Wow, the subject matter of this thread has morphed more times than Sapura's user profile. 
With that said, let me again jump into the fray. First of all, let's get back to a crucial point made by gbraley - that there is a wide variance in the quality of schools.
Why is this? The answer is local funding: US public schools are largely financed by local property taxes, so run-down urban centers struggle, and wealthy suburban areas are excellent. Federal and state governments play a modest role in the schools, and while they occasionally offer funding initiatives to improve the quality of education; however, these programs also come with 'strings attached' such as new regulations or reporting requirements. Many people believe its this type of bureaucratic interference that really stifles the ability of teachers to do their jobs.
What is the answer? Some people say vouchers, to allow the parents to decide where to send their kids, i.e. a private school rather than a failing public school. Other people argue for more funding, although the US spends an equal or greater amount per capita than other industrialized ations. Still more argue for a shift from property taxes to sales or income taxes to spread the funds more equally between local school districts.
What is my position? I'd like to see the schools privatized. This is clearly a radical position, but the logic is as follows: The public school system is a monopolistic entity that doesn't permit parents to choose where to send their kids. This lack of choice, combined with government administration of education tends to be stifle innovation. Most teachers are excellent and dedicated to their profession, but there is limited accountability for teachers which become tenured. Some of these teachers are just in it for the excellent job security and have limited interest in working with the kids.
With that said, let me again jump into the fray. First of all, let's get back to a crucial point made by gbraley - that there is a wide variance in the quality of schools.
Why is this? The answer is local funding: US public schools are largely financed by local property taxes, so run-down urban centers struggle, and wealthy suburban areas are excellent. Federal and state governments play a modest role in the schools, and while they occasionally offer funding initiatives to improve the quality of education; however, these programs also come with 'strings attached' such as new regulations or reporting requirements. Many people believe its this type of bureaucratic interference that really stifles the ability of teachers to do their jobs.
What is the answer? Some people say vouchers, to allow the parents to decide where to send their kids, i.e. a private school rather than a failing public school. Other people argue for more funding, although the US spends an equal or greater amount per capita than other industrialized ations. Still more argue for a shift from property taxes to sales or income taxes to spread the funds more equally between local school districts.
What is my position? I'd like to see the schools privatized. This is clearly a radical position, but the logic is as follows: The public school system is a monopolistic entity that doesn't permit parents to choose where to send their kids. This lack of choice, combined with government administration of education tends to be stifle innovation. Most teachers are excellent and dedicated to their profession, but there is limited accountability for teachers which become tenured. Some of these teachers are just in it for the excellent job security and have limited interest in working with the kids.
