children are falling far short of their potential, that this is the fault of teachers (or the fault of the people that hire them depending on how you want to look at it.
Or even, depending on how I want to look at it, the fault of the people who trained them. Of course, looking at it that way only makes sense if I’m willing to ascribe their failure to achieve their (assumed) potential as teachers to the actions, or failures to act, of the folks who trained them. Which it seems like I ought to be willing to do, if I’m willing to ascribe their students’ failures to achieve their (assumed) potential to the folks who teach them.
Or even, depending on how I want to look at it, the fault of the people who trained them.
Of course, looking at it that way only makes sense if I’m willing to ascribe their failure to achieve their (assumed) potential as teachers to the actions, or failures to act, of the folks who trained them.
Which it seems like I ought to be willing to do, if I’m willing to ascribe their students’ failures to achieve their (assumed) potential to the folks who teach them.
Unless you give the kids a pass for being kids.
edit: which I think is inconsistent. There’s no schelling point, but it seems to be the normal attitude.
(nods) I agree that it’s the normal attitude, but I also agree that it’s inconsistent.