I think we've all seen some of our public schools that are a bit worse-for-wear. (It's probably not easy to learn in a building that smells of urine.) The quality of education also varies, with schools in low income areas being the worst.

What can be done to improve our failing schools?

Change the funding model, and/or increase student mobility. As long as schools are primarily funded via local taxes, and students are stuck going to the one in their area unless they want to pay private-school prices (or attend a religious indoctrination center that benefits inappropriately from tax breaks), "equal opportunity" will remain a dream and we will all suffer from the underutilization of our most precious resource - people. As much as I hate seeing money travel further than it has to, regionally-funded schools - either using vouchers as primary funding or otherwise - would be a great improvement. Such an approach would also allow for a greater variety of educational offerings, both in terms of curricula and in terms of teaching styles, since no school would feel compelled to be all things to all people. The overhead costs of translators and specialist teachers could be amortized across a larger funding base.

Well, as a teacher I have many ideas on this one. Firstly, I will list the things that many people bring up that will not work:

1. Taking the Federal Government out of our schools-- This one I find so insulting, it makes me angry. Even if our schools could economically manage this, what message does it send? That the education of our youth is simply not important to us. And the whole, well I live in the suburb--Richwhitetopia--why should I pay for the education of inner-city kids is also terrible in nature. Obviously, the tax base for our inner city schools will not garner as much as our suburbian schools. All taking that money away does is punish students for being born poor, which would be very unfortunate.

2. Voucher Systems--All this does is take even more money out of our schools and put it to use for only individual students. Is the best way to fix something that is failing really to take away its funding?? Gee, your school is in disrepair and your books are all decades old, but you still aren't teaching your students?? Let's see how you do with even less money!!

3. Merit pay for teachers--This one came up in Massachusetts proposed by our governor-Utah's own Mitt Romney. This one is almost laughable. Firstly, how do you measure success? A standardized test? Don't you think the teacher who teaches all AP classes will see better student results then the teacher of low level classes? Just maybe!

Of couse, figuring out how to fix it is way more difficult then pointing out how not to fix it. What could possibly work?

1. Increased funding for under-achieving schools-- Flame away conservatives! In any case, if we can get our schools up-to-date textbooks and enough copies for each student to have their own, better student achievment may be realized. Textbooks are fairly (okay outrageously) expensive but really, if we are going to force standardized tests on our students then shouldn't we adequately prepare them for it?

2. Minimum teacher salary of $100,000--Okay, just kidding, but it couldn't hurt right?

alwaysnextyear,

Seeing as you're a teacher might I ask what was the condition of your school, and why you believe is was that way? (good, bad, etc.)

I'm all for this. Take all under-achieving schools and give them what they say they need to rebound. Textbooks, computers, building renovations, tutors, and whatever else they need.

Now tell us what we do when some of these schools continue to underachieve?

I would have to take a first-things-first attitude here. First the school needs adequate resources. If there are further problems then the source needs to be identified. Try the obvious solution first before venturing into less certain territory. Under-funded public schools should not exist. There should be quality of education standards which the government (as opposes to individual schools) must adhere to.

How many examples of well-resourced failing schools are there?

I work in a suburban public middle school that is in very good teacher. Our tax base is that of a majority upper-class, white nuclear families. It is the town I grew up in. The school I am in does need any additional tax help or local overrides to continue providing our students with a more then adequate education. Our textbooks are never anymore then 5 or six years old.(with the possible exception of one or two of our history classes that work on ancient history . Most textbooks are plentiful enough for the students to have one at home and one at school) The building itself is in beautiful condition (which makes it easier to ask the kids to keep it clean.) That being said, I have previously observed in many inner-city middle schools. Before all, the kids are generally the same types of kids despite their racial and economic differences. However, they are using textbooks, if they are lucky, or photocopies of textbooks. Some classes each student has their own and others they share with another student. This is not an exaggeration. I have seen buildings with cracks and windows that won't shut, or heat that won't work in some rooms and works too much in others. The discrepancies are huge and if anyone would visit both schools, they would have no trouble identfying which school had the better testing scores..even if all the kids weren't there.

Came back here to read what I had posted and I read this. What the heck does this mean?? Could I toot my horn anymore? Honestly, I must have meant area instead of teacher and it won't let me edit it. Dang!


This may be an entirely different topic, but I'll post it here anyway, because in a way, I think it could answer our problem.

Do not make standardized tests requirements for graduation-- When this happens a great amount of undue stress goes into preparing for these exams. It also forces teachers to spend a lot of time "teaching to the test". This actually harms our students education and really does them no good, other then to prepare them for a standardized test (Which really won't predict how successful they will be in life.

I agree with this statement - standardized tests are always a difficult subject. I personally have always hated them because I do very poorly on multiple choice tests, which is what most standardized tests consist of almost exclusively. But, there should be some method for comparing students from different schools, cities, areas, etc when it comes to colleges or even for something like federal/state funding as opposed to local funding.


"Fixing the Schools" is a tough topic. The differences between poor schools (rural poor as well as inner city poor) and rich schools are almost undeniable. But perhaps the biggest problems within schools are created outside of the school. How can a teacher be expected to instill a love of learning in a child who goes home to a culture that does not value knowledge? Why would a young gifted athlete feel the need to take time away from training in order to get above average grades when he sees athletes raking in salaries of millions? People put emphasis on students scores on standardized tests that mostly measure a students ability to memorize facts and regurgitate them - but not the students ability to come up with creative solutions to a problem. In the end, who will do better - the person who can look at a crack in the wall and cite the the materials the wall is made of, or the person who can figure out how to fill the crack in the wall using the limited materials available?
Of course, first and foremost we as a society need to make sure every school is well-euipped with the tools for learning. If a school is "failing" our first instinct should be to make sure it has enough books, enough computers, enough science supplies, enough money for field trips, and enough police presence to assure student's personal safety. We should not respond by closing the school's doors. To use a ship analogy, if one ship is sinking, we can't purposely sink it and leave the passengers to float in tiny life boats or try to overcrowd other boats - we have to try and stop the ship from sinking by all means possible! In this case, I would rather pay a few more dollars in taxes (yes, imagine, wanting to pay taxes!) than get $100 from the government while a school is forced to make due with three children per ten year old book (as was the case at my middle school).

I think it is a bit of a stretch to argue that lower-income homes somehow value education less. That is certainly not my experience, responsible lower income parents tend to want desperately that their children be educated (much more than sports) because they see that is is the only sure way to succeed in our society.



Good point, but I will presume to say that a person with knowledge as to what the wall is made of (as well other facts about material strength, etc.) could fill the crack a lot better. They may not opt for a "finger in the dike" solution for instance.

I believe their is no doubt that memorizing facts can help a person in life, creativity isn't everything or even more important than knowledge. What is important is not the repetition of facts, certainly, but the use of facts. Children should be taught to reason and think in abstract.


Here we agree entirely. Resources are key and should be provided in a publicly funded education system.

I watched a program last month on News Hour with Jim Lehrer where they discuss the achievement gap between White and Asian students and Black and Hispanic students in the US. You can also view the segment through a link on the site. This segment focuses on an elementary school (Lincoln) in Mount Vernon, New York. This school is a success story in filling the achievement gap. Basically this inner city school, which would be expected to have an achievement gap doesn't. Virtually all of their students are performing within 2 percent of each other.

My take on the segment was why in the world our nation’s educators aren’t trying to duplicate this model.



I agree that the voucher system does not seem to be a viable solution. In addition to the point you make, I also believe that it is a short sited solution. The voucher system, as I see it, does not address they “why” or the “how”. By that I mean why these schools are under achieving and how to make them achievers



Finding ways to get the parents involved, educating them as well as the children I believe is critical.

I think most of us agree that schools need more money, but my question is, where should it go?

In a lot of districts, like the one my dad teaches in, the administrators' salaries increase invariably more rapidly than teacher's salaries do, top-down as if better administrators will lead to better learning in classrooms. Personally, the superintendents and other high-ups in a school district I have had the (dis)pleasure of knowing have been completely ignorant of what classroom teaching is all about. And I thought they all had to have Ph.D's in education. They all seem like businessmen to me.

First of all, teacher salaries need to be raised, and so do the requirements to teach. I could be teaching high school right now if I wanted to. All I have to do is pass the CBEST and I could get an emergency credential. There is supposed to be a time limit on how long you can teach on one, but at my high school there were plenty of teachers who taught for longer without being truly certified. Long term subs teach without credentials all the time at schools who can't afford to keep many tenured teachers. And even credentialed 1st-year teachers get shoved through the revolving door so that schools don't have to raise their salaries.

My mistake - I should have separated my thoughts better. I was referring to the general culture. Most of my life, my family fell into the poor category, but both of my parents highly valued education - working to put each other through graduate school. I meant that there are differences - period. New thought - many problems with schools seem to come from a general culture that does not value learning and so expects the school to somehow teach this value as opposed to just teaching facts and how to use them.



Most definitely - perhaps funding more interactive/"exciting" parent-student nights. Imagine getting a professional race car to come to a school and having an interactive lesson on physics of a car presented by students? This would probably get a much greater response than a recent parent-student activity night I attended where even the principle only popped his head in a few moments b/c most of the activities were SOLELY student oriented (like a mini-dance hall)


I've had some of the same unfortunate experience with my mother's school (where I also worked in the clinic - so I was a little more than an outside observer). Superintendents are often VERY political creatures. When I was in middle school, the then superintendent went on a few years later to become governor of the state - so his job in education was more of a brief stop on the way to greater things. The superintendants and other admin jobs really need to be filled with actual teachers. Even if they have not been in the classroom for a few years - its better than NEVER facing a classroom.



I agree! But, without raising the salaries concurrently with the requirements to teach, I think there is a real possibility of creating a sever shortage in people willing to teach. How many people would go to school for eight years (like a doctor) only to make barely enough to afford a working car? Likewise, just raising the salaries without raising requirements will also cause problems - unqualified individuals choosing the profession simply to make money w/o regard for the students education. So, the funding needs to be given more to teacher's salaries than administrators, but simultaneously the state would need to enact more strigent rules for becoming certified as a teacher.

The voucher system that gives parents the chance to get out of these bad schools.