Smart teachers make all the difference in math

To the editor:

In response to your coverage of the Clark County School District math test failures:

It is much harder to teach high school math to students of moderate aptitude than it is to teach any other subject. The main reason for this is that, unlike other subjects, an understanding of 80 percent of the material is basically worthless, because each new chapter builds on the previous ones. Another reason is that a diligent student who mainly memorizes the material is doomed to failure. You can go only so far if you don't fully understand why the formulas, methods, equations, etc. actually work.

It is not enough to be a dedicated teacher who diligently prepares lessons. The unfortunate fact is that to teach average students, you have to be very good at math. You need to know your subject cold.

And even that is not enough. You also need to be able to put yourself inside the head of struggling students so that you have an understanding of the specific point that is giving him trouble, along with the insight into the best way to get him over that roadblock. In fact, you need to be able to anticipate and deal with this likely trouble even if the student is too reticent to raise his hand.

Such teachers are not easy to come by. Certainly, they won't come from the ranks of graduates of teacher's colleges. To put it bluntly, to be a great teacher of high school math, you have to be, among other things, very smart. Dedicated, diligent and caring is not enough for algebra and beyond.

People talk about class sizes being too large. But I would venture to say that as long as the students in the class had approximately the same aptitude, they would fare better with a very good teacher in a class of 100 than a typical high school teacher in a class of 20.

I assume that to get more of these teachers, rules would have to be changed. Higher salaries for math teachers only. Relaxing education college requirements for those who could prove their math knowledge/teaching abilities. Getting rid of or reassigning teachers who, on the surface, seem competent. Perhaps enlarging math classes so that everyone is subjected to the best teachers. (If you did that though, it would be important to pretest students for math aptitude so the classes didn't have wild disparities in talent.)

The smartest students will succeed in math, regardless. The slow or lazy ones will usually fail. The others need, as impolite as it may be to say, a really smart teacher. Not just a concerned one.

David Sklansky

LAS VEGAS

Killing the golden goose

To the editor:

While reading your April 20 article on the upscaling and up-pricing on the Strip ("Gone are the days of the cheap buffet"), I was reminded of a couple of encounters I had recently.

I was at a bar on the Strip when two young ladies asked if there was an inexpensive buffet near the Strip. Their mother had visited here some time back and had been favorably impressed enough to recommend Las Vegas to them for a vacation. They had saved their money to spend a week here, but after two days they were having to leave because they had spent all their money -- not on gambling, but on food, hotels, etc.

In a similar situation, I was told by two older people who said they had been coming here a couple of times a year for over 20 years that this was their last time because they felt out of place and priced out of town. They said they would be going to resorts closer to their home from now on.

In both cases, these people were taking their messages home to friends and family.

As to the popularity of the luxury shops in the hotels, the times I have been through them, I have seen a lot of lookey-loos and a lot of shop clerks staring out the shop windows.

I realize the CEOs of these new mega-resorts want to be identified with a "classy" resort so they won't be embarrassed at trendy cocktail parties having to explain where they work, but I would point to the closing of the Guggenheim and Wynn art galleries, the closing of one Broadway-to-Las Vegas show after another, the dismal monorail idea, and the half-empty upscale condos in a community where only one-third of the population can afford even a modestly priced house or condo, as an eye-opener that they have misread their clientele.

And your quote from one executive, who said that if you have $5,000 to spend on a vacation, Las Vegas is a real alternative to London or Hawaii, who is he thinking about?

Anyone who can waste $5,000 on a vacation and can choose among the above-mentioned destinations isn't going to choose this half-built, over-priced adult Disneyland in the desert.

Wake up, guys.

KENT RISCHLING

LAS VEGAS