Um, 50 hours a week is kind of a minimum in Corporate America. I didn't say teachers do not work -what I asked is how much is it worth... seriously. Compare it against other jobs and I think you'll find it is a pretty sweet gig, I am envious that I cannot work my job for 40 weeks a year. I would much rather do that than 51 weeks a year. My job description is 24x7, other duties as assigned...literally. I've got a blackberry that I check every few minutes and I am expected to be on conference calls at 11 pm, 4 am, all night if needed plus be in the office 50 hours hours a week.

I don't know about your mother, but most good teachers work an average of 50 hours per week for at least 40 weeks a year, if not more with extra training. That is the same as someone working 40 hours a week for 50 weeks. Teacher must plan and review everything they do in the classroom. The classroom is only a fraction of the time required to do the job. If the teachers in your area are not doing this, it may be why you feel they are not doing a good enough job. However, sometimes the teachers are doing all they can, but their hands are tied due to dictates out of their control.

Maybe if we paid teachers better we would attract more of our most intelligent college students.

I am not a teacher, but I could be. It takes very little education to become a teacher. A four year degree plus a credential-it's not exactly a high bar.... I was raised by a teacher and I still think they get paid too much. My mother is off work constantly with all of the vacations / breaks / holidays, the kids were only in the classroom a few hours a day; she has a teacher's aide plus the district paid for her continuing education requirements. The rest of us work 12 months a year for about the same amount of pay. I agree that the money should be spent wisely. I just don't think it will happen under our current model. I would love a school voucher system. Private schools cost around 5-8k / year for elementary school in my area; whereas the public school spends over 11k per student and the education they get is terrible.

I think they should spend the money in the education system. They should create new programs to keep the children interested and occupied so they'll spend less time in the streets and more time learning and doing activitiesthat are constructive.

i think they should keep reaching out to the low-income children so it increases their chances of not becoming a drain on society.

GardenJen was obviously never a teacher. Teachers often have 6 years of college and make the same as the janitors working at the Ford Corp. getting bail out funds. I do agree that we should not necessarily give bail out money to schools that are not succeeding anyway. We need to look closer at Charter Schools. Many have shown greater growth on less money. I say less money, because they have to pay for their buildings and everything else on the same money that the other public schools operate on not paying for their own buildings. Most of it is due to giving the local school more authority. In traditional public schools the same has been observed. When you give the local school more authority and responsibility they generally step up to the plate and are willing to do more with less.

Yes the future us our children and how we educate them and in broken down buildings and to make schools safer after all the killings in schools funds need to be be spent to make school a safer place, more speical needs program, improved and nutrious lunches, after and before school programs since the majority of our students have both parents working because of the economy no child should be left alone. more school activites need funds to lower the drop out rates , more money for school psychlogist for the many needs our children are living with issues, drug free programs, and the list could go on and on but education has been always the place governement cuts back on when they are in need of funds and now if we do not help the children the future will be worse. a good course would be in Economics so our children can learn how imortant it is to save for the future and how to survive when soon they will be adults and knowledge is power.

NO! More money=more problems. How much should a teacher make? Geesh, they get three months off per year. The teachers should revolt against the union and administration who wastes the money instead of spending it wisely.

I feel that the first priority should be to provide special services for children with special needs, like ADHD, Autism, and Asperger's Syndrome. My experience is that schools focus on their "normal" children to improve the schools' ratings and do next to nothing for this typically highly intelligent group of students that need assistance in non conventional ways in order to remain challenged and to be prepared to function in society and in the workforce. Secondly, I feel it is important to encourage children to also participate chorus, orchestra, band, and/or drama. I live in a low income school district now and they don't offer it until High School. I feel that if you reach the children when they are younger, they will have more cultural interests as they mature. By the time they get to high school, many decide it isn't "cool". I also feel that our youth would be more successful if they had more mental health resources available to them. A child cannot perform if he is under a lot of stress, anxiety or fear. By having more counseling options at school, students who need it will have a greater success rate. As far as population and growth are concerned, maybe we should consider more economical ideas. Sharing buses amongst schools. Bus handles high school, then does middle school, then elementary. Bus drivers will have more hours, which will equal better pay for each of them, though there would be fewer drivers. Get creative with scheduling and hours. Make some of the school day accessible through distant learning. By taking a class online, you don't need a classroom. Possibly make it an option. Part of me thinks that if you have one set of students in the morning and another in the afternoon, you, in essence, double the capacity of the school. Wrap that up with distance learning and you can still have a full day. That might be most effective with Middle and High schools though due to child care needs for elementary school age children to allow a parent to work. Allow child care centers to earn state approval to teach elementary students. The government pays the child care center a fee per school age child they educate, then they will not have to build more buildings. Even if you let them handle just PreK through 1st, you have increased the capacity of the elementary school by 1/3 at least. And paying the daycares will be more cost efficient than building more buildings while trying to educate the growing population of students. And the last suggestion I have that I think would be an excellent idea is to allow parents the option of homeschooling with state provided curriculum IF the parent wants to use it and government provided standardized testing. And require that the public school system work WITH the home schooled children to provide sports and extracurricular activities for all students. Parents that are able to homeschool will be able to do so economically while their children still have resources available to them through public school. This saves both, the parents and the school money, and the children can still have the social experiences and group advantages of public school students. With this option available, the class sizes should be smaller as more parents opt to homeschool. And the youth that need the individual attention can get it through homeschooling. Basically give parents more freedom and more options without abandoning them. Right now, in NC, if you homeschool, you are on your own. You pay for your own materials and testing, basically the public school abandons you. Yet when the school is not able to meet your child's special needs even though his test scores are way above that of his peers, by leaving him in public school, he would fail. He will suffer low self esteem and feel like an outcast. But if he received his education at home, the same education offered in school (optionally) and was still able to join the other students for public school provided testing, clubs, music, sports, and field trips, then he would become a mentally stable child and reach his full potential. So, overall, put in place services for children with special needs, if not in every school, then at least in every district with transportation provided. Ensure that students have access to required cultural education. Provide adequate mental health services for youth. Invest in distance learning, alter school schedules for efficiency, allow daycares to certify to provide government funded public education. And create a mutually rewarding situation for home schoolers and public schools so that they can reduce overall costs and meet the needs of every child economically.

While I totally agree that we continue to need aggressive school reform and improvement, starving the schools of money, especially when compared to the other things we blow the budget on, is really ignorant, short sighted... etc... Education has to be a priority financially and ideologically as we pursue the future of our nation.

The funds should be used to hire more teachers, thereby creating smaller class sizes. I believe if class sizes were smaller there would be no need for extended day programs as is in the NY City public school system. Also a large part of the funds such be set aside for children with special needs such as asperger and autism. Schools for these children are lacking in most communities. The children are usually thrown in with children who are low functioning and I believe they should be separated for most part since there are highly functioning autistic children.

I have no problem with a bailout, after all the government created the need for the bailout in the first place and as much as I would love for education to get it's share, (the whole education systems needs to be revamped) that is another discussion altogether.
I think the money could be put to better use elsewhere. But the problem lies with where. The bailout of the Auto industry saved thousands of jobs but at what cost to the United States of America. This goes A LOT deeper than many realize.
What about the small business owners that are struggling to help keep their head above water, how is this helping them? It is not. I do NOT believe these large corporations that have been lining their pockets for years, taking unbelievable salaries and bonuses should be bailed out. It seems the government is always helping the $$large corporations and the poverty level families who receive help all year long through programs already in place but when the working class people need just a little stepping stone, they are always turned down. I do not believe that there could ever be a bailout program that is fair to everyone because there a too many government employees watching out for their own.

I think school systems should revisit their entire operations to see what is working and what is not. Truth be told, schools spend tons of money wastefully - while effective programs struggle to exists. For example - look at the 180 day rule. Schools construct crazy openings and closings - just to meet the 180. Why do schools open before Labor Day - then close down - then re-open. How much learning was really sustained in a week's time? What about half days. It costs the same amount to bus children for half a day as a full. The same holds true for the cost of running and staffing a school. How effective are half days? Would it not make more sense to combine these half days? Consider the cost of mid-week days off. How expensive is it to shut down operations (heat, cooling, cafeterias, maintenance etc), and restart mid-week. Would it not be more worth while to combine days off with weekends? I think, in terms of learning - that having a school year which runs so long and with so many interruptions is disruptive to the educational process and momentum, and exhausts students, teachers, and families. I would like to see money used more efficiently. I believe if the school year began after Labor Day - ended Memorial Day, with small winter and spring breaks, that school's could run more efficiently. These are just a few examples. Funding is not helpful if it is not used efficiently and effectively.

basic supplies,supplies for LD that really are paid for to begin with but are not supplied, busing. so, no bus routes are cut, technology (computers), Pay increase for teachers to retain such, offer teachers advance degrees payed for, because of Internet; I would normally say library books but not sure at this time., have drug testing and strong back-round checks with possible free to low cost FBI back-round checks, psych-eval's when hiring and every 4th year., offer actual counselors the time to spend with students and the means to help them
To many to name.

Sounds good to me. LOL.....But no one listens to "US"

It's an excellent question and a good answer to it would take some good thought. Off the top of my head, as stated, we're not really being told how the money will be used. To say it will go to "special needs" - what does that mean? It means children with established IEPS? And how will it be used for those children?
Giving money to low-income schools sould like a good idea but is it? What will they do with the money?
What this sounds like to me is that everyone hopes to get some of the bailout funds and the National Teachers' Association is the country's second largest union. Deals must be made for things to happen in Washington or any other country's capitol.
If it were my bailout money to spend and I was directed to spend it on education, I'd reduce class size - no class of any age should have more than 18 students - and I'd reduce school size. I'd like to see us have the old community school system that still existed in the 1950s. It takes a community to have a school be successful and the large consolidated districts that became the norm in the 1960s don't serve well. Schools became too large, no less expensive and too dislocated from the communities that should be their support based. I'd also promote school choice - we have more choice about the purchase of a washing machine that we really do about our children's schools. We have to pull up stakes and move to get our children into a different school.
I'd also start and support more charter schools. I think the present system of education is not working well and remaking it by supporting smaller schools of choice makes sense to me.

"OH MAN", They were "WHINING DOWN HERE", how are we going to get the kids to school? We can't put gas in the buses. I was like "okay, where is the "lottery money?

Laura, you hit the nail on the head. In 1985, California added a lottery with the intent to supply extras for the classrooms--VCRs, TVs, computers. Soon the lawmakers started to budget less from the main budget since the lottery had "all that money." Then it was being used on salaries and before long, it was spread so thin, it was an expected part of the budget.

It's really frustrating when a state or national budget gets frittered away by politicians and pet projects. Don't even get me started on LA's idea about making an animal sanctuary.

I have to agree with "1sermen", when gas was so high, they wanted to know, where the money was coming from? We in NORTH CAROLINA, have a "lottery", I contacted the "news" and everyone, i could think to ask, "Where that money was going?"

Yes, to schools that need help. I am not looking at my school district or my home or the home of people living around around me.

The money should go directly to school without adequate building, chair, desk, classroom, pencils, pen, laboratory, toilet paper, and other essentials, which many school districts and homes take for granted.

My experience shows money does not solve all the problems, but helps in many/important ways. If you want to know how money helps, check out some schools outside your town, or talk with the director of special education in your school district, or talk with parents who often guess where to get a dinner for their children.

Yes, schools with many students with special needs, need the money to continue to carter for these wonderful children, which I think will help everyone including "rich" children.

A good question!

Interesting perspective, Kommie. I guess as a school site council member, an active community member, and former school board candidate, my mantra is, to quote an old movie, "Show me the money."

When districts are spending $150 million per year on unnecessary testing, when teachers are given benefits for life for a minimal amount of years worked, and when layers of bureaucracy gobble funds that never seem to make it to the classroom, I'm very leery of throwing more money at the problem.

As we've seen with the bank bailouts and the car industry bailouts, their poor financial choices make me suspect that more money should ever be given without an overhaul of the system we have now--and a serious accounting of where it all goes. Once we've determined if that's a good use of funds, then we can debate how much more they need.

My concern is that my children and future grandchildren will never get out from under the crushing debt--let alone get an adequate education.

YES!!!

Look US education is being left in the dust by Japan and European nations. If you don't better educate youth how will they build a better economy.

Mainly basic academics and the arts, and should suspend the JROTC program (we are no longer living in the Cold War people).

Hi lisaedit, this question sure is timely given California's legislature's inability to create a budget. I feel like promising ANY money from the feds to the states is like giving an addict a fix. The legislators are chomping at the bit to get a piece of that bailout pie, but they haven't learned how to balance a budget--last year's budget, even.

By promising money, it almost seems like they're going to delay the pain of actually balancing a budget for another year. And the bailout, with one-time money, would make things even more challenging next year since lawmakers won't face the implications of their (bad) decisions.

If some of the money were to come here, I'd like to send all the legislators back to Consumer Economics 101, where they learn to only write checks for what's in the bank. Apparently our lawmakers ditched class that day.