This week we got into a discussion that can be summed up as: "The school system does too little for high-performing students." We addressed other problems, such as school performance, grading, pressure on performance, etc. but that was at th heart of the debate.

As teachers we must not neglect children. There are plenty of recommendations for teachers on how to cope with a heterogeneous class. Most of these recommendations focus on the under performing students.

We can do better than that:

1. Collect associations with terms to understand where you need to focus your attention. Which students have more problems? What problems and difficulties will the students of the two groups face?
   • a) under performing pupils,
   • b) high-achieving students.
2. What would you focus on?
   • a) under performers
   • b) high-achievers
3. Imagine you are a struggling (a) low-performance pupil now a (b) more powerful student with less trouble learning. While one will have all sorts of problems at school the other will go fairly undetected, yet that student is in fact under achieving. When a student is not challenged they will not be encouraged to further there knowledge only do what is asked of them. The under performing pupils will make achievements and push themselves while high-achievers tend to blend into the background.

We are still avoiding students. And some may say that it isn't avoiding, it is focusing on those that need the most help.

This is dangerous and still the apathy prevails.

We are teaching these children to be under achievers. Some time ago a teacher wrote that some classes seemed like a madhouse to him. His statements were highly politically incorrect, but he tried to open an honest dialog, some classes are more effort than others. Some are completely out of hand.

One aspect that becomes apparent in is that the collateral damage caused by completely overwhelmed and confused teachers that are trying to find a balance on a daily basis, which, in addition, is widely disseminated in its effectiveness via a completely misguided course in the teaching system is as technically and intellectually, lead closer and closer to the edge of academic downturn. We are also increasingly risking large sections of the population that will be needed to represent us in a growing more competitive global stage where over achieving students are pushed to challenge their limits and grow.

How much longer can this go well – even in a country as great as ours, where we are steadily loosing ground – when will parents demand more fairness for their child's academic welfare?

To avoid falling into that pattern as best I can I made a couple of hard and fast rules, which I am going to throw out there.

Function is more important than aesthetics.

Aesthetics also play a big role, for example in clothing or furniture, but it must not be the sole criterion: An uncomfortable sofa, no matter how nice it looks and how expensive it was, remains an uncomfortable sofa. I have heard people say that those who buy cheap, buy twice. I don't agree. Buying cheap often comes over as indecision.

I think that it is more fitting to say; Those who don't know their exact requirements buy twice.

Before I spend money, I imagine what the product would look like, how I will be using it, etc..

Examples are best when you can imagine yourself in them, so instead of a sofa lets use this example: I see a great t-shirt with a cool motif on the front.

I realize I couldn't wear the t-shirt on the job, at most privately on weekends. If I reach into the closet in the morning, the new t-shirt would eventually bother me in such a way that I would weed it out. Or I would probably store it in the basement or unused in the drawer of my dresser until I admitted to myself that it was a mis-purchase.

Here are a few more examples from my life.

I think consumer spending makes sense if it gives you added value in life: Saving time, saving space, improving quality of life. To achieve this, one should be aware of its exact requirements and think about when and how often you will use the product – realistically use the product.

The shirt example for me is a great way of demonstrating that principle. Liking a motif and actually making use of the t-shirt after you purchase it are two different things.

The price of a product plays a rather small role in the selection. Prefer to buy an expensive product, which you use every day, than a cheap product, which dusts. At the same time, however, "cheap" doesn't have to mean bad things: Our best kitchen knives cost $1. Although we also have more expensive knives, these don't cut as well as the "cheap knives."

Disadvantages of targeted consumption

Factor Time: As mentioned you can make a science out of anything or a neurotic tick. One should weigh the pros and cons in advance, really set asside the aspects that are important to you. This gives you a chance to see which products this makes sense.

For some searches, I sometimes spend 1-2 hours researching, although the item itself may only cost $20. This means I have invested way too much time into the product. In the case of cheap products, you can sometimes drop out of the research and proceed according to "trial and error." If the purchased a bell for your bike, lots of research is not sensible. If miss purchase you simply buy another one. I usually do not exchange such products since it is more of a hassle than just taking the small loss. If I know somebody that can use it I will give it to them instead of throwing them away directly. For online purchases I will write a corresponding review to give people an idea of what the product is like.

Hard to give as a gift:

If they have everything they need, you don't have to give them anything. (Best to talk about this in advance to avoid embarrassing faux pas.)

Within the family, we used to ask "What can you use?" for presents growing up (both birthday and Christmas). I prefer gifts that you can consume, such as soap or food. The exception being plants.

The requirements depend on the person's circumstances, which is why you cannot dictate which consumer expenditures are "meaningful" and which are not. If in doubt ask.

Another example: If you have need to clean up after a cat: hair, kitty litter, and food probably need to buy a different vacuum cleaner than me. Mine mostly helps me fight against a few crumbs.

Try and think of some examples from your life and see if there are ways to reduce your consumption and avoid becoming the Super Consumer.

The result is the documentary "Meeting Gorbachev." An immensely fascinating encounter between two contemporary witnesses.

"He made reunification possible without violence, without bloodshed. In earlier Soviet times, the tanks would have rolled – as in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, GDR. He had a new way of addressing these monumental political and historical problems." the director said.

"I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can work with him," said British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in December 1984, one of the first in the West to recognize Gorbachev's novel style of politics and recommend a dialog to our wary U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Werner Herzog noted that: "I think the people of Russia and also in the West are starting to realize the importance of this man, the greatness of what he has achieved. For example he undertook, along with Ronald Reagan, the largest disarmament agreement ever in the history of man."

The film by Werner Herzog and André Singer screened as the opening film at the documentary and animated film festival DOK Leipzig in autumn 2018 and is now hitting US cinemas.

It is one of those days. Either the coffee was defective or somebody slipped me some decaf.

I clearly sense that I have no desire to clean up the rest of the paperwork on my desk or take my coffee mug sitting on the same desk into the kitchen. I talk myself into thinking that I don't have time or energy to clean up right now or continue.

After all I have worked all day.

The fact is: I am caught up in this mess. I waste time searching through the work that I have laid out and additionally create chaos in my head.

But I have found that I can get better at this and there are techniques that make it easier.

Do you know the saying, "Organization is half the battle?" I put quotes around it but it is actually paraphrased. Still the meaning is the same, it means that you give things a firm place, give them order. This structure principle is helpful in dealing with too much work, it is called: The Eisenhower method. This method is named after the former president Eisenhower and how he structured his days.

Recently I learned how easy the Eisenhower principle works: And how much I need to practice to get better at it.

Basically you divide the day and tasks into four-quadrants, weighted via the importance of the task. It helps you focus on what needs to be done and allow your to keep your head clear, feel better and be more motivated.

My desk currently has three so I am still missing something.

For me it helps to look at my results – reward myself, praise myself, then rejoice in my tidy desk and what I have achieved.

Producer Pamela Green who directed the documentary said:

"As for Hollywood and the women's rate of four percent and the lack of female directors, well, they're there. They just need more opportunities. With more stories like 'Alice Guy-Blache, the mother of cinema,' we point out and document that women were there from the beginning and we are now closing the gender gap. That's my hope."

Alice Guy-Blaché is considered the inventor of many film techniques, including close-ups, hand-colored film sequences and synchronized sound. She also co-founded her own film studio, which became the center of American motion picture.

On top of that, Jodie Foster added:

"Well, it's interesting. A lot of people ask the question: What do we need to do to make blockbusters and big franchise movies, too? I don't know and I don't care. I want women to make the films that interest them and to advance us artisanally and artistically. "

I can't wait to learn more about this innovative and inspirational woman.