I agree with Teech and Cindy. Add to that litigious parents. We had a student here at one of our suburban schools who was suspended for causing all kinds of trouble and the parents sued the school, said the poor darling's rights were violated and he had the right to an education etc. The parents actually won. <BR>As for uniforms, corporate America is finding that on dress down days, employees are not as productive. The pendulum is swinging back the other way. <BR> <BR>What bothers me most about schools is that teachers are now making the call whether your kid should be on ritalin. A friend of mine was pressured to put his active son on Ritalin and he refused and the school made his life miserable. He ended up pulling his son out and putting him in private school, where he is excelling. The long term effects of Ritalin are unknown and the drug companies are donating money to the schools to use it. IMO the teachers and school administrators want your kids drugged so they sit real still in the classroom and make their job easier.

I'll some good things and bad things about my colleagues. The ones who are dedicated are very, very dedicated -- they'd have to be to put up with the lousy pay and all the non-teaching stuff they have to do. This has bearing on the Ritalin issue, in that discipline and civility in the classroom is a thing of the past, and having a kid who acts up and acts out does more than just interrupt his and others' learning -- it often sets a tone for the whole class. <BR> <BR>But I'm not saying Ritalin is any answer or that teachers should do anything more than alert parents if they detect a possible problem that may have gone unrecognized. Unfortunately, teacher education isn't what it needs to be, and those who go into teaching aren't usually our best and brightest. The course in "special needs" or whatever it's called now often gives future teachers the little bit of knowledge that's a dangerous thing. And too many of the earnest young people who go into teaching just don't have the background they need in their subject matter, let alone pharmacopia and neurologic disorders. <BR> <BR>Frank, glad you agree with my analyses but I suspect we sharply disagree on some of the solutions. Yes, I believe we should pay teachers more, enough more to attract our best graduates and our most talented practitioners, so in that sense I believe in throwing even more money at the problem. But beyond that, we need to mandate small classes -- no more than 10-12 at the elementary level, no more than 12-18 in jr/sr. high. Paying teachers a fortune will not keep them teaching if they're burning out on having to spend all their energy refereeing and students are not learning. And even a mediocre teacher will do much, much better with a small group than with 30 kids or more. As a matter of fact, I'd rather have small classes than a raise most days, although both might keep me from leaving next year.

However, Teech, small classes mean very little if the teachers are not adequately prepared or qualified. In addition, to recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, more needs to be done to improve the professional development opportunities for teachers. You referenced the fact that too many people have no background in their subject matter. Want a statistic? 30% of all science and mathematics teachers in the United States have neither a minor nor a major in their subject field. This translates into 40,000 science teachers and 46,000 math teachers.

I live, by choice, in an excellent school district. I have one child in middle school, one in high school. Many of our teachers are truly outstanding, however there are some who may have been great once, but now really need to find another job. That is one of the biggest problems in the US. Teachers have tenure and can't be fired. Teech,(and others), I absolutely agree with you that teachers should be paid much more, also that class size should be drastically reduced. In our district, we also have a huge amount of parent involvement in the schools. I believe strongly that this is another vital ingredient of excellent education. I am troubled, however, by the number of mandatory tests our children now take. It concerns me that schools are being looked at as training centers for business needs, rather than places to educate our children.

Ilisa, (I was typing when you posted!)-You are right. The only way to change that is to pay teachers more. All those science and math graduates who don't go into teaching ar making much more money. Now I know that teachers should be teaching for the love of teaching, not money, but they need to live too. Conversely, not everyone can teach. Just having a deep knowledge of a subject does not guarantee that you can pass your knowledge on successfully to children.

Ilisa-My cousin's wife majored in Home Economics has a Masters in Home Ec and teached Science. On top of it, she is about 300lbs., wears the most awful clothes, can hardly walk and yet, the school can't get rid of her because she has tenure. My son had her and he said she sat in her chair and ate snacks while she made the kids work by themselves. On top of her, I have heard the most foul language coming out of the mouths of teachers at this high school. We live in a small town and there is no private school, so we are stuck.

Yawwwwwwwwn! This discussion makes me want to go to sleep. Just like in class.

My two cents: Homeschooling can and does work very well for some kids and families, but it is not for everyone. While there are some public schools and teachers that are failing miserably, most are meeting the needs of most of their students. For those kids and families, it's simply a matter of the fact that they'll get out what they put in. <BR> <BR>It's the kids who are exceptional (either below or above average) who are often left out in the cold. Our system is geared toward the average kid, which I think it serves pretty well. Of course, today everyone thinks their kid is above average. Gifted classes have more kids in them than the regular classes! <BR> <BR>School vouchers: A noble idea, but the practice of it falls very short. Often times the kids who need the most help come from poor families. These families couldn't afford to contribute $10 to their kid's education, yet there's no way they'll going to be able to send their kids to a private school with a voucher worth $1,500 a year. Vouchers only help the middle and upper financial classes, and people who already send their kids to private schools.

Jamie, you must be kidding. Though I never watch Jay Leno (too late for me), he apparently asks people questions all high-schoolers should know. Recently, he asked a female school marm who attacked Pearl Harbor? Answer- the Hawaiians. Who won the war-the Hawaiians defeated the Americans. I know this woman isn't alone. My former EPA scientist wife only vaguely knows when World War Two was fought and couldn't name our three major opponents in the war.

My sister has been an elementary school teacher for the past 15 years. She has worked in poverty stricken districts and fabulously wealthy districts. But guess who paid lower property taxes and had superior schools? That's right, the fabulously wealthy district. <BR> <BR>Why? In the poor district, there were no supplies, no art programs, few bookds, etc... But the district office had brand new landscaping, new office furniture, air conditioning, the latest computers (which the classrooms lacked) and uneducated secretaries who earned more than a teacher with a bachelor's degree. Don't even ask about the district administrators, they had six figure salaries and unlimited expense accounts. <BR> <BR>Now the wealthy district had computers in class, all the supplies in the world, art and phys ed programs, language programs, gifted student programs, you name it. But the wealthy parents understood that their money would be better spent by giving it directly to the teacher or school, or by buying supplies themselves. They held fundraisers to finance certain programs. There was direct accountability (Mrs. So and So, how did you spend that $200 I gave you?) without funneling money through local government, which somehow just never seems to trickle down to the classroom, but instead gets pocketed at the district level. So the wealthy parents paid fewer taxes and saw better results in the classroom. Hmmmmm.... <BR>

Well the previous example doesn't always work re:people giving money diretly to the school. Yes the wealthydo not need property tax to finane their district and can give money diretly to the shool but who going to give the money straight to the school in the poor distrit (we both know the poorer people have all kinds of extra money to pay for these programs don't they?) Get real! I like the approach some states have now taken that the property tax you pay in your community doesn't go to that communities school but goes intoa statewide pot with eah distrit getting the exact same amount. Of course those in wealthier districts are usually opposed as they feel they earn the money an it should be spent in their district on their children (some people jsut don't look at the broader good) I have a problem with vouhers too, why should these people get tax breaks just beause their children don't attend public school. I remember a time before I had a hild when I ertainly didn't have one attending publi school or any school and I didn't get a break either. Everyone should support the publi shool system financially regardless of whether they have children there. It is the cornerstone of the community!

Vouchers. Noble idea? Only the few may have them. As you spend your tax refund this fall, you're actually spending voucher money. By law, you have to fund the base programs first ... and surpluses are used for the "new" ideas, like vouchers. Tax refund = less surplus = fewer new ideas. Get it? Bush's voucher program, at best, is designed as a test, a demonstration. Guess what level of funding the Senate Appropriations Committee is likely to vote out, thanks to Mr. Jeffords? What will Chairman Kennedy have to say? So, your kid gets some limp-along voucher ... and he walks, and with him goes his share of the money allocated by state formula, relocated from a school probably starved for funds to a private or parochial school charging big tuition. So, your kid gets his Federal voucher paid largely by a state, with maybe a tiny Federal infusion. And off he goes ready to apply ... only they don't want him because they have no room for him. And you are willing to pay the big bucks (you have that education tax credit which sunsets in just a few years) ... but you cannot purchase what is not for sale. So, what do you do now? In the meantime, the poor public school is just that much poorer. How many of you voucher folks and homeschoolers favor the defense shield initiative ... have you worked out the math on that loser? Do you know how many new schools we could build, how many teachers we could pay at a $100K per year, how much new technology could be brought into the schools to help your kids? We could e-wire everything not moving. But it's the 21st century and we're talking Star Wars again, and vouchers. It is for sure W. isn't doing any intellectual heavy lifting. He seems to be more into dumbbells. Ciao

I think that many of you are against homeschoolling because you are either too selfish or lazy to homeschool your own children and you may feel a little guilty about that. There is nothing wrong with a good curicculum, no violence, smallest student/teacher ratio's in the country and advancing at the rate of your child's development. Sounds like it is what you're all talking about, huh. <BR> <BR>Too bad many of you are either too lazy or selfish to give your child the best education possible.

Lordy, lordy Lovebird <BR> <BR>Sure hope your homeschooled little ones survive your language arts curriculum.

Do you really think there isn't enough money for schools? I think there's plenty, after all the LAUSD supervisor was asked to retire with full pension of $100K. So the city wanted to fire him, but couldn't (thanks to the union) and he gets $100K/yr for doing nothing. What could the district do with $100K/yr, I wonder. The dividends on that money invested properly could furnish a library or two, I imagine. <BR> <BR>

This is to "get real": No, NOT Boston Common - she said Boston PUBLIC! Can't you read?? These are two totally different shows. And yes, if you watch Boston Public Monday nights on Fox, you'll see it fairly portrays real-life high school today.

I live in a so-called blue ribbon district that is the worst I have encountered for my kids, because thay teach to the valued tests that determine this hokey rating. AND They are always wanting more money election after election but they waste money in obscene quantities. We spend typically $500/year in supplements to enhance their learning. <BR> <BR>Fact: There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever in increased funding and better scores. <BR> <BR>Fact: The unions have ruined the teaching profession. The teachers are great in most instances, but the administration layer is an empty vacuum. <BR> <BR>Fact: Teachers in my area (San Diego) start at $38k and go up to $70k for 9 months work. That is above the median salary in most areas. <BR> <BR>Fact: I am NOT anti-schools. Both my parents, both my parents in-laws, and my wife are (or were) educators. <BR> <BR>Cindy, <BR> <BR>So you want to dump your little ones off for 10 hours a days while you pursue the noble and glorious endeavor of making $$$. That, my friends, sums up why most public schools suffer. They are viewed as free babysitting by mostly greedy parents who can't be bothered with parenting and its responsibilities.

So, the discussion goes on! I think all school systems all over the world must have their problems. Money being just one of them, and often a big problem. I have been working as a classroom assistant in one of our state primary schools, a typical middle class area I might add - the kids don't want for much, on the whole, there are a few not so lucky, they have the latest everything, go on nice holidays etc etc but what seems to be lacking a lot of the time is the just that "time" from their parents, quality time when they can be heard read, talked with (not just at) and enjoy being together as a family. I know it isn't always possible every day but more time has to be found and not just someone else being paid to entertain and look after the kids so mum and dad can make more money for more holidays etc. A lot of the teachers said that they had worked in more deprived areas and the kids were nearly always more polite and respectful and WILLING TO LEARN! They were grateful for what they had. <BR> <BR>Home schooling certainly has it's appeal, my youngest (now eleven) would love to have stayed at home and let me teach him. I don't feel it would have been the best for him though, or our relationship. I'm not a qualified teacher of all things and I couldn't give him the benefit of a broad educational base, not to mention the sports facilities and the chance to interact and share with his own peers so many things available to him at a school. <BR> <BR>As for sending them earlier and for longer I don't think I'm too much in favour of that either. We have them as children for such a short time, we need to enjoy and cherish the years we do have. Our children start nursery at three and school from 4 -5 years of age, for some this is still too early, others are ready for it. <BR> <BR>I loved working with the children, we had quite a mix too. Some with special needs, some on Ritalin (NOT an answer for everything and often rushed into!) others with a great need for attention - often because it was lacking at home. They all needed caring for and helping to get the best from their school years, smaller class sizes definitely help, more teachers and more teaching assistants too, but then we come back around to more money! <BR> <BR>Thank you again for all your replies, it shows a lot of you are caring about what happens in your schools and with your children - and that has to be a good place to start.

Joe: We probably live in the same school district. I agree that Blue Ribbon awards are virtually meaningless, but there are no tests for this award. The district does not base its very high standards and its curriculum on mandated tests. Unfortunately, because testing is the currently trendy political hot potato, all school districts are having to prepare students to take these tests. You may believe that there is no correlation between more money and higher standards, but there is a very clear correlation between less money and lower standards - the prime example being Proposition 13 in California. Before that, CA. schools were the best in the nation; now that their funding per student is amongst the lowest, the standard of education is also very low. As you are so sure that the District wastes money, have you tried regularly attending Board meetings, volunteering to be on the District Budget Advisory Committee? I can't imagine why you need to spend $500 annually for "supplements". The salary levels you quote are almost accurate, but the point you are missing is that, although you may think that's enough mooney for "9 months work", it's not even close to enough money to attract the really highly qualified people we need in some academic areas, particularly math and science. Our District has been trying for two years now to have a bond issue passed to pay for structural needs, mostly upgrading older facilities. There is very little, if any, waste of money, and there are many things which urgently need to be done for which there is no money.If you truly believe that the District is not educating your children, then I respectfully suggest that you should consider home schooling them.

Please tell me what is wrong with a teacher making $38,000 a year, or $70,000 a year, for that matter? In my first job as an accountant (no experience at all), I made $39,000 a year. My husband has been an accountant for 10 years. He makes $90,000 a year. Teachers in our area with 10 years experience make about $50,000. My husband has unlimited earning potential. Teachers top out around $70K. <BR> <BR>I live in a large metro area. Teachers' salaries are less here than those for almost all other professions with equivalent education and experience. <BR> <BR>There is no way I would ever be a teacher, partly because I don't think I'd be a very good teacher, but also because it's a thankless, difficult job, with just one perk--summer vacation, which is often spent going to school to keep certification current. Anyone who's stood before a class of 30 16-year-olds and tried to teach them while keeping control knows it's a whole lot harder than balancing a spread sheet or writing an article or organizing a convention. <BR> <BR>I might sound like a frustrated teacher myself, but I just understand where they are coming from, as both of my parents were teachers and I have many close friends currently in the profession.