June 17, 2009
In his Commentary "Creativity: The Path to Economic Recovery" (May 13, 2009), David Burns logically argues against emphasizing STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) at the expense of the arts in schools, asking, “If the business world is seeking creative thinking as the means to provide a competitive edge in the global economy, shouldn’t we plant the seeds of creativity in our education system?”
School-based mentoring is one of the fastest-growing forms of community service in the United States, serving close to a million students annually. Mentoring is an excellent example of the volunteerism that President Barack Obama has called for in recent national addresses. Yet the administration’s fiscal 2010 budget would eliminate all federal funding for the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program ("Obama Budget Choices Scrutinized," May 20, 2009).
Regarding your recent In Perspective article on the BioKIDS curriculum and its use in the Detroit public schools ("Scientific Reasoning: No Child’s Play," May 13, 2009), while I applaud the science gains made by participating students, I wonder if perhaps we have missed the underlying reason for them. Maybe it’s the nature activities that take children outdoors that make the difference.
In his online Commentary "Lessons Learned From the Chicago Public Schools" (May 26, 2009), Timothy Knowles correctly emphasizes the important role that principals play in successful schools, when he writes that “the best academic programs won’t succeed if they land in schools with weak principals.” It is not strength, however, but fairness that ultimately determines their effectiveness. This point is poorly understood in the ongoing school reform debate.
Your article “Grade Inflation Seen in Evaluations of Teachers, Regardless of System” (June 10, 2009) is a balanced presentation of conflicting concepts related to teacher assessment.