I suppose there are those out there who would oppose education in any form. It would appear that, in Afghanistan, the Taliban are fairly definite that they feel women should not be educated and, in fact, should not even be allowed to learn to read. I, however, am not among that group. I am fully in favor of education for all people and believe that in it lies the hope of the world's continued survival.

This does not mean that I am a keen supporter of everything currently happening in the field today. I find it lamentable that tests show so many teachers entering the field who are unable display competence in the basic realms of reading, writing, and arithmetic. (And, lest you be quick to judge me on my grammatical skills, let me point out that at no time do I imply that I am proficient in this field and much less do I claim that I am qualified to teach others.)

Near the end of each school year, we are beset by a profligate number of commercials extolling the virtue of purchasing a gift for the teacher. I confess to not quite understanding this. If you are so moved to do so, then by all means, purchase a gift. But why is it this profession which is so worthy of this type of display of gratitude? Do we purchase gifts for everyone who performs his/her job to the best of his/her ability? When is the last time you sent a gift to your local fireman?

Another thing which I do not understand is the concept of tenure. Now, admittedly, I do not know precisely what tenure is and if it differs significantly from school to school, but my understanding is basically that it is a situation where, once one has been granted tenure, that they can not later lose their job without some egregious form of misconduct such as shooting the school administrators or voting Republican. Why is that? Who else enjoys the security of such a system? Why is tenure such an obstacle to removing a teacher who is no longer competent? I have heard it said that teachers need the protection of tenure in order to allow them to feel free to teach controversial subjects. Well, firstly, although a philosophy teacher might benefit from this, why does a geometry teacher need it? Or a chemistry teacher? Or a history teacher? Secondly, why should the teacher expect to feel free to teach subjects with which those in charge are unhappy? If someone wants to teach something that controversial, let them pay for their own school to do it. Supporting free speech is fine, but I see no reason why I should be expected to pay for someone to teach something so controversial that without the protection of tenure they would be fired for teaching it. And no, I don't really think that this will stifle creativity and bold, new thinking. It just means that if you want to walk to the beat of your own drum, then you should be expected to pay the drummer, not me.

I am also anti-bilingual education. I don't believe that we should be expected to teach children in their non-English language for the entire period of their education. Those who choose to enter our country should realize that the USA is an English-speaking country and they should be prepared to learn it. I believe that we should provide courses in the English language both night and day, and that these courses should work to enable the student to enter public school and take the normal classes which are taught in English. Few people become proficient in a language if they do not have to use it. Our nation is not benefited by the division into differing language groups. As an aside, I am, however, strongly in favor of everyone learning another language. I believe that this builds tolerance into the culture. I personally support Esperanto and ardently wish that it were a requirement in elementary school.