Get Schooled

By jim d

October 11, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Gee Bridget,

Don’t know.

Must come from the teachers though cause God knows paarents can’t do the job. :)

By Stacey

October 11, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

I think the answer varies by child. My son has a natural thirst for knowledge and has always displayed an eagerness to learn. Since before he was three, he always asked a lot of questions and my husband & I (where applicable) demonstrated or found the answers on the internet. He’s six now and his questions are now sometimes such that we are afraid of confusing him with too much information or “talking down” to him by over simplifying the answer. If he believes we are making up an answer, he asks us to “Google” it. :-) Although he’s just in 1st grade, he has been fortunate enough to have teachers that enjoy the challenge that he tries to offer (he’s enrolled in Program Challenge).

On the other hand, I have a nephew who has never displayed a desire to learn. He’s in 3rd grade and does just enough to get by. When speaking with him you quickly determine that he is very intelligent but he just doesn’t show initiative. Where my son will dig for answers, he is perfectly content with giving and receiving “I don’t know” as an answer. My husband thinks it is because his parents 1. Don’t really try to challenge him and 2. He hasn’t had the same “quality” of teachers as our son.

By luvs2teach

October 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Interesting question that I have wondered myself…

I was a child who always wanted to why and how - I was happy when I go “Tell Me Why” books, children’s encyclopedias, and learning toys as gifts.

I don’t understand my students who are completely shut off to learning - who are so uncurious (is that a word) that nothing sparks their interest.

Are they dull? Is that what that means?

Or have they had the joy of learning beat out of them by stupid, mind-numbing, redundant learning programs?

Or have they been taught by their parents that it’s not good to ask questions?

I don’t know. Nature, nuture or a combo?

If I could find the answer and a cure, I could quit teaching tomorrow so I could count my money.

By Paula

October 11, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

In my opinion, eager students come from involved and engaged parents, who make sure the children know that learning is a priority. We have four children, the oldest at Harvard and the youngest in first grade. All are excelling in school. We have family dinners almost every night where we talk about our day and what was learned that day. We encourage our children’s extra-curricular interests but always stress that school comes first. We know that it is our responsibility as parents to make sure our children are getting the best education we can provide but they also have to take an active role in their own education.

Teachers can’t force a child to learn if the child is not interested in learning and if learning is not a priority at home.

By JustMe

October 11, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

I do think that initially, parents instill that value in their children. Note that only SOME parents do this - not all, unfortunately.

Teachers will then also contribute to this one the child is in school. Note that only SOME teachers do this - not all, unfortunately.

IF parents do this, it makes teaching easier and more fun for both the teacher and the student.

In addition, success breeds success. If a student is good at something, then they are more likely to be motivated to do it more often and to look forward to it.

I also want to point out another relationship here (mostly for jim d’s sake)…. if the parent does not instill the importance of learning, then there is little that the teacher can do to help. Yes, a teacher can help to motivate the student, but without a parents support, it mostly goes to waste. IMHO this is a case where it is a one-way type of road.

By catlady

October 11, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

I teach some of the most eager students at our school, bar none—the Latino students! They put 90% of our “American” students to shame. Even the ones that are behind are trying very hard to catch up. The “American” kids expect that education will be something given to them, and in our county we constantly reinforce that idea: accountability applies only to the teachers. It is our job to “make” a child “successful”. My students and their eagerness are the only reasons I continue to teach.

By SET

October 11, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this

I have learned not to happily accept miracle turnaround stories.

Individuals can change, but sorry, people - groups are harder to change. When you are presented with a complete change involving a large group of individuals look carefully. The bigger the change the bigger the forces used to get it, or someone is cooking the books again.

As far as “eager” students, I found that people who have something to prove fit this bill. So do those who are born smarter. It can go either way. Or we can say “not lazy” and “not stupid”.

While a teacher can motivate some students it is most often not under the teacher’s control whether his class is “eager”. It’s the students he was dealt. Which is why no one around here really wants to work with ghetto kids. They copme through the door with so much genetic and environmental damage that you can’t fix it in 50 minutes.

Brave New World.

By Janine

October 11, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

Paula I sincerely applaud you for your efforts and success with your children. HOwever, I know you are aware of very involved parents , who do the family dinner and all things we think are powerful… and encourage their children in every way that we do, and yet…1 child is successful and one is not…3 children are successful…one is not. Same family. I know the Psychs often say birth order, the way parents treat each of their children is the key ..but really,I do think much is innate,and/or totally inexplicable.

By Lee

October 11, 2007 6:31 PM | Link to this

When I owned a retail business years ago, I often said that a bad employee can run off more customers than a good employee can bring in.

That same principle is true in the education field as well.

A few years back, my youngest daughter came out of her public elementary school a bright, well motivated student. She has supportive parents. My wife is an elementary school teacher.

Then, she entered the middle school from he11. It wasn’t one thing. It was a combination of things that made this particular school environment absolutely pathetic. You name it — bad teachers, poor administration, undisciplined student body, etc, etc.

We saw our daughter’s enthusiasm for school slowly erode away — like enduring a death of a thousand cuts. Everyday, it was something else.

Midway through the year, we pulled her out and placed her in a upper tier private school and we saw the attitude change almost overnight.

We have seen an exponential growth of private schools in this area. There is a reason for that…

By Janine

October 11, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

Lee as a former middle school teacher….I know exactly what you mean. I have watched students who excelled in elementary school enter middle school and within a few months their parents are frantic …can’t comprehend what has happened. Middle schools are a well intended blunder. THere are no seniors to look up to and no little ones to be an example for!!!!Perhaps an oversimplification, but still a valid point. And to Bridget…I think any elementary school which includes grades K-5…. regardless of the economic circumstances…has a much better chance of success with their students than a middle or high school. \

By jim d

October 12, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

Actually just me,

I do know a few excellent teachers who have had a good deal of success inspiring the un-inspired.

I also know a number of lesser quality teachers that have managed to un-inspire the inspired.

In an ideal world we would find all excellent parents and teachers and every child would be a genius, no child would be homeless, hungry or abused. Unfortunately that’s not reality. Reality actually bites in many instances because a good teachers approach generally allows them to reach one child at a time, while a not so good teacher has the ability to kill the joy of learning in several hundred at a time in High and Middle School and 30 or so at a time if teaching at the elementary level.

Now, before you jump down my throat. I will admit the majority are excellent teachers–doing their job every day and giving of themselves 110%. The good they are able to accomplish, however, is far outweighed by the damage done by a few poor teachers —- just based on sheer numbers of students that each teacher impacts.

Is there a solution to this issue? I’m not sure. I believe that in our current system with the high demand for teachers that public schools are not equipped to screen out the teachers, that should never have been allowed in a classroom, until the damage is done and any retrogression caused may be beyond repair.

By Paula

October 12, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Janine, I agree with you. There are some children, from caring and involved families, who just don’t excel. Perhaps the reason is personality (quite happy to do just enough to get by) or perhaps due to learning difficulties. Our job as parents is to make sure they have the tools, to encourage and motivate them and set the priorities in the home. The child certainly has to take some responsibility for their own future.

My point is that the parents have to take the lead role. I hear parents who complain about school work and homework yet in the next breath talk about having their child at ball practice 4 or 5 days a week. The parents need to put as much emphasis on academics as they do on sports. Children can’t learn if they are exhausted or stressed because they didn’t have time to get their homework done.

So I do agree with you that not all children will excel by typical standards. However, parents need to do their job as parents and give their children the opportunity and the tools, and from that point it is up to the child.

So in my opinion, eager students come from environments where learning is a priority. They are well rested and prepared to participate in the learning process.

By Lee

October 12, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately Jim, those FEW BAD teachers will never look into the mirror and say, “Maybe it’s me.”

They will blame the student. They will blame the parents. They will blame administration, politicians, NCLB, et al. Everybody and everything but themselves.

A few bad apples can and will affect the whole culture of an organization. I’ve seen it in school and I’ve seen it in the corporate world.

Bottom line, from 7:30am to 3:30pm, the one person who has the most influence on the education process is the teacher in the classroom.

By jim d

October 12, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Agreed Lee, and by the same token those parents that are neglectful of their childrens needs will never look in that mirror and ask themselves the same question.

By Janine

October 12, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Paula..*in my opinion, eager students come from environments where learning is a priority. They are well rested and prepared to participate in the learning process.

Indeed! I agree that it seems the majority do! There was a study years ago cited in a one of my Master’s classes,that I just cannot put out of my mind.[wish I could remember the details].For the first 2 months of school the teachers in this study were not allowed to know anything about their students’ backgrounds/home lives,etc. The teachers were asked ,after two months, to write what they thought would be a short but accurate biographical sketch of each student which would include life at home, parental involvement/attitudes, etc. I’m sure you get where this is going. Turned out that more than 50% of the teachers were dramatically off target. Many students from unfortunate circumstances [alcoholic parents,homeless,etc] were judged by the teachers to have every advantage we discuss here. And many who were thought to be deprived of those advantages were actually not at all. I am always wary of generalizations.And still contend that it is NOT parental involvement,[hands on] but parental attiude that makes the difference.

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

October 12, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Since over 90 percent passed the Georgia CRCT, what would be VERY interesting to find out is how the same students did on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) to see how students at this “Blue Ribbon School” compare to students across the country.

Bridget, did you inquire? Did you even think to inquire?

By WFC

October 12, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

After 31 years of high school teaching (now retired) I’m still fascinated by this question and have reached a conclusion: it’s “all about the circles.” Please bear with me, this is a little “off the wall.”

Imagine that a child’s universe is a pair of circles, one inside the other. The outer, larger circle represents “the entire universe.” The inner, smaller circle represents “the ME universe,” those things in the child’s immediate surroundings that affect him directly, including his/her own feelings.

With an infant, the inner circle is almost as big as the outer circle. As the child grows, the inner circle of “me” recedes leaving more space for the rest of the universe. Parents, teachers and peers all contribute to this. The catch is that this reduction of the “it’s all about me” inner circle of consciousness does not happen at the same rate for all children. Some kids get stuck in their inner circle to a degree that there simply isn’t room for contemplating a wider universe beyond the “me.” In a normal child, the “me” circle of the universe shrinks, leaving more room for the wider universe of ideas and facts beyond the self. Some teens have an absolute thirst for knowledge beyond their own physical experience. For others, the inner “me circle” never shrinks. Their universe never moves beyond thei sensory perceptions and their own inner needs. I called such students “amoebas” (boys) and “princesses” (girls) and was forced into my comfortable retirement as a result. So be it, “the truth shall set you free.”

Why are same age students so different? Some thoughts:

By Janine

October 12, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Lee..RE Bottom line, from 7:30am to 3:30pm, the one person who has the most influence on the education process is the teacher in the classroom.I would agree that’s true for the first few years of school. HOever, once students begin changing classes, one teacher has , at most, 55 minutes,with about 30 students at a time. IMO, we often overlook the power of the peer group. THat is the constant. I think that is the reason many parents choose private school. They want their child in the company of other high achievers. Indeed,while we often assume that those schools we think of as successful are so because of the excellent teachers, in fact, it’s because of the kind of students there.

By Janine

October 12, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Lee..We did exactly that on my teaching team.ANd it was as you would expect.Those 7th graders who passed with the lower end of the cut off scores, scored way lower on the ITBS…and in Grade equivalent…scored at 3rd grade level. THose at the higher end were usually still below grade level on the Iowa.

By Janine

October 12, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Jimd and Lee…Teachers are surely important. However, the teachers in any given school are most often, if not always, a combination of all types of teachers…some excellent, some good, some mediocre, some totally incompetent. At the risk of repeating myself here on this blog…I will say again just what we suggested to the educrats….IMO, if the entire faculty of a high achieving school [including privates] were exchanged one for one, with the entire faculty of the lowest achieving school, you would see no change in scores. However, if you were to exchange the entire student bodies and leave the faculties the same, the turn around would be dramatic

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Lee,

If you were to go play football for the Georgia Bulldogs, and you failed miserably at covering any of the other team’s receivers on game day, would your Momma and Daddy tell the AJC “Bottom line, the person who has the most influence on his football performance throughout the week is Coach Mark Richt” or might they say “We can’t blame Coach Richt for trying. While we love our son, the reality is, he lacks the skills that the other players have.”?

By jim d

October 12, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Janine,

I’m afraid I would have to disagree with your assumption based on the given that the lower end teachers often gravitate towards the lower end schools. Swapping staff could have a profound impact.

By jim d

October 12, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Holding,

Does Mr. Richt have almost guaranteed job security? Win or loose?

OR

Is he held accountable for the performance of his team?

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

JimD

Re: Janine’s comment. Seriously. If you had a $1 million dollar bet on a high school football game, would you swap for the coaching staff of the Georgia Bulldogs or the football players of the Georgia Bulldogs?

I think we have to defer to the real life experience of the teacher (Janine) on this one.

By jim d

October 12, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Janine,

Allow me to explain it this way.

Agreed that the better teachers would have little or no impact on raising scores unless they had a way to improve the socio-economic picture of the lower performing school. The lower end teachers would in fact impact the higher end school though by lowering scores. If what we are about is norming or closing the gap, that would surely do it.

By Lee

October 12, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

AJC, conversely, using your football analogy, I could be the best running back in the country, but if the coach calls for a straight draw play into the heart of the opposing team’s defense on a 3rd down and 20 and I fail to get a first down, is that my fault or the coaches fault?

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

jimD,

The difference is, Mark Richt gets to choose his players. And even more importantly, he gets to remove the ones that don’t follow the rules.

I think you would find (for good teachers anyway) a willingness to be held “accountable” that is in direct proportion to the public schools willingness to grant the authority to discipline or remove chronically disruptive students.

But that requires the public to take a stand and vote for school board members that will make discipline a proirity. Given all that we know about discipline in the schools, when’s the last time you’ve seen an educrat or a board member say “Our number one proirity is to restore the good teaching conditions that will lead to good learning conditions”?

When you see that I think you’ll see teachers much more willing to be held “accountable”.

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Ah, but Lee, in these failing schools the teachers aren’t working with “the best running backs in the country”.

But the really sad thing: Often, teachers in those schools come across individual students that have as much potential as any “running back in the country”. But because they are surrounded by so much flotsam and jetsam, they can’t help that student nearly as much as they’d like. For starters administrators will say “Don’t even worry about him. We know he’s going to pass the test. Focus on the ones who are in danger of failing”.

It’s a systemic problem, not a “teacher” problem. (And yes, there are probably some teachers who hope the system never gets “fixed” so they are never “exposed”…but they usually go on to be administrators :)

By jim d

October 12, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Actually Holding,

I have no problem with allowing teachers to pick their students as long as parents can choose the school and the teacher they want teaching their children, as well.

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

JimD,

Agreed. The educrats don’t want this, because they don’t want their incompetence exposed in the free market. The system is broke and we don’t have the political will to fix it. Dismantle it! Free choice for everyone.

Yes, many might be hurt by that, but give those parents who actively invest in their child’s education some choices. (If someone does suffer from it, I’d rather it be the people who don’t invest in their child’s education, as oppossed to those who do; why should good parents suffer poor schools because their neighbors don’t make education a priority?)

And what’s always overlooked: Give those teachers who actually want to teach more choices than which monolitically incompetent school system is the least mind numbing/soul killing.

Brave New World. Isn’t that what SET always says?

By luvs2teach

October 12, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

I remember hearing about a study that showed a good teacher could raise achievement, but the effects weren’t always lingering for years afterward - how ever, not only could a bad teacher lower achievment, but the effects DID linger - sometimes irreversibly.

Also another study on social influences through the last 5 decades showed that the 5 key influences on students were family, school, church, peers, and the media. In the 50s, family, church, and school were on the top, and as we moved towards present time, peers, and then media became more important.

Scariest about the media being number 1 now? We don’t value education in this country. We don’t. It’s not cool to be smart. It’s much cooler to be a blonde nit-wit like Paris Hilton (who some of my girls admire as a role model, scarily enough).

I think that we want to blame one thing, but what we need to realize is that this is a very complex situation that reflects our cultural values, educational institutions, and family dynamics. It’s very complex and it doesn’t have a simple, single fix.

We’re also talking about people - dynamic, living, breathing, thinking, differentiated by DNA people - not widgets.

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

October 12, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

So Bridget,

Since we KNOW CRCT tests are “watered down” will you ask Venetian Hills to provide ITBS scores to give a more accurate reading of this “Blue Ribbon School”?

Or was your purpose in going down there to do another PR piece for APS?

By OldSchool

October 12, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Consider this: there are those students who achieve/under achieve for the sole reason that their grades are one part of their lives over which they have absolute control. I have a nephew who is demonstrating this again this year. There are many underlying reasons and no doubt some are valid while others are purely “because I can.” He is bright, capable, and could easily be near the top of his class. Instead, he has chosen to just barely scrape by at the last minute.

His under-performance will no doubt affect the overall statistics for his school even in a small way. He has excellent teachers, a stable home life, and virtually no reason not to do well. He simply choses to fail.

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

OldSchool,

I wouldn’t be surprised if some psychologist says the “lack of stressors” in your nephew’s life is causing “underlying stress” LOL

By HS Teacher Too

October 12, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Holding, On the surface I don’t disagree with teachers choosing students and parents choosing teachers necessarily. (Okay, I do disagree with teachers choosing students. And I am a teacher. But I will save that explanation for another time.) My concern with parents choosing teachers is, who will be the parent willing to “subject” their child to a new teacher, whether new to the school or new to teaching altogether?

By catlady

October 12, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this

Prior to becoming an eager child, let the parents raise an obedient child. One that has been taught the meaning of the word NO. One that has been taught that the adults in charge ARE in charge.

I can motivate ‘most any child to eagerness for learning IF obedience has been instilled by the parents the first five years of life.

By holdingAJCaccountable

October 12, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

HS Teacher Too.

Sadly there will be plenty of parents who subject their child to the new teacher-simply by default as they won’t care one way or the other. That will probably put the new teacher at a disadvantage, as she will be more likely to be stuck with the offspring of parents who don’t value education.

That’s why, among the “choices” teachers need to have to be fairly held “accountable” is the choice to remove chronically disruptive students.

Free choice will be far from perfect; but at least it offers a choice between one monolithically incompetent school system or another. Much more likely to find “pockets of excellence” when choice is introduced.

By Janine

October 12, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

jimd..I would so like to see the trade of faculties of the high achieving schools with the bottom of the pack!!!! We all know, [at least I think we all know] that private schools, in which the students are screened, tested, and hand chosen [as in the blackberry jam story] are going to be successful…..even with the mix of teachers that I mentioned above. I actually think that most of the teachers… re-assigned , would be at a loss. The teachers accustomed to teaching the high achievers would have to do lots of digging to be able to reach the low achievers….and the teachers who were accustomed to working with the low achievers would be digging to find ways to challenge the already high achieving students. Both scores =[achievements ] might be lower! I am really convinced that the blackberry jam story is a valid analogy.

By Newbie

October 16, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I have been ruminating on this issue for a while now. My own personal child has gone from eager learner (elem. school and 6th and 7th grades in private school) to an apparently lassez-faire student (8th grade in same private school and 9th and 10th in public h.s.) Why? It seems to be a combination of peer influences (abetted by what’s in the current media) saying “it’s not cool to be eager to learn - you’re a nerd” and teachers (probably pretty good ones)hamstrung by senslessly state-regulated curriculum. Classes just aren’t interesting. It may be driving the teachers nuts, too.

We can’t afford a private school anymore, and we can’t get scholarships to any. I honestly don’t know what to do, but I hate how my child has changed.

By Lisa B.

October 16, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Newbie, I can relate to your situation. My son was always an eager student. In 8th grade he has become eager about girls and peers only. With some coaxing, his grades are still high, but he seems disinterested in all things related to school. He even refused to play football this year. I was always active in school and want my son to be as well. I think the cliques are even worse now than when I was a student, and while there were always mean, hateful students, there seem to be many more now than in the past. I also thing high stakes testing has taken excitement out of teaching and learning. Four more years. I plan for my son to attend a state university, and pray he doesn’t get side-tracked.

By Newbie

October 16, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

Lisa B- Well, perhaps this is for the preservation of my pretty good relationship with my child, but I have decided to assume that she is secretly doing well, but trying to maintain a low profile!

She is still getting long-term assignments done on time w/o too much stress by doing a little bit each day (yay!) and she praises her friends (mostly guys) who sit with her in the back of the room with her are doing the same.

She may actually be enjoying some of the school work and not saying so because it isn’t cool. I still regret that it’s not OK to publicly take an interest in learning, but I’m hoping as she gets into the higher-level nerd-filled classes, it will become more acceptable. Like you, I just want her to get to college with an eager mind, because that’s what it takes to do well there; I have a college sophomore who is still learning that it’s not all about the social life!

By Lisa B.

October 16, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this

I, too am sorry being smart seems to have gone out of style. I remember that being smart, good at several things, with a wide variety of interests was not only acceptable, but praised. My child prefers to hide his intelligence and walks the line between earning the A’s we expect of him, while hiding those A’s from all but his closest peers. Weird.

By thetruth

October 17, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really” By Cahal Milmo Published: 17 October 2007

One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when “testing” suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson’s remarks ” in full”. Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of ” scientific racism”.

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices.

“These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels.”

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: “To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script.”

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a “hypothetical” choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that ” stupidity” could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: “People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great.”

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: ” This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.”

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson’s remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: “It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint.”