To the Editor:
Adam Grant’s recent essay on the benefits of “looping” in education is a compelling argument for building stronger teacher-student relationships and fostering personalized learning. However, as a high school junior, I have reservations about this approach.
While the idea of looping is appealing, I worry that it may inadvertently limit students’ ability to adapt and prepare for the future. High school is a crucial period of transformation, characterized by a diverse range of experiences, teaching styles, and perspectives. I fear that looping, which prioritizes a personalized relationship with a single teacher, may restrict the range of experiences necessary for cultivating adaptability.
Adaptability is a vital quality for success in college and the workforce, and it is arguably honed through exposure to various teaching styles and methods brought by different teachers. In an era that demands versatile skills, we should recognize the value of diverse educational experiences.
Taiki Yamauchi
Alexandria, Va.
To the Editor:
As an elementary school teacher who has used the “looping” approach with a kindergarten to first-grade class, I agree with Adam Grant’s praise for this practice. Knowing where your students left off and being able to continue from there was a significant improvement compared to starting fresh with a new class each year.
In addition to the academic benefits, there were also the friendships that could continue in the classroom, as well as the improved understanding between teacher and student. Looping also facilitated better communication between parents and myself. Having their child for two years allowed us to immediately pursue common goals and solve problems more easily.
Parents have the option to choose whether they want their child to participate in looping, so if it doesn’t work for a particular child, the parent can opt out. In my experience, the majority of parents chose to continue with looping, and it made a significant difference for those students who thrived with the teacher’s extra knowledge and understanding.
Daina Schuman
Stamford, Conn.
To the Editor:
Donald Trump’s first term as president was marked by several key mistakes, one of which was selecting conservative individuals with some experience and respect for the law and the Constitution for important positions in his administration.
The problem with these individuals was that they ultimately refused to carry out Trump’s orders when they clearly violated the law. In a second term, Trump would fill his cabinet and administration with inexperienced sycophants who are loyal only to him and willing to do anything he says, legal or not.
Trump’s presidency was already the worst in our history, and a second term supported by these lackeys would be a nightmare.
Tim Shaw
Cambridge, Mass.
To the Editor:
In his recent column, Jamelle Bouie highlights the dysfunction within the Republican Party. He points out that those who supported the Big Lie and sought to overturn a legitimate election cannot be considered true conservatives.
Overthrowing an election and installing a strongman is radical and goes against the principles of conservatism. It is not conservative to impose authoritarianism on fellow citizens. We need a genuine conservative party that can balance the liberal urges of the left, but it should not be allowed to impose radical extremism on the country.
Brett Lindenbach
North Haven, Conn.
To the Editor:
I read Michael Kimmelman’s recent article on regulating the skyline with great interest. It reminded me of how the Empire State Building, once visible from almost everywhere in the city, is now obstructed by widespread new construction.
While the Empire State Building itself is designated as a landmark, the existing laws do not protect the view corridors nearby. We can look at old photographs to remember what it once was, but we need a strong strategic criticism of the planning policy vacuum that Kimmelman’s article reveals. Who will defend the public interest in preserving views of our unique local architecture?
Christabel Gough
Hudson, N.Y.
To the Editor:
We often fall in love with our favorite views and hope they will never change. However, views, like people, have lifespans. I have mourned the loss of several cityscapes in recent years, but I’ve learned a valuable lesson: withhold your tears until the new building is revealed.
While the Copper building on First Avenue took away a beloved view of the open sky, it has become a compelling centerpiece for my sky photography. The sunrises are as splendid as ever, and the Copper reflects the setting sun, creating a beautiful play of light and color.
However, I am deeply saddened to hear that a precious Manhattan view will no longer exist. I fully support the idea of preserving view cones. If the iconic Empire State Building can be eclipsed, what will be next?
Roberta Hershenson
New York