hold the students that don't do well accountable. Quit worrying about hurting children's feelings. Take advantage of the honor roll and principals list. This not only encourages those who do well to keep up the hard work, but motivates those that care, but don't make the grade to do better. If students don't care, and don't try, teachers need to hold those students responsible. Failing a student should not be a negative mark on the teacher's record. If a teacher believes a student is not ready to advance, the teacher should be able to make that call. They know better than anyone else, and they don't get the credit they deserve.

• Second, parents need to get involved with their child's education and hold them responsible for bad grades, instead of blaming the teacher. When I was in school in the 80s, if I received poor grades, they punished me. They never dreamed of blaming my teachers for my failures. I don't just mean getting an 'F', but anything less than I was capable of.

Parents need to push their child to do their best in school. For example, if your child is doing poorly in school, be strong enough to not let them play sports until they bring up their grades. The child may not understand why, but parents really do know best.

These simple things will accomplish more than any test or curriculum reform could ever do.

David Foote


Re: "Bringing history to more classrooms (Dec. 9 and "Community: Make technology a priority (Dec. 4)

Our world is going virtual; it's all our children are going to know.

Isle of Wight parents seem most concerned about funds for more technology available to students, rather than paying for teaching positions to teach their children. Are we going to one day just place our children in front of computers to learn and 'experience' all they need to know?

[And] while this Skype idea is certainly an interesting one, how is the experience for children different than that of a video? It seems to me this is an easy out for schools to not have to take the children out, and I can't say that I blame them. I've seen my son's first grade class in action, most of the kids act like they've been raised in barns. I'm most concerned about the education my son is receiving, and the environment he receives it in; rather than his virtual experience.

I just wish we focused this much on the success in our classrooms as we do advancing in-class technology. Technology isn't going to raise the test scores if our children are ill-mannered [and] irresponsible.

Jen Waldfogel

Newport News

Daily Press Articles