Good point. And the good ole boys and gals (and, I might add, they come in every race and color) who convey to their kids that education doesn't matter and that teachers are stupid because they're a bunch of women (and all that baggage) undermine the efforts of the good teachers and the good students who are there to make education happen . . .
I believe we *need* lots of men in the classroom (not just using it as a steppingstone to become an administrator either). We have got to show our kids that teachers deserve respect, both by teaching them respect for women and by breaking the lock that women have on education because men turn their noses up at it!

The point was, Mary, and your exactly right, men don't go into teaching because the pay, in VA, is so low. If it weren't for the salaries in No. Va. my guess is we'd be dead last!
The reason the pay is so low is because Va is still has a good'ol' boy attitude and teaching is "women's work" and politicians in this state are mostly men.
It is, Reid, a gender issue on one level, because the attitude towards teachers and the teaching profession (mostly female employees)and children is not considered important work and taken for granted by those who make the decisions.
In Va Beach, 51.4% of SEVEN revenue streams go to education....not 50% of the total revenue collected by the city. As a matter of fact, when taking into consideration the amount of revenue taken in by the city (this eliminates the revenue earned in those areas designated as tif's) the actual % the city gives to the schools is less than 40%.
The union has nothing to do with it...as a matter of fact, if the union had its way, this issue would probably not be a problem in Virginia...and tenure discussions are just smoke screen conversations to avoid addressing the REAL issues. Va currently ranks #31 ..below every mid

It's not what you teach them, it's the grades you give them that creates the problem. You should give them an "A" for effort, or for staying awake in class, or not disrupting the class, or just being there. As long as they get good grades, nobody cares what they learn, until they get out of school. You know how it is. You've got to treat everyone the same, otherwise you're picking on or discriminating against someone.

I'm very skeptical about your claim that there are lots of churches in poor neighborhoods that have adequate facilities and adequate teachers who are ready to go. Your point does not address the funding of these vouchers and the impact it has on existing public schools (from attendance, to teacher staffing, to regular maintenance). Who would be the teachers for these church-based schools? Are they qualified and certified to teach? Is there an accreditation policy in place to make sure they are adequately staffed? Are they monitored? Any student transporation requirements? Surely there will be poor performing church-schools just as there are poor performing public schools. Wont a widely used voucher system require a substantial oversight program to administer? It sounds like the death knell for the public school system. And it sounds like it would create a whole new set of problems on top of the ones we have.

keep the pay low so only dedicated teachers need apply? I wonder if that would work in the executive suites of our corporations?
You might be on to something. It is pretty obvious that a generous pay scale for CEO's certainly didn't work, maybe we should use the private school technique.
Of course, the problem is that even dedicated teachers have to eat. So how many dedicated, low compensated teachers can you get if vouchers become common and millions of children opt for private schools?
Since I think that teaching is arguably the most important profession in the country, perhaps we ought to treat them as such. But then, tuition needs to go up, vouchers become small discounts and will put that education out of reach for many.
No, I think we need to repair our public schools first. But that takes leadership and effort.

Even private schools attached to churches (not all are, you know) can have a rigorous program without a state of the art science lab as there are so many museums and science facilities within 50 miles of here for field trips. Trust me, I homeschooled for years before private school. You don't want animal biology in your kitchen--the zoo and Living Museum children's programs can handle that just fine (go on-line and see how they offer at least one new children's program a month!). You can do physics up at the Jefferson Lab. History at many museums and other facilities locally . . .
And the private school teachers are very, very dedicated. Their pay is well below that of the public schools, so they have to be!

I spent years teaching. Specifically, 5th grade arithmetic.
The teachers union was one of my smaller problems. Not the largest, but somewhere in the top 20.
No...my largest problem were unprepared children. Most didn't have the proper attitude, nor studied. A majoirty of parents weren't involved. It appeared as though they expected me to raise their children. I'd get a rock on day 1 and parents expected a diamond in return.
Condition of schools? Please. What's 2X2? Does it still equal 4 if I'm teaching outside, in a trailer, or to 30 children? Did I really need to be in a state-of-the-art classroom?
Before bashing teachers-do you as parents help them or simply blame them for your own shortcomings? After all, you had Johnny for the first 5 years of his life and sent him to me unprepared. Then continued to do so until the 12th grade.

I hate to disuade you about public schools being better than private schools. They don't necessarily have the best faculties or the best facilities.

I hate to disuade some of you folks about private schools, in churches, being better than public schools. They don't necessarily have the best faculties or the best facilities.

If we had school vouchers, there would be thousands of private schools opening almost immediately in churches that stand vacant for 6 days of the week. The startup for these schools would be minimal compared to public schools and people could send their kids to an environment that is in line with their beliefs. There are a lot of churches in the poor communities that have the room and facilities available and would love to open their doors to teach kids, but the parents cannot afford to pay even a small tuition. There are plenty of churches around the country doing this now, but only in the areas where people can afford it.

I understand your point, I just think that there will always be unmotivated kids and parents who really do not care and I do not think that the ones that care, but cannot afford public school should be forced to send their kids to inferior schools. Take it from a kid whose mother is psychotic and dropped out in the 11th grade. I think we are close to thinking the same way, though.

but to not abandon the public school system. It needs repair and attention, but we used to have a good one, and in some districts, it is very good. If temporary vouchers were available for immediate assistance until the system is back on track, I might agree. But there is no reason why an inner city school cannot be as good as the best high income suburban school, like Scarsdale in NY. The famous magnet schools in inner city NY (Bronx HS of Science, Brooklyn Tech and Stuyvesant) are some of the best in the country, yet are surrounded by dicey neighborhoods. It is doable, but requires will, not abandonment. We either value education above all else as being critical to the success of our country, or we don't. We either accept the fact that not all children are born to money or motivated, stable households and need at least an opportunity to succeed in a great public system, or we don't.

I am not familiar with a private school that is NOT cheap. Quite the contrary. So the idea of providing families with vouchers that actually enables them to afford private school would be enormously costly, on top of our existing public school system costs. Or is the idea to scrub the public school system altogether in order to fund vouchers? Or supply vouchers to a very limited # of students? Or is the intent of vouchers to allow public school students the ability to attend a "better" out-of-area public school? And wouldnt all parents of a poorly performing public school want to send their kids to a better school? Is that better school ready to double or triple their student population. Or is the goal to generate private school construction efforts & then staff these new schools with teachers from the area (removing good teachers from public schools for instance)? And could that draw down student numbers at existing schools to the point where it makes little sense to keep public schools open for those students unable to move to another public/private school?

School Teacher Unions prevent the dismissal of incompetent Teachers just like the UAW prevents the dismissal of inept and lazy workers.

These Unions have priced themselves out of the market and if allowed to continue, will surely lead to their demise.

Competing non Union Auto workers put out quality products for about half of what it costs the UAW.

Unless this Nation once again becomes a quality manufacturing nation we will slowly fade away as a World power.

I kind of disagree with you on the best students going to the best schools. Not that this will not happen, but why punish the ones that are motivated by forcing them to stay in inferior schools if they cannot afford to go elsewhere? The parents are paying for the school systems anyway through taxes, why not have the families that work hard on raising their kids correctly be able to send them to the schools they want? Maybe the Catholics could open up some schools with heavy discipline for the kids who act up. There is nothing better than a penguin with a stick to keep them in line :) Up north, this is where all the kids who got kicked out of the public schools went, it is different down here.

Reid_Greenmun, males, particularly white males are not a protected class, so the various organizations that advocate for "rights" could care less. It's like you can hire all blacks but not all whites. You can hire all females but not all males. It's the new class warfare.

but the new Chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is challenging the power of the unions and has made considerable progress in upgrading their system, but still has a lot of hurdles to overcome.
I think that is a much better way to go than vouchers, which only leaves the school system in worse shape, cherry picks the best students from motivated homes and sets up a system of low grade private schools.
Unions have perhaps massed a little too much power in education, to be sure. But in our adversarial labor management system, their job is to look out for the workers, just as management's job is to look out for the school or company. Ideally, negotiation in labor contracts should reach a middle ground that is good for both sides, but power and politics often play a role in the final outcome. Right now, labor is generally the weaker role. And with the current economic problems, I think their role will become even more so.

That the union's attitude is fine and it is everyone else's attitude that is the problem? The unions only want what is good for the union. Read the NEA's (teacher's union) take on school vouchers. They are against them and they will not tell you that it is because the private school teachers that this will help out are not union. Tell me why the vouchers are not good when places like DC spend more money per student than it costs to send them to private school? We could have good quality private education for even poor kids if we had vouchers, but the unions are against them. Unions in other industries are notorious for protecting overpaid workers when they screw up or are just plain lazy. When the attitudes of the unions change, then maybe people's attitude towards them will change.

Hum, VA is 50th is the percentage of hiring male teachers? We know VA is not the lowest paying state for teachers. We know that we spend a great deal on public education. In my city, roughly 50% of the city budget is spent on public schools. Let's connect the dots here, shall we? Perhaps what we have in our state is wide spread gender bias AGAINST MEN? Odd, when there is even a hint of gender bias AGAINST women there is fiegned "outrage" from pandering politicians and indignant media "investigations". But when MEN are being potentially descriminated against - crickets chirping, wind blowing in the trees, birds squawking in the distance. In other words - silence.

Being 50th in percentage of male teachers can mean many things. One might be that men don't tend to go into professions where they sacrifice money for being in a position to help others. It can, therefore, signal that we don't pay our teachers well. I know we are not exactly 50th in pay for our teachers, but we probably have more jobs with better pay than many other states. I would surmise that men target those jobs, rather than teaching.