The question of what children learn, and how they should learn it, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the parrot-fashion（way of learning by repeating what others say）of learning lessons, the grammar-with-a-whip（鞭子）system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the needs of our children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as such.

    Well, you may say, this is as it should be, and a good idea. But think further. What happens? “Education” becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications（暗示） of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child's. So teachers worry whether history is “relevant” to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Oral expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No; real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

    You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teaching-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make complicated preparations and try out their “modern methods” on the long-suffering children. Since one “modern method” rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have well been fed up by the time they leave school. Frequently the modern methods are so complicated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so necessary for the “informal” feeling the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

    An organization, Eye Care 4 Kids, is bringing much-needed eye care to poor kids. It provides free eye examinations for kids from poor families. Founded by Joseph Carbone in 2001, the organization has helped around 100,000 children in Utah and Nevada.

    Now, Cecil Swyers, a biomedical(生物医学的) engineer who was once a poor child himself, is bringing the charity's(慈善) services to poor students in Arizona, so that vision impairment(视力受损) doesn't stand in the way of their education.

    “Eye Care 4 Kids is bringing eye care and glasses to families that wouldn't have the means to pay for them,” said Mario Ventura from Isaac Elementary School District, the first school district in Arizona to receive its services.

    Good vision is important to a child's learning experience. According to a study, up to 80 percent of learning happens through sight for children between 6 and 18 years old. Without proper eye care, it's difficult for students to learn better and succeed.

    Swyers is hoping that by bringing the organization to Arizona he'll help a lot more students. He teamed up with two other organizations to get doctors to volunteer their time with the group. Using an Eye Care 4 Kids mobile clinic, Swyers visited Alta E. Butler Elementary School and has already helped 40 students.

    The school was grateful to receive the eye care, especially since the services came to them. “It's great for us,” said Assistant Principal Cindy Alonso.

    Swyers is hoping to bring Eye Care 4 Kids' services to other schools in the state. He said that hopefully his work will have a positive effect on students' futures. “If we can help students while they're young, we can make a difference in their futures,” he said.

    Believe it or not, school uniforms are absolutely not only clothes for students. They stand for the culture or beauty appreciation standard of a country. To wear uniforms has become a trend in most countries in modern society. Well, let's take a look at school uniforms in different nations. This will be interesting. And here, you will detect diverse allure (魅力)！

    The style of England school uniforms is rather classic, simple and respectable. Middle school students must wear traditional western-style school uniforms. Boys wear traditional western-style clothes, regular leather shoes and must wear neckties. Girls also wear western-style clothes, regular leather shoes and must wear bow ties. This classic clothing style unconsciously affects England students' temperament(性格)and also sense of beauty.

    Both boy and girl students in Australia are required to wear black leather shoes and white socks. They wear school uniforms all the time except the physical education, when they need to wear gym suits.

    Students in Malaysia obey rather strict rules. Girls' dresses must be long to cover the knees. Shirts must cover the elbow. Comparing with Thai students, they are much more conservative. School uniforms in most schools of China are only different in size. You can't find big differences between boys' uniforms and girls' uniforms only from the appearance. Both of them are loose sport suits.

    Standing in the shower waiting for the water to het up could be a thing of the past, along with all the wasted water. Three and a half years ago, Lindy Honeychurch, a thirty-year-old Australian full-time mum living on a farm outside Launceston, didn't consider herself a very good water saver. Neither did her partner who often complained about it with good reasons. Their farm had to rely on tank water and solar power, which meant water had to be trucked in if he tank water ran out in summer.

    “I looked at where I could save because I could lead an easier life without the complaint,” she said. Modeling her idea on a car thermostat(恒温器), Lindy used her kids' magnetic(磁的)drawing board to design a device that diverts the cold water back down the hot water pipe. “The first aim when I started designing was to keep it really small and simple without having to use power. I wanted to keep it as something that everyone could use,” said Lindy.

    She got a patent for her design and took it to some engineers to have it tested out. At first, even though the engineers were amazed that she wasn't an engineer, she said she sometimes found it hard to be taken seriously. “My age was a real factor because in the plumbing(管路系统)and manufacturing industries you're dealing with people who've got a lot of experiences,” she said. But the engineers soon saw the potential of her design, which she estimated would save average families between 14,000 to 22,000 liters per year.” when you transfer that to the dollar savings on tank water that you have to buy, it can be a saving of $600 per year,” said Lindy.

    Armed with positive feedback from engineers and people using rainwater tanks, her design proved a great success. Soon she found a manufacturer early this year, and completed a state government commercial ready course to help her research, her markets and distribution channels. With an Australian Standard for her device just approved, she's about to start manufacturing and wishes to see her products on the shelves within the next few months. Once that happens, Lindy plans to return to being a full-time mum.

    On Friday, Germany's telecom regulator(电信业管理者), the Federal Network Agency, announced that a number of children s smartwatches, designed for ages 5 to 12, can allow someone to remotely tap into the watch s microphone and secretly spy from remote places. The regulator isn't just worried about the potential of people spying on children-it's worried the devices(设备) can be used to spy on anyone.

    And in Germany, it's illegal to record private conversations without permission. "According to our investigations, parents were using the watches, for example, to listen in on their children during class, said Federal Network Agency President Jochen Homann in a statement.

    Smartwatches that make phone calls, like the Apple Watch, are legal in Germany. The problem with many of the children's smartwatches, however, is that the devices have a classic spying function, similar to a baby monitor, which can be easily activated (激活) just by using an app.

    The German regulator is so serious about destroying these devices. It's asking citizens to document the watches' destruction and file evidence online. Once the watches are destroyed, the regulator will provide a "certificate of destruction," confirming the deed was done.

    This isn't the first time the Federal Network Agency told German citizens to destroy a consumer device. The regulator once prohibited the doll "My Friend Cayla", which was fitted with radio transforming technology that could allow children to be spied on.

    Remind tech producers: The German government won't just ban devices that can spy on anyone, they'll demand the devices be destroyed with hammers (or whatever means of destruction one prefers) — even if they're dolls.

    People do not analyze every problem they meet. Sometimes they try to remember a solution from the last time they had a similar problem. They often accept the opinions or ideas of other people. Other times they begin to act without thinking. They try to find a solution by trial and error. However, when all these methods fail, the person with a problem has to start analyzing. There are six stages in analyzing a problem.

    First the person must recognize that there is a problem. For example, Sam's bicycle is broken, and he cannot read it to class as he usually does. Sam must see that there is a problem with his bicycle.

    Next the thinker must define the problem. Before Sam can repair his bicycle, he must find the reason why it does not work. For instance, he must determine if the problem is with the gears, the brakes, or the frame. He must make his problem more specific.

    Now the person must look for information that will make the problem clearer and lead to possible solutions. For instance, suppose Sam decided that his bike does not work because there is something wrong with the gear wheels. At this time, he can look in his bicycle repair book and read about gears. He can talk to his friends at the bike shop. He can look at his gears carefully.

    After studying the problem, the person should have several suggestions for a possible solution. Take Sam as an illustration. His suggestions might be: put oil on the gear wheels; buy new gear wheels and replace the old ones; tighten or loosen the gear wheels.

    Eventually one suggestion seems to be the solution to the problem. Sometimes the final idea comes very suddenly because the thinker suddenly sees something new or sees something in a new way. Sam, for example, suddenly sees that there is a piece of chewing gum between the gear wheels. He immediately realizes the solution to his problem: he must clean the gear wheels.

    Finally the solution is tested. Sam cleans the gear wheels and finds that afterwards his bicycle works perfectly. In short, he has solved the problem.