Inbox

(2 of 3)

With his comment that "I learned a lot of calculus, which hasn't proved that useful in my career," Isaacson gets at a key reason our schools aren't succeeding. The question isn't whether we have adequate standards; it's whether the curriculum prepares our students to be successful. What are the skills our young people need to be successful in today's society? Don't they need to know how to communicate, cooperate and problem-solve? Shouldn't they understand what it means to be punctual, responsible, committed and courteous? Shouldn't they have a thorough understanding of the types of computer programs that are going to be a part of their lives for years to come? How about offering courses in law and personal economics? What is their understanding of what it takes to live a healthy lifestyle? I rather doubt that calculus would be among those courses. James F. Robertson, WOOSTER, OHIO

One alarm bell Isaacson's article should have rung is why no one seems to expect the participation of the nation's mathematicians or their two professional societies in the construction of national mathematics standards for K-12. No other nation would dream of developing national mathematics standards without a sign-off by the country's mathematics community. Perhaps this exclusion of mathematicians is one reason children in the U.S. do not do as well on the international scene in mathematics as we would like them to. As a former official at the Massachusetts Department of Education, I will tell you that students' 2007 scores in international testing in that state showed that the involvement of mathematicians and scientists in the development of its nationally recognized mathematics and science standards and assessments made a difference. Sandra Stotsky, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK.

A longer school day, week or year is not the answer to reforming education. My family has three college graduates--two of whom have master's degrees--and we somehow managed to do it while getting out of school at 3 p.m. and having summers off. The 800-pound gorilla in the room is the reason many poorer children don't get a good education is that education is not stressed at home. I am a teacher in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, and the students have after-school programs and Saturday academy and even go to school during Christmas vacation yet remain way behind their suburban counterparts. Most of the parents would rather their kids be street smart than book smart. Arne Duncan cites schools that have longer hours as being more successful, yet there are plenty that aren't. If Duncan wants so badly for poorer kids to improve, let them go to school longer. It's unfair to impose this on everyone, and such a move runs the risk of burning out many kids before they leave high school. Peter Morace, DEER PARK, N.Y.

Hey, Wanna Join Our E-Study?

Re "Logging on to the Ivy Leagues" [April 27]: Granting degrees to students who qualify through online study is merely acknowledging the actualities of university study today--notes and exams are taken on computers. Grading and advice to students could easily be done via the Internet, and the cost per student would be reduced dramatically. The social-policy aim is the creation of educated individuals. The technology isn't important. John Leone, SAN DIEGO

The Cruelest Cut