News-Record.com

GCS does not think systemically. Its not that the programs it implements are not valid, its that they are rarely implemented correctly or fairly. Does anyone check to see if staff development is applied at the school and classroom level? Does the district level office provide teachers and principals ongoing and onsite support to implement what is learned? Do people get hired to lead schools and district level offices that are qualified for their positions and can ensure that student growth? Are principals accountable for their growth in each school, or are they rewarded because of their political connections? Are teachers accountable for the progress of every student they teach? Does GCS make decisions that will benefit students who need it most, or do they bend to the political will of wealthier/more influential parents? These are only a few general questions that I think need to be closely examined before the schools can make any real improvement. Maybe they should just follow a simple business model- if what is being done doesn't work, find the root of the problem and fix it! Otherwise, those with fewer resources and influence will loose every time.

Here's a very recent question: Given the poor statistics regarding our IB students, why in the world did GCS just open yet another IB program at Page??? How many miles apart are Page and Grimsley - 2??? It's not as if Grimsley was bursting at the seams with IB graduates.

And, of course, there's Smith where 0, yes ZERO, of the IB students actually graduated with an IB diploma. How much money is that costing???

No one ever in GCS reviews programs for validity and efficiency.

Shut down Page's IB program NOW and let those students go to Smith.

Opening a IB program at Page is one of the most ill advised actions of Dr. Grier and the BOE. It makes no sense whatsoever. It was done because the Principal at Page wanted it. Site based management is keeping us from reaching our potential. I hope the new Supt. will concentrate on improving our current programs instead of dreaming up more new programs.

The new programs sap the time of the staff and keeps them from doing as much for the in-place programs as they should.

The staff must have credibility with the teachers. It is hard for teachers to embrace needed change when they are told that under site based managment they can do whatever they want.

Remember we are a large district with a lot of schools. New ideas can be tried in one or two schools. We don't have to do the same thing everywhere. Also, you must have goals. A teacher is much more likely to get the children to a certain level, if all concerned know what that level is.

Some teachers minimize reading and they are the ones that have the worst academic achievement. We seem unable to sell reading. Education without reading proficiency is almost impossible.

Morgan:

You are on to something. Critics of public education have been arguing for decades that the most dire problems we have are systemic, i.e., indemic in the way we do public education.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s and it seems to me that we have made education more complicated that it was and needs to be. Rather than dealing with root issues like violence, under achieving schools and poor outcomes school boards, like a lot of folks in government, create new programs with fancy names and high price tags. At best many of these programs are bandaids, and only allow the underlying problems to continue to fester.

We need focus. A clear eye on the biggest issues and a wilingness to roll up our sleeves and deal with them. The biggest criticism that I have heard of Dr. Grier is that he never met a flashy new program that he didn't like and that he would impose those programs district-wide.
The effects of ever-shifting priorities from central office on students, teachers and admininistrators must be maddening.

Should we be funding positions to teach Mandarin when we have elementary schools that are not meeting AYP? Learning a foreign language is important, but should we be spending money to teach Chinese when students haven't mastered reading English? (I understand the criticism about teaching to the lower achievers, and I am not necessarily suggesting that we should not fund Mandarin. I am using this argument simply to say that we need to prioritize).

On that note, our first priority should be school violence. We can't expect to keep good teachers and raise scores in classrooms regularly disrupted by unruly students. I have spoken with SROs and administrators and they swear by Teen Court. The punishment that the student receives is much more meaningful than what they receive if criminally charged. Additionally, one SRO reported to me that 70 percent of those students who go to Teen Court come back and are no longer problem students. I believe that a 70 percent success rate is a pretty good indicator of the efficacy of the program. Moreover, Teen Court is a lot cheaper than most of the proposals from the School Climate Task Force. Teen Court is not a panacea, but it is a good first step in dealing with school violence.

Which leads me to my next point (and yours) that often we don't have any idea how effective programs are and really don't care to know, apparently, because we don't measure the efficacy of programs. Indeed programs that aren't yielding results sometimes continue indefinitely because of their own inertia or because there is a politically powerful constituency that demands the program continue. Of course measuring and then deciding whether to continue a program demands that board members have courage, and put the interest of good education and taxpayers above factions.

Then let's address student achievement. We must have clear standards for students that they must meet. If a student needs extra help, let's get that extra help for him. However, we cannot continue to pass students along when they are not objectively meeting standards. My own experience demonstrates that that is what has happened in the past. Not one of the nearly 1050 students at Southeast Middle School was held back in 2006. Either we have a policy (as teachers told me we did) of not holding students back regardless of their performance or we live in Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average. (I'll leave it to your readers to decide which it is). We must insist that students learn, and be able to apply a certain level of knowledge, not simply pass them on so that they don't drop out and eventually graduate.

I look forward to a long and productive discussion followed by decisive action on these and other long-standing problems.

As far as discipline in the classroom goes, NC General Statute 115C-897.1 Article 27A Management and Placement of Disruptive Students carefully spells out what needs to be done with those students. Is it followed or even mentioned in GCS . . . of course not.

Paul,
you are correct, social promotion has been a let down for our society. I have often heard that a student that is held back will have low self worth. How good do they feel when they can't read and write, always making the lowest grades etc.

As far as new programs, ask the teachers! The people downtown just throw them new ideas and never touch base in a meaningful way. The teachers know. They are in the trenches each day. We need to evaluate cost of programs. If we are paying 4 times per student to have program A with less results than program B, then either redo program A or drop it.

We need a return to common sense .

Perhaps a good approach to implementing new programs might be to requite that the new program have a binding criteria that outlines success for the program. The program would have a sunset provision that if the program doesn't meet requirements within a prescribed time frame, such as 2-3 years, it will be terminated. Such an approach makes it easier for board members to deal with failing programs. If there is a prescribed implementation plan with benchmarks for success, then the program will determine its own fate. It either succeeds or fails and isn't maintained through political pressures long after it is deemed a failure. Such programs should be granted and guaranteed funding until the sunset date, and then if a program goes away, so does funding.

Is anyone involved in the recruitment of the new superintendent reading that study (and the comments in the column?) Because these are the questions that should be asked of all the candidates. Joe Stafford also made an important comment. "Site based management is keeping us from reaching our potential." I have said the same thing in a different way -- GCS over-decentralizes its management process. This is very convenient for the superintendent and school board, as they can usually duck responsibility, but it harms the school system when neither superintendent nor board are willing to develop or implement system-wide, consistent policies. I have a system question for the school board and all the candidates. When gas reaches $5 per gallon, how is GCS going to meet all its goals without so much expense on transportation?? I hope that they are thinking about that one now, because the time may be here sooner rather than later. One answer -- use the broadband and computer services that exist in all the schools to allow kids from any school to attend a virtual class on any subject. This would allow all kids to have access to everything from remedial to IB, regardless of where they live and to which school they go. It won't work for everything (like let's say, a chemistry lab or for a child that needs one-on-one interaction with the teacher) but it will work for many classes, reduce duplication, increase choice, and allow some of the busing to stop. Of course, this won't work in our public schools, even though most universities have internet classes, and in Australia they have been teaching high school classes in the Outback using video satellite links for decades.

Anonymous, I think that is a great idea (having a binding criteria)- the level of accountability also need to be strengthened for district officials who are alread responsible for implementing those programs. Also, Paul, the suggestions of the climate task force would seem to have a minimal cost. I don't believe the task force asked for more programs to be implemented or delegated to outside firms- therefore costing more money. Based on what I read, the task force asked for more support from already existing human resources at the district level to help teachers implement previously learned staff development ideas into their classroom instruction (coaching). As usual, the "high cost" argument is now being used as a smokescreen- to prevent real change. If there is cost involved- can we put a price tag on our children's education? - the a simple shifting of priorities would work. If schools work like most beaurocracies- there is probably a lot of waste.

Question:

Thanks for your comment. The proposals I was referring to from the SCTF were decreasing class size to 17 per class (and implicitly the building of schools to accomodate them) and additional counselors. The estimated costs of these proposals are in the many millions. One of the big problems with the report, as many see it, is that the SCTF didn't pay any attention to the costs of its proposals. (Notable absent, to my disappointment, was any mention by the SCTF of parental involvement or resposibility. We can't do it without parents).

There are, however, two relatively low-cost proposals in the SCTF report that seem to work: Teen Court and additional security officers at schools. Administrators I have spoken with tell me about playing "rodeo roundup" at their schools when they get a call from a teacher that they have to go and remove an unruly student from a class. This exercise sometimes takes up a good portion of their morning. Administrators are trained to handle discipline problems but they should not be devoting large blocks of the day doing it. Security officers, along with the SRO can remove the unruly students and free administrators to tend to the business of running a school.

First and foremost, SCTF was a group of hardworking volunteers. Let's not forget that.

Second, SCTF were told not to concern themselves with the costs. The SCTF did ask.

Third, Paul Clark, in his Rhino Times 4/10/08 article (Board All Hot Air on School Climate) stated quite succinctly and accurately the problem with SCTF and its outcome.

"The time-consuming and contentious task force exercise could be an object lesson in the worst possible way to not solve a problem.

Take a very real problem – violence and unrest in the schools. Fail to make the tough decisions to do anything about the problem, or to admit that the problem may be beyond your control. Hand the problem off to a well-meaning but powerless advisory panel with an open-ended mandate and no real guidance. Give the panel enough members, with enough conflicting opinions, that it's bound to deadlock.

Then let the panel spend months gathering information from worried teachers, staff, parents and students in hearings and surveys, inflaming public sentiment and dredging up divisive issues of race and class. Accept with great fanfare the recommendations of the hard-working panel, which has, unsurprisingly, produced a report that can't possibly be implemented. Then kill the report publicly by degrees, on television, alienating the public and the panel alike in the process.

Meanwhile, school violence continues unabated."
End quote.

IMHO, the SCTF was set up--I hope inadvertently-- for failure.

The board's intent may not have been to marginalize the SCTF's outcomes; unfortunately, that's exactly how it came across.

Sharon Ozment just as easily could have been directed to generate budget numbers for the recommendations BEFORE the SCTF presented their report instead of after. My guess is that it would have been a different report.

The members of the school board and GCS employees overall were (with one or two exceptions) rude and condescending to the the SCTF about the costs. During the televised presentation of the report and during discussion in subsequent board meetings, the school board and GCS employees, to their discredit, snickered and made snide remarks about the costs.That's inexcusable when it was the school board who directed the SCTF not to worry about the costs.

I think the school board and GCS owes the members of the SCTF a public apology.

Concerned Parent hit upon a thought that I have been having for some time now. Given the escalating price of fuel, coupled with the apparent over-crowding in schools, why are we even considering passing a school bond worth nearly $1/2 Billion to build a handful of new schools? As we saw with Northern, and apparently with the proposed Airport High, GCS only sees the need to build expensive, roomy school buildings for a modest number of students. They are building schools to last for many decades into the future. They are building "green" schools at a premium cost that will take decades to recoup the extra expense.

So, why isn't GCS thinking out of the box here? Why are they plowing ahead business as usual, when business isn't usual these days. The model of public education needs to be redesigned to fit out times. We are living in the age of electronics, and we are investing king's ransoms in brick and mortar. GCS has already invested vast amounts of funds in technology in the schools, so why aren't we thinking of using it in a virtual school environment? As CP said, universities are using this extensively now, why not public schools, who are under equal funding pressures? We've got to get away from the mindset that we can solve education problems with more money. I know that school board members and members of the administration read comments at this board, so why do they not open their minds to the 21st Century for modern ideas? Let's break the chains to 20th Century, and even 19th Century, ideas of education. Public schools are supposed to be about education, so let's focus our limited resources on achieving learning in the most cost-effective manner. And, 21st Century youth learn technology at very young ages, and they are fascinated with it. Why not leverage it to enhance learning.

Okay, now everyone can tel me why that will not work.

Paul Daniels, et al.:
I see some good questions and points brought up here. From my observations, it seems that public schools as well as other institutions are struggling with trying to fit (albeit tweak) 20th century solutions onto 21st century challenges. In an interview I once had with Dr. Grier, he mentioned the trend of educating students outside the classroom through technology (i.e. high school students taking online courses at home instead of going to a centralized facility). But doing that is still an obstacle because of the cultural and financial investment in school buildings as well as the way student funding formulas are structured.

I still don't get the sense that there is a shared community vision here about what students are expected to know and do when they graduate. Instead, a lot of the expectations seem to be imposed from the outside -- by federal and state education officials as well as the educational establishment, whether it be consultants, associations or what have you. I wonder, how many education officials are having their own innovative and creative thoughts versus parroting what they read or heard somewhere else.

I also hear a lot of "we've got to prepare kids to compete in the global economy." What does that mean exactly? Is the term "compete" still relevant and appropriate in today's age of taxed ecosystems and market oversaturation or does it encourage a stressful and uninspiring relationship between human beings? And given that some have serious questions about globalization and doubt its future viability, should that be Guilford County's focus? In fact, I am finding communities that are already trying to prepare for globalization's reverse by "relocalizing" their communities and reducing their dependence on foreign-made goods and fossil fuels. Spokane, Wash., and Boulder, Colo., and communities in Ohio are examples. Under those circumstances, an appropriate education might focus more on self-sufficiency, local food production, and creatively making do with less. Taking student loans out to pay for college in a contracting economy may no longer be financially viable for many. (I'm learning that lesson for myself as I am employed in contracting industry.)

It is possible that GC residents could still be paying off the schools they have built long after they become too expensive to operate (i.e. in terms of transporting kids). That should be interesting to watch.

Evidence of Systemic Issues, Flaws that Hold Students Back: Most realize that accountability has been justified in this system using test data, however, most do NOT know that the NC Blue Ribbon Commission reports NC test design is "way less than stellar" and yields measures that do not appropriately provide evidence of meaningful learning. In fact, these tests have not and do not produce reliable and valid evidence that children are learning to be problem solvers and critical thinkers. These tests are described by experts at evaluation as only attempting to provide evidence of an ability to memorize a mass of information and, in truth, such a focus on these test has crowded out learning. Whether a student can make sense out of memorized information and apply it to problems has not been adequately addressed. (Remember the saying, if we don't test it, they don't teach it.) This whole issue is evidence of a real systemic problem. Tracking data that substantiates good teaching or effective teaching strategies to provide direction has NOT occurred. There has been an overdependence on data that research staff should have known and probably did know was being misinterpreted. Do we hold the administration to the same accountability standards it holds teachers? NC has come out with new leadership standards to address such events. But we will all have to use our voices to loudly to advocate for: 1) teaching strategies centered on problem solving and 2)administrators that understand and support critical thinking! The meaning attributed to high standards and expectations needs to evolve into much more. It needs to include critical thinking.....not just a test score!

Morgan,

"Schools rarely collect baseline data prior to a change, so opinions abound but facts are minimal"

This seems to be the case with the current effort on the part of Eastern High School implementing a standard mode of dress (SMOD) for next year. Last night the proponents of this program gave parents an opportunity for an up or down vote. I found it interesting that the speakers candidly admitted that there is no empirical evidence that implementing SMOD correlates with improved academic performance. Administrators and the school improvement team did visit other high schools that have already implemented the program. The information they shared (paraphrased) was two-fold.

*The students looked good.

*The administrators said didn't regret the changes.

Several speakers presented their opinions on why SMOD should be adopted. These included the following:

*It takes too long for teachers to tell students to pull up their pants or tuck in their shirts.

*People are judged by what they wear. The implication is that teachers will prejudge students and deliver less than effective services if they are wearing non-SMOD styles.

*Non-SMOD clothing makes children unsafe.

*Another school reported that variation from SMOD after implementing the program correlates with a 15x increase in violent behavior (unsubstantiated).

There were a number of inconsistencies between the stated proposed policy and the actual outfits the students were wearing in the subsequent fashion show. These included a large logo on a hooded jacket, girls wearing shirts extended lower than their hips, a jumper with neither pleats nor A-line styling, and large jewelry. Interestingly, all the inconsistencies I noted were gender related. As well, the guidelines have imprecise areas for instance using 'appropriate' as a descriptor without giving a definition or context. I asked an administrator about this and he said that they did not want to be restrictive and would not be enforcing SMOD to the letter of the guidelines.

It seems to me that either there has not been a systematic evaluation of the merits of yet another program purported to improve student's outcomes or a systematic evaluation has been done and the school doesn't want to communicate the facts. I hope that the small percentage of parents that attended last night (those not biased by their relationship to the students performing or on the school improvement team) recognized that the information given was emotion and opinion driven and that there was very little of substance presented.

ZhaK,

As a parent of a student who was forced to SMOD this year, it's really not so bad after all. Even the kids will tell you that there isn't as much pressure to wear the "right" logo'd clothing anymore.

I've also heard the principal say that the noise level has decreased this year and he feels the students are more respectful.

I'm surprised hoodies would be allowed - those seem to banned at many schools now - SMOD or not.

Morgan,

"Schools rarely collect baseline data prior to a change, so opinions abound but facts are minimal"

I would like to add to this. Even when they do collect data or do research they choose to ignore the facts when they do not go along with their theories.

In April 2007, Justin Wright presented his findings on SMOD within Guilford County Schools to the Guilford County school board...
Guilford County Website: Research and Views:
John Wright, chief auxiliary officer, updated the board on general .
http://www.hoggsblog.com/?p=2055
GCS’s John Wright told our school board,

“You do not find one significant trend one way or another.”, in test scores (or any other indicator) ... that require a “standard mode of dress” (SMOD).
Including "discipline issues"....

After hearing Wright’s report, school board Chairman Allen Duncan figured that the board should offer some guidance on current and future implementations of SMOD. “We ought to take some message back to our schools with this.”, he said. Here’s the “message” they came up with*

“School leaders shouldn’t see uniforms as a panacea and should use them in tandem with other policies to address student achievement and discipline*. and the majority of parents and school employees should support their use.”

"The use of the SMOD policy should not be as a stand-alone method for improvement in school climate, discipline or achievement. GCS staff and national research suggest that this policy should be chosen for the right reasons, not for superficial ones, and should be used in combination with other improvement efforts. The GCS Board is currently allowing this program to remain a site-based decision so long as there is strong community support for it. "

After more than 10 years of students wearing uniforms you think we would have some data supporting their use.....other than the kids look better....and the teachers like the way they look.

Students should be expected to dress appropriate for school

... but should appropriate specify the exact color, material, number of buttons, or number of pockets are on of the clothes.

After two years of SMOD at Dudley...h
Have the test scores increased?
Have the graduation rates increased?
Have the discipline issues and fights decreased?
Do we have less turnover with the staff?

How do we measure its effectiveness?

Zhak,
I saw through the performance at EG last night. It was presented well and was quite emotional...especially when the officer said he was willing to take a bullet for my child.

Unless SMOD is bullet proof, I am not sold on it.
It was not long ago that a hand gun was taken off of a student at EG Middle...and he was in SMOD!!!
Of course....they did not bring that up...even though it was about the same week they found the guns and drugs at Southern, which was presented.

They have let the kids wear anything for years....and have not enforced any kind of dress code.

I also agree with the statement about what was actually presented at the fashion show. My daughter does not wear spandex shirts as tight as the students wore as SMOD last night. I also thought how the students came back on stage was quite humorous. Shirttails out, pants lowered....
This is how they will actually continue to wear their clothes...SMOD or not...so why should we give up jeans..and tshirts actually cover our body appropriately!! I thought it was quite ridiculous....

EGP,

Go for Smod. We pushed for it at our school last year and several of our friends were against. Almost everyone that I know now really likes it.
The kids are fine with it too and they look really smart heading into school each day.

Anonymous,

How much money does your PTA or school spend on SMOD for students that cannot afford it?

If you say nothing, your school is breaking the law?
(1996 Mandatory Uniform Act...Bill Clinton)

Personally, I don't think Guilford County schools have the funds to spend on uniforms for the number of Title 1 eligible kids that we have.

If they do then they do not need the school bonds?

Anonymous,

I appreciate your comments as you are speaking from the experience of having a child (ren) in school where SMOD has been implemented. I am sure that the appearance of the children has improved and that's nice. You also say that the children have adapted to the dress code. The issue of the hoodies may reflect that Eastern is still in trailers and the children need to walk outside in all weather. I did ask the administrator about this and he said that they would revisit this part when the new building with access to lockers is completed. I understand that all in all you are saying that SMOD is not bad.

Parent, you raise some interesting questions. Is SMOD good? Does it address whatever issues the school is attempting to address? And how is that measured? I would add, is there a more effective way to address sloppiness or carrying weapons or school violence? We were never told in a systematic way this is the issue, these are the options, this is the research backing up the effectiveness of implementing this program.

As well, thank you Parent for sharing the report to the school board. I would hope that when the results of last night's up or down vote are publicized they include a ratio of votes cast vs total number of families effected. It didn't seem to me that the handful of parents present represented broad based community input.

Finally, EGP, yes! What a hoot to see the students sigh in relief as they pulled out their shirt tails and loosened their belts. That was truly funny! As you say, there were some emotional moments and of course seeing the kids is always a feel good experience. I don't see any empirical evidence being presented. 'I feel that the school is better in some way' doesn't convince me one way or the other.

Are you saying the law states that a PTA is suppose to help with SMOD?

The law stated that the school should provide for the students that are unable to afford uniforms ....
not the PTA

...unfortunately it was the Eastern Guilford Middle School PTSA that spent thousands of dollars on SMOD. You will probably find that this is true across the county.

SMOD at Eastern Middle has been implemented by an unreasonable dictator. Students are receiving OSS if they forget to bring their gym shirt to class or wear a belt ...and a teacher has been fired because of clothing issues.

... which is why most of the students and parents do not want it at the high school.

We have had enough walk in a straight line, 0 level talking, and clothing inspections.....what is next...

I think we are the only public military school in NC..
still....can Johnny read....not if he spends most of his days in ISS/OSS for having too many pockets on his pants!

Oh my goodness...what a sin.....

For the record, no SMOD for Eastern High School. A letter from Dr. Reeves, Principal and posted on the Eastern website explains the results of last night's meeting:

"After the fashion show, each student household was allowed one vote. We had a total of 80 votes (43 Yes, 37 No).

The Guilford County School Board of Education allows SMOD to be an site-decision as long as there is "strong community support" for the proposed policy. After the vote last night I do not believe that we have strong community support for this initiative for Eastern Guilford High School next year."

Dr. Travis goes on to say that a more stringent dress policy will be developed by the end of this year for next year. I hope that it is reasonable and consistently enforceable.

The key is 'enforced'-- from what I see at most schools (I have been at many)-- the teachers/administrators become immune to the improper dress. They dont have the time or choose not to take the time to confront students that are inappropriately dressed. It takes time, each and every day. I have often said that if they would take 2 minutes at the beginning of first period, have everyone stand up, look at them and send the students to the office if they don't follow code, it would only take one week to make a big difference. When you let a few slide,then more and more will realize that the dress code is a joke and no one cares.

I would have no problem with a reasonable and
consistantly enforced dress code at Eastern that addresses the "real clothing issues" that we are currently seeing.

Here is a novel idea address the problems....

Our principal has publicly stated that he doesn't have the time to deal with dress issues

I understand the principal's comments. I guess that is why I don't understand why so much school time is being spent across the county enforcing SMOD.

If they do not want to enforce it...fine...
but don't swing from the exteme of enforcing nothing to SMOD. Our teachers cannot even agree on what is SMOD approved and what is not.

Though the research is mixed, I am against SMOD because of the very issues being talked about above. When will our schools start getting serious about INSTRUCTION!! When will they focus on whether students are learning or not. The purpose of schools is not to teach students how to dress appropriately. Yes, you should have a general dress code, but when you start adding stringent rules about dress, it only serves as a distraction from the issue of learning. Countless hours iare spent in staff meetings talking about dress code enforcement instead of about student learning and growth. If they are really teaching, teachers DO NOT have time to chase kids who are not dressed in the required uniforms. Teachers are not hired to be the clothing police- how rediculous! Maybe time should be spent focusing on improving classroom instruction- that is what drives everything else. If you have effective instruction and make connections with students- other positive things will follow. After that is done there will be a FEW students who still are unable to cooperate- that is when parents and administrators come in to solve the problem. I think some schools are taking the wrong approach by implementing SMOD. Especially because they are in schools that need academic improvement. Let the parents vote on an academic program that would improve test scores instead!

Eastern Middle was enforcing a stringent dress code and was down to 50 office referrals a day....
the same students(8th graders rebelling). If Eastern Middle had stayed with the dress code.....by now the 6th graders which were in full complience then would be 8th graders...and they would probably be having less than a handful of referrels a day. The teachers would be in the class rooms preparring to teach...not in the halls handing out the "yellow ticket" as the NAZI Clothing Police.

Yet ... go by on any day of the week and find out how many students are out of class and in ISS because of very trivial reasons...like a logo or he forgot his belt or he stood up in class (once) or he forgot his gym shorts.

Instead of teachers handling any discipline in the classroom...students are missing hours of class time. This is an example of something positive such as a dress code...going too far!

...and anyone should wonder why Eastern High voted NO!!

Yes, I agree with "Parents want order...." The answer is not more rules, but the right rules implemented fairly and consistently.

Putting a child for ISS and missing class time for not having a logo, belt, gyms short? Do adults go through that much scrutiny? Maybe the adults in the building should be put in ISS or get a "pink" ticket for not doing their job!

Parents could contact their Senators and Congressmen/women, and demand that the federal government devote more than 3 percent of the federal budget to education. It would be easy, if they would just stop spending more than 40 percent of our taxes on bombs and other military-related expenses.

Schools in the United States could even be the envy of Canada or the European Union,-- if citizens here would only make Washington D.C. get its spending priorities right.