What has happened to attitudes, appreciations, skills, and love of learning? Teachers tell me today that they spend most of their time teaching toward the test. I don't doubt that testing is necessary, but too many sacrifices are being made in order to make a school or district or region look good.

It is as though a child's mind is only a warehouse of facts (information), and the more information that is brought into the world; the more the school system is required to stuff into a child's mind. And to achieve this, the system only has a limited time to do that "stuffing" so what was originally taught in college is now taught in high schools; what was in high schools is now in elementary schools. We'll forget about the junior high schools; that's where the child's frustration begins to show itself and children are cutting classes or not showing up at all (they are called dropouts).

As a result of this "downgrading" of education (that is exactly what is happening; the material to be taught is being sent down to the lower grades, literally), you'll find parents forced to help children with the homework, or what is worse, actually doing the homework for the child. Only the very top students might be able to do this work with some independence; the average (certainly the below average) become the casualties of misguided education - frustrated, losers, absentees, and dropouts.

There seems to be a contradiction here. For example, in the high schools, the mathematics teacher is not versed in science or social studies (certainly not enough to pass those respective regents exams). Today one can be lucky if his math teacher can pass the math regents; they are often teaching out of license. Or if teaching in license, they were themselves poorly taught by unqualified teachers.

The same can be said for the science teacher (could that science teacher pass the math regents? the English regents? or social studies regents?) ... it is highly doubtful because they are considered specialists. Yet the child has to pass all these regents exams. Should the child be tested on all the subjects where the average teacher could not pass those same subjects (except that subject where he is a "specialist")? Should the child have to know as much as the specialist in every subject?

My logic might be faulty but I do know from examining the material and talking with parents that the material for the average student is too difficult. In addition to needing teachers who know their subject matter, those same teachers have to know how to bring that subject down to the level of the student (which today you don't see). They keep saying, "nothing we can do, orders from above."

There has to be a reason that teachers say to me, "Oh, you are lucky you are not in the system now, you got out just in time" ... and comments like that; I hear it constantly when talking with teachers. Too many do not like their work; they like the many excellent benefits (hours, vacations, pensions), but peripherals are not what make good teachers. I am not against raises but money does not always buy quality; it can also just buy greed; and then what do you have ... not good teachers but greedy teachers. Though not the issue, it is related to a practical solution today for helping the children.

Solution? Yes, of course there is a solution ... the school system has to recognize the natural maturation process that all children have to go through. Before you can run you have to walk, before walking you have to crawl (down to creeping, turning over, kicking as an infant in a crib); maybe it all starts in the mother's womb. But we all have to go through all the steps; maybe some a little faster than others, but all the steps are covered. The schools are failing to recognize that when college math, for example, is placed before the average 14 year old, a price will be paid, and that price is a failed child, a defeated child, and a lost child. That is the wrong curriculum for the child.

The system used to make a big thing about "starting where the child is" ... that made sense (although it is very difficult to do in a large class). Individualized instruction was an ideal. So now we gave up on the ideal and are being practical, and now practically all the children are giving up on education.

Famous story goes that a father with a "difficult" child goes to the rabbi complaining that whenever they sit down for a meal, this child gets under the table and quacks like a duck. The rabbi tells him that next time he gets under the table, the father should get under the table joining his son and quack along with him. Eventually, the son will stop quacking, come up, and sit down with the family.

What does it mean? Means you have to start where the children are. If they think they are ducks, join them ... that is what school personnel are being paid to do. They shouldn't be sitting up in some ivory tower complaining about the nature of their charges or the poor attitudes of parents. Of course it is no ivory tower; but they are being paid to be down there with the children. Not even being paid to "teach" - they are being paid to see that children learn. Teaching without learning is an oxymoron

Teaching is not just talking to the walls or going through motions Teachers have to reach the children. That is their responsibility; that is what New York City (or any school system) is paying them to do. And if the children are cutting because of frustration or boredom, or not caring anymore (unfortunately that happens too) then it is the school system, not the child, which is at fault. That system is not doing its job. If private industry functioned that way, the industry would be bankrupt.

Maybe the school systems (not just New York City) think they have to prove something to the state. Truth is what they have to prove is that they really care about the children, care enough so teachers and supervisors (including principals) not hide behind the old excuse, "we are following orders" ... that old cry was taken care of in Nuremberg after World War II. I am not suggesting chaos but it is ludicrous that people who are in responsible positions, making six figures, say to a parent who is complaining that the work is too difficult for her child, that they agree but are just following orders.

Follow orders where necessary (if they are meant as guidance), but that has to stop when it comes to spiritually murdering our children. And when you lose a child from the education process (which the school systems are doing) that is tantamount to murder ... you are killing the child's spirit and eventually assigning him or her to the lowest strata of society. What is worse, you have killed his or her interest in learning. We have to stop hiding behind IEP's (individual education programs) making the public think that the system cares; it is becoming a ruse to calm down or fool the public.

If you care about children, teach them on their level, recognizing that the real purpose of an education is to inspire children to learn and to teach them how to teach themselves whatever is necessary for curiosity, for enjoyment, and for employment. The child's mind was never meant to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge; it was meant to be an instrument for living a happy life. It was meant to be full of wonderment of all that we know and see, it was meant to be full of curiosity about the world around him. With this foundation, when he is done with formal schooling, he will know how to learn by himself whatever he needs to know, for whenever he needs to know it.

In summary, we are not reaching the children; rather, we are blowing their minds to pieces. An analogy would be Niagara Falls bringing electricity to our homes. If we didn't have stations where the full power of the falls is stepped down (brought down to the level where the home could accept it), the homes would literally explode. Same with the child; the expertise of the teacher (if there is such expertise) has to be brought down to the level of the student. As I see it, this is not happening.

This "step-down" (transformer) adaptation, important in education on all levels, is expressed in a Hebrew term called "tzim tzum" ... if the best private schools can do it, then certainly the public school systems, my school system, with all their resources can do it. We have the manpower (if teachers are carefully selected), we have the money, and yes, we even have the students waiting to be taught ... all we need is the will and the proper direction from those leading the school systems.

To put it in Kabbalah terms, there has to be a balance between the "outpouring" and the receptacle that will contain it. We know that when the outpouring is greater than what the vessel can contain, the result is a shattering of the vessel. When the outpouring is too little, the result is a vessel left in need. But when the outpouring is, as Goldilocks says, just right (the vessel just big enough), the result is beautiful, a perfect fit.

The school is not meant to be a factory (in a sausage and out a meatball) with little quality control. That is not a school; that is not an education, that's not for children. Furthermore, children are not meant to be pawns where the system claims to care about them, but where in fact, the system only wants to perpetuate itself or glorify itself (and that includes all levels of personnel in the system).

I am very sincere in my disappointment with what is happening to a system where, when I worked in it, we at least tried to make the child the center of our efforts. We were also more realistic in curriculum development and more latitude was given to the teacher. Obviously we didn't succeed completely; if we had, maybe we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in today. The focus then was to meet the child where he was. There was no need to prove anything to others. Today we should say like Goldilocks, "This curriculum is too difficult" "This curriculum is too easy." ... "And this curriculum is just right" ... Our children deserve nothing less than a curriculum that is just right.

Our problems in the 60's were how to integrate the teaching and supervisory staff, how to deal with teacher quality (or lack of, as store-front colleges were feeding the system for some time), how to recognize and deal with drugs, how to deal with teenage pregnancy, and how to deal with crowded schools. I don't apologize for my generation of teachers (we did an excellent job considering the assassinations of a president and several civil rights leaders; society was in turmoil, even parents were looting stores), but I do point a warning finger at the current generation. We have to do better, and be more realistic with this and future generations ... or we will have unimaginable problems.

Four situations we did not have then that we have today (and all four are related), are the general deterioration of television programs, the dependence we are developing on mass entertainment, the enormous influence of the Internet (for good and for bad), and the explosion of technology. I would have to write another letter to discuss these problems and would get Marshall McLuhan, the leading prophet of the electronic age, and Alvin Toffler (yes, "future shock" is now) ... to my defense.

The above "letter" (of course, without the cartoons) was mailed to The White House, Congress, Governor's office, State Legislature, Mayor's office, the Office of the Chancellor, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, and the United Federation of Teachers.

These are the "biggies" in the appropriate departments of our three branches of government. Basically, I'm complaining that because of the proliferation of general knowledge, it is all being shoved into the heads of our children as though they are walking encyclopedias, all going against the natural maturation process of children.

Let's see if the letter "makes a difference" ... knowing people, I doubt if it will change anything. But what does it say in the Good Book? It is our responsibility to try to do whatever good we can; it is His option (the One who sees the entire picture) to bring it or not bring it to some successful conclusion.

After some weeks I did accumulate some responses from and the best of them spoke of our global economy. The argument is that we have to compete in this global economy and if we don't raise our education level, we will lose out in this competition; our best jobs will be going to other countries.

What it seems they are doing is hoping that by increasing the difficulty in the kindergarten classes, they will eventually raise that group to become superior students. As an aside, all I remember about my own kindergarten experience is playing on some sandbox resting on a large table. We were learning to be sociable even though children that age might not really be playing with each other, we were playing along side each other; it's called parallel play.

Those coming out of college today are, in a way, out of luck when it comes to this global competition. They're just the product of the current poor level in instruction that I've seen develop while in the system. The system did not, or could not, match the problems entering the system (poorly prepared students and poorly educated teachers) ... what's that about water always seeking its own level?

And those caught in the middle are receiving special instruction while in school to help them get over the hurdle of what we called "social promotions" (by poorly prepared teachers) ... and in addition, I think we are competing not just with other countries but also with other cultures, other value systems when it comes to the subject of education. We still must always think positively but the solution is not as easy as some of the politicians would have you believe.