I grew up in a solidly middle class school system. I feel my teachers did a good job. In all the debate over various educational options however it seems the responsibility of parents and guardians gets short shrift. The NEA, local governments, poor tax bases, outdated texts, crumbling infrastructure and a host of other issues are used to explain bad grades and poor performances. Nearly all of those could be overcome by a home enviroment that stressed the joys and importance of learning and knowledge. Read any biography of Lincoln. He was basically pointed in the direction of a library and books and became a good lawyer and eventually president. Sure, society has failed many, and racial, ethnic and economic disparities are rampant. Yet a great many could overcome all these with the involvement of parents. A very large measure of the failings of our educational system starts before the child has walked out the front door.

Steve, there is something to what you say, but education is really complicated. First off you have the people who don't want the government involved at all. These people favor home-schooling. Then you have the people who want to privatize it, or at least find a way to use government money to send their kids to private school. Then you have the people who reject any reform which the teacher's union doesn't like. Throw in the connection between poor nutrition and inability to concentrate in school, and things get even messier.

I think that if people are really concerned about improving the state of education both sides need to be willing to budge. The conservatives should accept the positive role that public education has played in this country, and stop trying to dismantle it. The liberals should accept that maybe tenure and a teacher's union are not the best mechanism for ensuring quality education for K-12. I think there must be middle ground in there somewhere. I find it very tiresome to hear lots of people running around talking about how much they care about the kids, but then letting other issues get in the way of any solution.

Here are two hypotheticals to chew on. For the right, if we could have quality world-class education in safe environments for every kid in America at the cost of abolishing all private education, which would you choose? For the left, if we could have this same result, but the cost is eliminating all union involvement in the schools, what would you choose?

I'm not actually suggesting that those are real choices, but pose them because I think reactions will be illustrative.

The conservatives should accept the positive role that public education has played in this country, and stop trying to dismantle it. The liberals should accept that maybe tenure and a teacher's union are not the best mechanism for ensuring quality education for K-12. I think there must be middle ground in there somewhere

I think this is an excellent point. I am concerned that the President supports the dismantling of public education. Having the head of the Dept of Education call the teachers union terrorists is not helpful. But yteachers, because of tenure are not accountable.

Steve, one thing you need to remember is that many of the poorest schools have parents that are working fulltime, perhaps even at two jobs. The median income for all families in 2000 was $42,228, that means half of the families make less than that. And a full 20% of the households made $17,970 or less. How are they to "home school" their children? What do you think the quality outcome would be then? Certainly parents should stress education for their kids, but not all parents are capable of being good teachers.

One reason I don't think that home schooling is the answer is because as a representative democracy, we need to have people that at least recognize the same facts and where everyone actually has a chance to have an education that allows them to be good citizens, not just workers. Countries that do a good job of educating everyone have a much better overall quality of life for everyone. This is what we should really be demanding - good schools for all, whether or not your parents could afford another option. (I also worry about schools or families that indoctrinate students in particular ideologies - schools should be teaching critical thinking so students can investigate and judge the information they receive.)

Vouchers are a scam basically...They end up going to the 10 % "best and brightest" of a district. Those kids are then sent to voucher schools. The test scores at the voucher schools will be higher than the public schools because these "best and brightest" kids have been cherry picked out.

It's Booker T. Washington's theory put into action.

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Another factor to consider are the millions of children who are involved in special education programs. Often, the public schools, due to legal mandates from the government, are the only ones who have to provide services. Many private schools are not equipped to handle these types of children's needs, and will not admit these children (they aren't required to).

Therefore many learning disabled children aren't eligible to attend or take advantage of these vouchers. Plus if there are specialized schools for special needs children, their tuitions are often huge depending of the learning disability and can easily run $20,000 - $150,000 (for residential settings). Often these types of tuitions can break a public school district's budget (who are legally bound to provide a free and appropriate education for all student's unlike a private school) as the federal/state government's reimbursement for these settings and these children is currently underfunded and inadequate.

Steve and Daniel are getting there-- the problem is US society today as brought to us by Big Capitalism and Madison Avenue, with a heavy does of governmental neglect of the urban core thrown in, and the whole thing turbocharged by the Boob Tube.

Look, my gut reaction to almost all social meddling is a libertarian "don't do it," so don't think the following is a rant of a fun-hating leftist. What it is is the observations of an overwhelmed parent, one who lives in a good neighborhood and has plenty of financial resources:

From MTV, thru the Playstation, Air Jordans, junk food vending machines in the cafeteria, and lately with how-much-is-Michael-Phelps-going-to-make the moneychangers are pushing on our kids harder than us hard-working parent can push back.

Like most adolescents, I certainly noticed my shortcomings wrt the jocks, Heathers and the like, and that was in the 70's. Now my kid gets "Cribs" and "Spring Break" and about a billion SUV commercials fed into his head. So he's dissatisfied with himself on a level my teenage angst couldn't even fathom, he's not even happy with our beautiful, cutting-edge late-model Passat - "Dad, why don't you get a Trailblazer?", and I find it easy to believe that he and most of his peers spend a lot of time in class daydreaming about quick fame, fortune, and the accumulation of material things instead of paying attention to the teacher.

But he'll do OK, because he's in a middle-class, suburban, well-funded school district. He knows on a fundamental level he has it good, and opportunities are there. He doesn't have to consider that if he isn't gifted enough to win big then he'll lose big. In an inner-ring suburb, well, I would worry.

In short, I'm saying we blame the schools, teachers, their unions, and the parents, and look for ways to "fix" them. But that's like having a foundation erected in a swamp and blaming the contractor and his employees because it leaks.

As proof, I offer your average upper middle class school. They have teachers unions, teach the dreaded "new math", and at least in the blue states are extremely secular, have plenty of not-so-swift kids, and still manage to get most of them into college. And I see no evidence that their parents are exceptionally involved overall (sure, *some* are but that's true of poor neighborhoods, too) and they certainly have their share of split and re-constituted family arrangements, too.

The homeschoolers are successful because they seal their kids off from the outside world, not because they read the Bible. But that turns out some weird kids, and I think there has to be a better way.

But tinker with the schools all you want - as JFK says, you can always improve stuff. However to the problem at hand that's like, I dunno, attacking Iraq when your problems come from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan.

Where do we start with the education system?

Regarding charter schools, I don't think the government should subsidize them directly. Rather, I think that parents who send their kids to charter schools should get some money back for not using the public school system.

(As should people who don't have kids and aren't using the public school system.)

The public school system has too many layers. All these different districts is just overkill and not good stewardship of the tax dollars. I think in a state like CA, there should be some consolidation. Eliminate the districts, and create larger regional systems.

There is too much money going into the system and not to the schools.

Once this kind of re-alignment was made, there would be plenty of money to rebate to taxpayers, and to rebate to those who choose charter schools.

A clarification. My comments weren't meant to imply parents need to home-school their children or get into the nuts and bolts of the curriculum, augmenting a public teacher's efforts. Those efforts would surely help. However, by displaying merely a curiosity about the world around them, having books in the home and having your children see you read them, those are examples which can set a child on the road to exploration. Working two jobs, being busy with domestic chores, running errands, etc. are not excuses to stop learning and exploring for an adult. Plenty of very, very busy people with minimal discretionary personal time still read and inquire about the world around them. Their children observe and absorb these behaviors and are better students for it. Help your schools, tell your children it's important to seek knowledge, but more importantly lead by example.

Day care (pre-Kindergarten) is almost totally private. Is this really a successful model?

muckdog, there are many ways in which parents whose kids don't go to public school are still using the public school system. This goes to the heart of why I disagree with the conservative 'less government' model. If you run, work for, or invest in a company that hires people who were publically educated, you are 'using' the public school system. If you rely on the person in the car next to you being able to read the street signs, you are probably 'using' the public school system. There is tremendous social good in having a functional public education system. In fact, the whole globalization argument hinges on it! If we are not turning out people who are tops in the world in various skillsets, then there will be even fewer jobs in America than there are now. Financial services are starting to get outsourced. What's next?

The idea behind globalisation is that you outsource the low-paying work freeing up labor resources to take on higher-paying work, That only works if there is higher-paying work available, and if the workforce is the best choice for doing that work. The Europeans have been kicking our butts in technical education for years. Now the Chinese and Indians are joining in. If we don't find a way to get all of our brightest kids into real education, we will just keep falling further behind. But it's not just the top tier kids. It's getting easier and easier to outsource programming and IT. Biotech was supposed to be the next big thing, but that is also shifting to Asia. Nanotech? Don't count on it. The current course we are on is that there will be a small number of high-paying jobs in America, a lot of low-paying jobs, and lots of middle-level jobs happening overseas. Personally I'm waiting for the day when boards of directors start realising that it is criminal to pay CEO salaries in the US when there are lots of super-competent German, French, Japanese, etc. executives who will do the work for 1/10 of what Americans demand.

Daniel, did you see the link I provided on the Open Thread regarding Europe? Their economies are dead. And the article specifically discusses their technology environment. I think it'll be an eye opener for you.

You said The idea behind globalisation is that you outsource the low-paying work freeing up labor resources to take on higher-paying work, .

This is untrue. Companies outsource where they can improve their bottom line and reduce their costs. Once an educated and less expensive work force is available, for making shoes or writing computer programs, companies take advantage of it.

The idea is that companies can then spend more money on research and development. This may or may not correlate to high-paying jobs. Usually.

This also gets back to the troubles with Europe's economy... Check out the article...

Hey Daniel, if they outsource all our jobs we can always go work here:

California's Industry of the Future (Present?)

You must remember, of course, that charter schools are part of the public school system. This is therefore another sign of public sector failure in education, at least potentially. The government bureaucrats fail to properly screen those setting up the schools, and then the parents of the least prepared, most desparate students place their kids in these settings because it provides an "alternative" to what hasn't worked before.

As opposed to what happens in the private sector, where most private schools do a better job educating students than most public schools do. Vouchers would enable a real choice, with the chance to try something that is a real difference.

Students need to be screened prior to attending any school. If they're not up to the performance standards required for entry, then they should be sent to remedial facilities to "catch up" before reintegrating with other kids.

Why punish the kids who are up to speed and ready to excel by teaching to the lowest common denominator? That leads to boredom for the high achievers. Not a good thing for a kid to be bored!

There should be an entrance exam before each grade, to make sure those kids are ready. If not, hold 'em back.

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. This is from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, of course, and is used by some as justification for teaching Christianity in schools. For those who had a civics class in school…sorry, a good civics class, you’ll recognize that the Constitutional Amendment of December 15, 1791 says, in part: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…which trumps an ordinance.

Education as it has evolved in the United States has never been about quality. It is about access. All children will go to public school at the very minimum, and all citizens will support that public education through their taxes. Anything above beyond is was to be paid for by the individual parent(s).

Where the United States excels is with its post-secondary institutions. It is of extraordinary and primary importance for us to make college education available to those who want it, or vo-tech type opportunities to those that don’t.

But the idea that "schools have failed" is wrong. What does fail is Federal intervention through unreasonable and costly policy. "No Child Left" turned in to an unfunded Federal mandate (as much of Bushco policy does) that has sucked the life out of other important programs in education. Schools are cutting art, music and extra-curricular activities that we consider to make a student well-rounded. Many educators complain they are being forced to "teach to the test" by administrators so that test results meet the guidelines in "No Child Left," while the reported successes relating to improvement stemming from this policy are largely non-existent.

The idea that teachers unions are at fault is simplistic, at best, and the issue is much more complex. Without teachers unions the quality in the classroom would be much less than what we currently enjoy in the United States. Teaching is a difficult job. Every person has their own pet theory of education, and maintain's the belief that they could manage a class of third graders effectively. This is not the case. Teachers are well-educated professionals, and deserve professional representation.

School vouchers, as promulgated by Bushco, are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to transfer public funds to private religious education through faith-based education initiatives. As such, they should be stopped.

I would argue,based on my experience with my towns school system for almost 20 years, that teachers unions and tenure when combined can cause major problems in that its almost impossible to get rid of bad teachers. Results may differ by school district, state etc. I relay my experience. I had a member of the school committee sit in my kitchen and tell me "Yeah we know she's bad but we've tried to get rid of her and can't" Its easier to just put up with them.

Teachers still need unions but they need to give in on allowing of testing of teachers and some sort of ongoing evaluation.

Tenure as it exist must be abolished. In my town once a teacher gets tenure they are there for ever. If they are bad thet just move them from school to school

I would propose something along the lines of the following:
year-to year contracts for first 3 years
after 3 years and a satisfactory review, you are given a 3 year contract. If yearly reviews are positive you keep your 3 year contract. If the review is bad, you don't add the year (no you have a 2 year contract) and you are given a report detailing how to improve. etc.

This is a pet peeve of mine.

I think that muckdog is on to something, and also like soccerdad's comments. First muckdog: one of the major differences between US and many foreign schools is the multi-track approach.Try to propose that here and you get denounced for being elitist (despite the strong track record of magnet schools). The problem is that there has been a history of shunting people to vocational schools based on race (for example) not based on academically sound judgements. Yet this is essentially where you end up going if you have what amounts to entrance exams. Clearly kids are not benefitting from being in a classroom with people who are disruptive, and presuambly some of that disruption is because kids are in the wrong program for them.

Next, soccerdad. Here again there is a history of teachers being fired for teaching unpopular things, rather than for being bad teachers. That, to me, is the argument in favor of some sort of job security. A teacher should not lose their job because they teach that America has a brutal history of repressing populist movements. Nor should they be fired for teaching the power of the free market. Presuambly there is some grade level below which this shouldn't be an issue: the kids are not ready for these sorts of complex issues anyway. But high school gets problematic. I studied both classical economics and socialist theory in high school. How many schools would tolerate that? And yes, this was in public school. On the other hand there must be some way to get out teachers who are just not getting it done any more. A tough nut indeed. Anyone have ideas for this one?

BTW, muckdog, not ignoring you on the economics stuff, I'd like to respond but am really buried at work.I'm fitting this in waiting for things to load on my computer.

There are bigger dangers. And conservatives mucking about with education reform are the single biggest threat to education. If you talk about undoing teachers unions, you are playing right into the conservatives hands who want to get a bunch of the 685 billion or so spent on public education into big businesses hands.

I’ll agree that tenure itself can become problematic when poor teachers are kept in the classroom, but that is an incredibly rare occurrence in and of itself. From personal experience and hindsight, I can tell you that the teachers who I thought were the worst were actually quite good, and tough as nails to boot.

If you are affixing blame for bad teachers, place it squarely on your administrators. If you have a lousy teacher and administration won’t get rid of them, your administrators are at fault.

If teacher tenure is lost and the unions are done away with, you’ll see administration move to using as many “adjunct” teachers as can be gotten away with. And big business will step in with their "solutions." Its just economics. The more money in the pot to play with, the more administrators have to spend on what they want, which may not include your kids (how many hundreds of bond issues have been floated to improve the schools in an area, and the first thing done with that money is for the administrators. We recently floated 3 million for school repairs, and administration came back 3 years later wanting more for the schools because the initial bond had been spent on a new administration building).

phidipides

My experience with bad teachers, seen from the parent side, has been substantial. I think there has to be a middle ground. There has to be teacher unions. If there were teacher unions you could replace tenure with the plan I posted above, 3 year contracts. This is actually being done in some universities. Right now the testing is making the students accountable because they bear the consequences. Teacher must be held accountable (this would be no problem for most) without having their rights trampled.