Abolish the Department of Education, and public schools.

If I could do one thing, one thing to America this would be it.

Now, while the trolls go off and post their idiocy without reading further lets take a moment, those of you wishing to read what I would do, to remember, keep it civil.

Okay, on with the thread:

1. Take the money each district spends per child now. Say, for argument sakes it's 10k a kid per year (I'm using a made up number shush you) so for each child enrolled, the school would get that much money.

2. Each School would be then given over to a private company.

3. Each School would have to have their curriculum posted on line, and available on request to any parent or potential students guardian.

4. Each School would have to list publicly ALL EXPENSES.

5. Each School would post its student’s grades, test scores and teachers education levels.

6. The markets would determine success and failure. If a school is unpopular, parents won’t send their kids there, no kids means no money.

7. NO BUSINESS running a school would be allowed, in any shape, fashion or form to lobby, gift, or provide money, or resources to political candidates or elected officials. EVER.

8. Schools could teach, whatever they want. It’s the parents decision what their children learn, and it is up to the parents to be informed.

9. Teachers Unions would be abolished and barred except in those states that allow unions by law. (even then I would try to find a way to ban them)

10. Parents would be barred from giving to, or paying schools to let their kids attend.


That’s it in a nutshell. The public school system is disaster, the biggest reason is the lack of competition and adults just handing their kids over to the “schools” to teach them. Make parents get involved!

So in Detroit, with it's 25% graduation rate, where the free market would make running a school inherently unprofitable, what would happen?

Private schools are a good thing and I'm glad they are an option. Education, however, must be provided universally. Universally providing education isn't anywhere near profitable, that's why the government does it.

Kernel Sanders said:

So in Detroit, with it's 25% graduation rate, where the free market would make running a school inherently unprofitable, what would happen?

Click to expand...

Normally, I am the first person to jump into a thread like this and tear the argument to pieces, but I think you've missed an important part of MrVicchio's post. He referred to taking the per student expenses of the public schools and using them to fund the privately-run schools.

In fact, he went so far as to prohibit parents from using their own money to pay for their childrens' educations. I'm actually planning on arguing against that point in my own reply.

MrVicchio said:

1. Take the money each district spends per child now. Say, for argument sakes it's 10k a kid per year (I'm using a made up number shush you) so for each child enrolled, the school would get that much money.
2. Each School would be then given over to a private company.

Click to expand...

I am surprised and impressed. With your thread title I expected the usual diatribe about how poor children don't deserve school. While I think your plan has some kinks in it, it does show proper concern for ensuring the continuing process of education.

Of course, it is still a matter of outsourcing government functions to private businesses, and the fact that it's more profitable to provide a shoddy product than a superior one.

MrVicchio said:

3. Each School would have to have their curriculum posted on line, and available on request to any parent or potential students guardian.
4. Each School would have to list publicly ALL EXPENSES.
5. Each School would post its student’s grades, test scores and teachers education levels.

Click to expand...

This is approve of. As a matter of fact, I think this would be an excellent reform for our public schools. Governmental transparency has a way of improving the function of every government endeavor.

MrVicchio said:

6. The markets would determine success and failure. If a school is unpopular, parents won’t send their kids there, no kids means no money.

Click to expand...

Which leaves us with the issue of how new schools will be created-- since you've outlawed parents paying for education privately, a new school could not function without government funding. And without a Department of Education, how would new schools be built, either to replace old ones or to fill new demand?

MrVicchio said:

7. NO BUSINESS running a school would be allowed, in any shape, fashion or form to lobby, gift, or provide money, or resources to political candidates or elected officials. EVER.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd prefer that this rule applied to all publicly-owned or publicly-traded businesses.

I'd like to see you enforce this, though, unless you did apply it to every other business.

MrVicchio said:

9. Teachers Unions would be abolished and barred except in those states that allow unions by law. (even then I would try to find a way to ban them)

Click to expand...

Do professional educators not, then, have the right to free assembly? In your model, people might even realize that the teacher's unions exist for the benefit of the teachers-- as that is their purpose-- and not for the benefit of the students.

Teacher's unions serve the same-- mostly valuable-- purpose as any other professional union, and there is no reason to have them abolished.

MrVicchio said:

That’s it in a nutshell. The public school system is disaster, the biggest reason is the lack of competition and adults just handing their kids over to the “schools” to teach them. Make parents get involved!

Click to expand...

I don't think for a second that this plan would make parents any more involved in their childrens' education. They'd just drop them off at the government-funded "private" school that's most convenient for them, just like they do with the public schools.

Your plan has other problems. You mention posting grades and test scores, which is all very well and good, but without the Department of Education, who will judge the grades and the test scores to ensure that they're relevant? Who will make sure that the schools aren't simply making up numbers?

I think you have some very good ideas for reforming the public schools, but I don't see an effective system here that might be used to replace them.

MrVicchio said:

If I could do one thing, one thing to America this would be it.

Now, while the trolls go off and post their idiocy without reading further lets take a moment, those of you wishing to read what I would do, to remember, keep it civil.

Okay, on with the thread:

1. Take the money each district spends per child now. Say, for argument sakes it's 10k a kid per year (I'm using a made up number shush you) so for each child enrolled, the school would get that much money.

2. Each School would be then given over to a private company.

3. Each School would have to have their curriculum posted on line, and available on request to any parent or potential students guardian.

4. Each School would have to list publicly ALL EXPENSES.

5. Each School would post its student’s grades, test scores and teachers education levels.

6. The markets would determine success and failure. If a school is unpopular, parents won’t send their kids there, no kids means no money.

7. NO BUSINESS running a school would be allowed, in any shape, fashion or form to lobby, gift, or provide money, or resources to political candidates or elected officials. EVER.

8. Schools could teach, whatever they want. It’s the parents decision what their children learn, and it is up to the parents to be informed.

9. Teachers Unions would be abolished and barred except in those states that allow unions by law. (even then I would try to find a way to ban them)

10. Parents would be barred from giving to, or paying schools to let their kids attend.


That’s it in a nutshell. The public school system is disaster, the biggest reason is the lack of competition and adults just handing their kids over to the “schools” to teach them. Make parents get involved!

Click to expand...

Have any examples of where market education systems actually work?

Korimyr the Rat said:

Normally, I am the first person to jump into a thread like this and tear the argument to pieces, but I think you've missed an important part of MrVicchio's post. He referred to taking the per student expenses of the public schools and using them to fund the privately-run schools.

Click to expand...

That would at best cover costs. Private schools need to turn a profit, and every single private school needs to turn a profit. When only 25% of your students go the distance does that even leave enough cash to pay the electric bill?

Kernel Sanders said:

That would at best cover costs. Private schools need to turn a profit, and every single private school needs to turn a profit. When only 25% of your students go the distance does that even leave enough cash to pay the electric bill?

Click to expand...

In their defense however, if it works they wouldn't be only having 25% of the students going the distance.

jfuh said:

Have any examples of where market education systems actually work?

Click to expand...

Private Schools and Universities.

Ya know, the ones that compete for your kids to attend them?

Kernel Sanders said:

That would at best cover costs. Private schools need to turn a profit, and every single private school needs to turn a profit. When only 25% of your students go the distance does that even leave enough cash to pay the electric bill?

Click to expand...

More kids might graduate if hey, the schools were worth a damn. Further more in a situation so dire as that exceptions and tweaks can be made to adjust for the situation until it changes.

I can see it now, private businesses running education. "Today's dietary lesson is brought to you by the makers of Cheetos™."

The libertarian position on education is the one major sticking point I have that keeps me from joining their ranks. As much as I would like to abolish children's right to be educated, the part of me that thinks that would be past stupid, down the hill from insane, and edging on retarded. The fact is that everyone needs to be educated. Not deserves but NEEDS. With a stress on the word "needs".

Korimyr the Rat said:

I am surprised and impressed. With your thread title I expected the usual diatribe about how poor children don't deserve school. While I think your plan has some kinks in it, it does show proper concern for ensuring the continuing process of education.

Click to expand...

I'm all about bringing the level of education up for all kids, especially the poor. (like me!)

Korimyr the Rat said:

Of course, it is still a matter of outsourcing government functions to private businesses, and the fact that it's more profitable to provide a shoddy product than a superior one.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Look at Harley Davidson. In the 70's it was owned by the bowling company AMF. The brand almost was destroyed by how crappy and cheap it was. Ever hear of anyone proud of their AMF Harley? It didn't turn around until they went back to spending the money and it's now profitable.

Korimyr the Rat said:

This is approve of. As a matter of fact, I think this would be an excellent reform for our public schools. Governmental transparency has a way of improving the function of every government endeavor.

Click to expand...

Half the problem with the school system is that you, me and average Joe doesn't realize how much WASTE there is out there.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Which leaves us with the issue of how new schools will be created-- since you've outlawed parents paying for education privately, a new school could not function without government funding. And without a Department of Education, how would new schools be built, either to replace old ones or to fill new demand?

Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. In some cases the cities could work with private enterprise to co-build a school, new schools could get built by those that believe there is a market and could turn a profit. Where there is a profit, there is a way.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Personally, I'd prefer that this rule applied to all publicly-owned or publicly-traded businesses.

I'd like to see you enforce this, though, unless you did apply it to every other business.

Click to expand...

Hey, small steps, if I can get it in here... our kids are too valuable to do otherwise.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Do professional educators not, then, have the right to free assembly? In your model, people might even realize that the teacher's unions exist for the benefit of the teachers-- as that is their purpose-- and not for the benefit of the students.

Teacher's unions serve the same-- mostly valuable-- purpose as any other professional union, and there is no reason to have them abolished.

Click to expand...

I disagree, the Teachers Unions are part o the problem today. They are political entities and would fight this program tooth and nail. Voucher Programs are hated by these unions. I am NOT a fan of unions. It would run counter to what the point of this plan is, to reform and open the education system to new and innovative ideas.

Korimyr the Rat said:

I don't think for a second that this plan would make parents any more involved in their childrens' education. They'd just drop them off at the government-funded "private" school that's most convenient for them, just like they do with the public schools.

Click to expand...

To an extent, you are correct, the lacy, the ignorant, and the stupid parents out there would do nothing different. But I don't think you give the "consumers" enough credit. With the Internet and other resources, I think you'd see a positive move towards active parenting again.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Your plan has other problems. You mention posting grades and test scores, which is all very well and good, but without the Department of Education, who will judge the grades and the test scores to ensure that they're relevant? Who will make sure that the schools aren't simply making up numbers?

Click to expand...

Get rid of the federal Department of Education, each State would set it's own standards. I really believe what's good for Virginia, or Texas is not the same as for Floridia or California. Let the people, not Washington make decisions.

Korimyr the Rat said:

I think you have some very good ideas for reforming the public schools, but I don't see an effective system here that might be used to replace them.

Click to expand...

I thank you for comments, I disagree that this wouldn't move the system forward, and yes, there are some things that still need be addressed, but this is a framework within which to change the system.

shuamort said:

I can see it now, private businesses running education. "Today's dietary lesson is brought to you by the makers of Cheetos™."

The libertarian position on education is the one major sticking point I have that keeps me from joining their ranks. As much as I would like to abolish children's right to be educated, the part of me that thinks that would be past stupid, down the hill from insane, and edging on retarded. The fact is that everyone needs to be educated. Not deserves but NEEDS. With a stress on the word "needs".

Click to expand...

Hello troll, you didn't read the thread did you?

MrVicchio said:

Hello troll, you didn't read the thread did you?

Click to expand...

Name calling? I see why you don't like school.

I read the thread and your ignorant piece of claptrap and shot it down as the pigeon of retardation that it was. Anything else?

shuamort said:

Name calling? I see why you don't like school.

I read the thread and your ignorant piece of claptrap and shot it down as the pigeon of retardation that it was. Anything else?

Click to expand...

You read the title and did nothing else. You shot nothing down, but if you want to stand by your post as an example of your intellectual prowess of debate, hey... that's all on you.

So what's wrong with the plan? What area bothers you so much and why?

At what point did I state kids don't have a right to be educated? How do you in anyway come to that conclusion based on the opening post?

MrVicchio said:

More kids might graduate if hey, the schools were worth a damn. Further more in a situation so dire as that exceptions and tweaks can be made to adjust for the situation until it changes.

Click to expand...

That's no solution - "Maybe it will get better." What happens if it doesn't? What happens if providing school to a certain area is just plain unprofitable and no private corporation wants to touch it?

MrVicchio said:

So what's wrong with the plan? What area bothers you so much and why?

Click to expand...

1. Take the money each district spends per child now. Say, for argument sakes it's 10k a kid per year (I'm using a made up number shush you) so for each child enrolled, the school would get that much money.
OK, so the school is still getting the same money that it was already getting. Of course, what if the children go to private schools, are those funding as well, or are you just talking public schools? The assumption made is public and I'll go with that unless you state differently. Fine, public schools are getting the financial support that they always have.


2. Each School would be then given over to a private company.
And this is where it gets all orange-fingered Cheetos™ dust here. Unless the private company is extremely highly regulated, this is going to be a failed system. What would stop a school from being subsidized by businesses whose interests are not in the benefit of education?


3. Each School would have to have their curriculum posted on line, and available on request to any parent or potential students guardian.
How detailed would these curricula be? Currently, I can access high level details of all three of our kids who are enrolled in public schools.


4. Each School would have to list publicly ALL EXPENSES.
That's fine, will we need to hire an additional person to do that as it seems like quite a bit of work?


5. Each School would post its student’s grades, test scores and teachers education levels.
Our public schools already do that. Well, the high school does the grades of tests and homework as well as bios of each of the teachers. The elementary school sends home all of the work done over the course of the week with the grades and tests with a form to be signed by the parent and returned to the school. Our two who are in elementary school also have daily agendas which need to be reviewed and signed daily as well.

6. The markets would determine success and failure. If a school is unpopular, parents won’t send their kids there, no kids means no money.
This already happens, at least in Minnesota. Our oldest daughter goes to a better high school than the one that she "should" go to. Funding is per capita based and so the school she goes to gets the money and the other one doesn't. Of course, the problem is that the better schools gets filled up. So some students have to go to "lesser" schools. The open market may eventually correct this, but if there are no other options, the lesser school is still going to get students. Back to square one for the unlucky ones, right?


7. NO BUSINESS running a school would be allowed, in any shape, fashion or form to lobby, gift, or provide money, or resources to political candidates or elected officials. EVER.

Fine.

8. Schools could teach, whatever they want. It’s the parents decision what their children learn, and it is up to the parents to be informed.

Here's the other part which is extremely reckless. Informed doesn't give the parents power at all. Since there is no real regulation, a school can start passing students without teaching them anything as well. Sure, there is accountability on the parents' side, but that can only go so far. What do you do if the school that is run by a business decides it's not fiscally in their best interest to teach science and replace it would religion and let's say that that religion is Scientology. The school is great in all other aspects and other schools join in and soon the marketplace isn't catering to what they should be teaching and there are no other options?


9. Teachers Unions would be abolished and barred except in those states that allow unions by law. (even then I would try to find a way to ban them)

I'm not pro-union at all, but if teachers want to enter into one and the businesses want to allow that, why would you want to dictate those issues still?

10. Parents would be barred from giving to, or paying schools to let their kids attend.
So, it's a lottery then if one's child would get into the "good" school since there are limited amounts of glass room seating. And, according to your plan, by attending, the parents would be giving the school an extra $10K.

That’s it in a nutshell. The public school system is disaster, the biggest reason is the lack of competition and adults just handing their kids over to the “schools” to teach them. Make parents get involved!

Some public schools are horrific, some are wonderful. The highest rated school in our metro area is a public school. Followed by three private schools whose tuitions start at $25K per year. Is competition making those schools better or is it money? Last year, our oldest daughter graduated junior high school with a class of 54 students. Forty-two of those students had a B average or better and it's definitely not an easy school. There are very few students and electives are limited so most of the class time is in actual and legitimate classes. History, English, science, foreign language, math.

I do think parents need to be more involved in their kid's education. Also, more involved in their children's behavior which if uncheck, turns into the school's problem. The schools having to deal with behavioral issues is completely wrong. If a child is not there to learn, the parents should have to get involved. Disruptive children should be removed from classrooms and their parents should have to deal with them as opposed to the schools.

Kernel Sanders said:

That's no solution - "Maybe it will get better." What happens if it doesn't? What happens if providing school to a certain area is just plain unprofitable and no private corporation wants to touch it?

Click to expand...

The current system obviously is failing, yet you don't want to change it?

MrVicchio said:

The current system obviously is failing, yet you don't want to change it?

Click to expand...

Of course it needs to change, but abolishing public schools altogether is a horrendous "solution." Universal primary education is not profitable - it's a prime example of services the government should provide. If you think it is a solution, what is your answer to my previous question?

Kernel Sanders said:

What happens if providing school to a certain area is just plain unprofitable and no private corporation wants to touch it?

Click to expand...

Kernel Sanders said:

Of course it needs to change, but abolishing public schools altogether is a horrendous "solution." Universal primary education is not profitable - it's a prime example of services the government should provide. If you think it is a solution, what is your answer to my previous question?

Click to expand...

You say it'snot profitable, you do realize how much we spend on education each year right?

You can make a profit, right now we do not because it IS a monopoly, because there is no competition! How much do the administrators make? How much over head is wasteful? I tell you right now I could run a school under this program, provide an excellent education, and make a profit.

MrVicchio said:

You say it'snot profitable, you do realize how much we spend on education each year right?

Click to expand...

The massive education budget of the government represents the costs not the profits. In order to be profitable, private schools would need to receive all the money that we already spend on education, and then some. The only place you have proposed that they get money is from the government. Is the government both covering their costs and gifting them a profit? If not where do the companies running the schools make their money?

You can make a profit, right now we do not because it IS a monopoly, because there is no competition! How much do the administrators make? How much over head is wasteful? I tell you right now I could run a school under this program, provide an excellent education, and make a profit.

Click to expand...

And where would that money come from?

Kernel Sanders said:

The massive education budget of the government represents the costs not the profits. In order to be profitable, private schools would need to receive all the money that we already spend on education, and then some. The only place you have proposed that they get money is from the government. Is the government both covering their costs and gifting them a profit? If not where do the companies running the schools make their money?



And where would that money come from?

Click to expand...

I answered how these schools would receive their money, please refer to the first posting.

MrVicchio said:

I answered how these schools would receive their money, please refer to the first posting.

Click to expand...

I just addressed that

Kernel Sanders said:

The massive education budget of the government represents the costs not the profits. In order to be profitable, private schools would need to receive all the money that we already spend on education, and then some. The only place you have proposed that they get money is from the government. Is the government both covering their costs and gifting them a profit? If not where do the companies running the schools make their money?



And where would that money come from?

Click to expand...

1. Take the money each district spends per child now...the school would get that much money.

Click to expand...

That covers costs, nothing more. The public school system does not turn a profit, and if you just have the government pay the exact same amount of money to private corporations they will not turn a profit. And if they do somehow turn a profit, why would the government not just cut the education budget?

And I still want an answer to this question. What happens if providing school to a certain area is just plain unprofitable and no private corporation wants to touch it?

MrVicchio said:

To an extent, you are correct, the lazy, the ignorant, and the stupid parents out there would do nothing different. But I don't think you give the "consumers" enough credit. With the Internet and other resources, I think you'd see a positive move towards active parenting again.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think the problem is that parents do not consider the public schools to be a form of public welfare-- they consider it the primarily the government's responsibility to ensure their childrens' education, and thus parents who are capable of either homeschooling or paying for private school do not. Public schooling should always be available for people who cannot provide for their own childrens' education, but it should not be considered either the default or the preferred means of educating children.

Children whose parents consider their education to be their responsibility, whether their children are enrolled in public or private school or homeschooled, do remarkably better than the children of parents who consider it to be the school's responsibility.

MrVicchio said:

Get rid of the federal Department of Education, each State would set it's own standards. I really believe what's good for Virginia, or Texas is not the same as for Floridia or California. Let the people, not Washington make decisions.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that what's good for Virginia or Texas schoolchildren is different than what is good for Florida or California schoolchildren. I think people in Texas and Virginia have different ideas about what is good for schoolchildren-- ideas that I consider frankly to be moronic.

I agree with allowing the people to make their own decisions regarding their childrens' education, which is why I support homeschooling in all fifty States and consider this latest Ninth Circus ruling to be an abomination. When it comes to the government schools, however, the curriculum and the methods should be set by the government-- preferably with as little input as possible from people who consider banning books to be beneficial to the moral and intellectual character of youth.

shuamort said:

I can see it now, private businesses running education. "Today's dietary lesson is brought to you by the makers of Cheetos™."

Click to expand...

Your riposte might have more sting to it, if we did not already have exclusivity and advertising contracts with the public schools. We've already got many of the symptoms of the kind of program that MrVicchio is proposing-- with none of the potential benefits.

shuamort said:

The libertarian position on education is the one major sticking point I have that keeps me from joining their ranks.

Click to expand...

I actually was a Libertarian, until I discovered that any departure from Party orthodoxy was disallowed-- and that they did not consider public education to be a part of the "minimal necessary government" envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Despite claiming to be the party of Jefferson.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Personally, I think the problem is that parents do not consider the public schools to be a form of public welfare-- they consider it the primarily the government's responsibility to ensure their childrens' education, and thus parents who are capable of either homeschooling or paying for private school do not. Public schooling should always be available for people who cannot provide for their own childrens' education, but it should not be considered either the default or the preferred means of educating children.

Children whose parents consider their education to be their responsibility, whether their children are enrolled in public or private school or homeschooled, do remarkably better than the children of parents who consider it to be the school's responsibility.



I don't believe that what's good for Virginia or Texas schoolchildren is different than what is good for Florida or California schoolchildren. I think people in Texas and Virginia have different ideas about what is good for schoolchildren-- ideas that I consider frankly to be moronic.

I agree with allowing the people to make their own decisions regarding their childrens' education, which is why I support homeschooling in all fifty States and consider this latest Ninth Circus ruling to be an abomination. When it comes to the government schools, however, the curriculum and the methods should be set by the government-- preferably with as little input as possible from people who consider banning books to be beneficial to the moral and intellectual character of youth.



Your riposte might have more sting to it, if we did not already have exclusivity and advertising contracts with the public schools. We've already got many of the symptoms of the kind of program that MrVicchio is proposing-- with none of the potential benefits.



I actually was a Libertarian, until I discovered that any departure from Party orthodoxy was disallowed-- and that they did not consider public education to be a part of the "minimal necessary government" envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Despite claiming to be the party of Jefferson.

Click to expand...

I think widespread homeschooling is a very bad idea. Once you know how to read and do basic math, most of the benefit from school is social. As informative as AP Euro was, the knowledge is not exactly essential to my every day life. The development that school children undergo is much more important than the basic, generalized facts they teach you in school

Korimyr the Rat,

I'm sorry you feel Texas and Virginia have moronic standards, but that's why our nation is made up of self governing states, and not just "The ?American State". I am a proponent of states rights.

Home schooling isn't a bad thing, but not everyone who would like too can afford to.

The Libertarian sentiments are admirable, but I agree the actual execution of the "Libnertarian" party leaves much to be desired.

MrVicchio said:

If I could do one thing, one thing to America this would be it.

Now, while the trolls go off and post their idiocy without reading further lets take a moment, those of you wishing to read what I would do, to remember, keep it civil.

Okay, on with the thread:

1. Take the money each district spends per child now. Say, for argument sakes it's 10k a kid per year (I'm using a made up number shush you) so for each child enrolled, the school would get that much money.

2. Each School would be then given over to a private company.

3. Each School would have to have their curriculum posted on line, and available on request to any parent or potential students guardian.

4. Each School would have to list publicly ALL EXPENSES.

5. Each School would post its student’s grades, test scores and teachers education levels.

6. The markets would determine success and failure. If a school is unpopular, parents won’t send their kids there, no kids means no money.

7. NO BUSINESS running a school would be allowed, in any shape, fashion or form to lobby, gift, or provide money, or resources to political candidates or elected officials. EVER.

8. Schools could teach, whatever they want. It’s the parents decision what their children learn, and it is up to the parents to be informed.

9. Teachers Unions would be abolished and barred except in those states that allow unions by law. (even then I would try to find a way to ban them)

10. Parents would be barred from giving to, or paying schools to let their kids attend.


That’s it in a nutshell. The public school system is disaster, the biggest reason is the lack of competition and adults just handing their kids over to the “schools” to teach them. Make parents get involved!

Click to expand...

This sounds almost exactly like the system that is in place now, minus the private part... with a little anarchy mixed in.

There is nothing wrong with Public Schools.
The teachers that teach there, for the most part, are great. Professional and very well educated.

The issue lies with student motivation and lack of parental involvment.

Have you researched this issue or is this just a knee jerk reaction?

Regarding quality of teachers:

Prospective teachers who took state teacher licensing exams from 2002 to 2005 scored higher on SATs in high school and earned higher grades in college than their counterparts who took the exams in the mid-1990s, the report said.

The average SAT verbal scores of prospective teachers passing the Praxis tests to teach English, science, social studies, math and art from 2002 to 2005 were higher than those of prospective teachers in the mid-1990s — and were also higher than the average SAT scores for all college graduates, the report said.

The percentage of candidates reporting a 3.5 GPA or higher rose from 27% to 40%

Teacher qualifications improve in the past decade - USATODAY.com

The college grades of prospective teachers has also improved. About 40 percent of the prospective teachers taking the licensing tests from 2002 to 2005 had a grade point average of 3.5 or higher on the traditional 4-point scale during college, up from 26 percent in the 1990s, the report said.

“By this measure, we are witnessing a dramatic improvement in the quality of the teacher pool,” the report said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/education/12teachers.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin

3.5 or higher?

•Federal Title II reporting rules, which in 1998 required states and teachers' colleges to report Praxis pass rates.

• No Child Left Behind, which in 2002 forced states to expand teacher licensing testing, just as they were setting higher standards, such as minimum GPA requirements, for teacher education candidates.

ETS: Educational Testing Service ? Home