"We end up punishing honor students to send a message to bad kids. But the data indicate that the bad kids are not getting the message." -- Professor Russell Skiba
I'm tempted to call bullshit. What educator uses the term "bad kids?"
But if a kid is truly and verifiably chronically disruptive, get them out.
Sigh.
My brother worked at school as an assistant in charge of discipline and dealing with disruptive students. He told me "It's really difficult for the teachers to understand why the children are misbehaving. To them, the kid is just playing up, but there are so many reasons. One child was far ahead of the others, and was just bored. Another child was being abused at home. Another child had ADD and couldn't concentrate. Another child was a new kid and wanted to establish a reputation he didn't actually deserve. To the teacher, all the kids were the same, and the teacher tried dealing with them all the same. Of course, the solution to each problem child was completely different."
Scott, it's back to the "tone" thing again. I know you are saying this to "help" the "bad kids", but you're really not doing yourself any favors. The bad kids are humans too. Have a little bit of compassion. Or at least pretend. Imagine you are in Bladerunner, and you're trying to pass yourself off as human, rather than being mistaken for a replicant.
I'm not saying get them out and leave them in the dust, doom them to a life of poop. I'm saying send them to military school. I think all kids, all people in fact, could benefit from a little bit more military style in their lives. People like me would be able to do a pushup. Every type of different problem a kid could have that you listed would be helped with a little bit of military school. It's not a bad thing. It would actually be an extremely beneficial thing. The kids who are less problematic will straighten out very quickly, and go back to regular school. The others will probably end up much better people with a military schooling than they would have otherwise.
Military schooling really isn't all that much different from regular school. You go to class, you do homework, you take tests. The major differences are that everyone wears a uniform, you address people as with respect at all times, you stand up straight, you keep quiet and pay attention in class, you listen to orders OR ELSE, and PE class is about ten times harder. It's mostly just a more restrictive and imposing environment to contain the kids who continually try to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
One child was far ahead of the others, and was just bored. Another child was being abused at home. Another child had ADD and couldn't concentrate. Another child was a new kid and wanted to establish a reputation he didn't actually deserve. To the teacher, all the kids were the same, and the teacher tried dealing with them all the same. Of course, the solution to each problem child was completely different
It's mostly just a more restrictive and imposing environment to contain the kids who continually try to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Look, I don't want to hammer this point too much, but do really think the solution to all disruptive kids is being sent to a military school? Check out that very small and anecdotal list of different reasons for kids to misbehave in class, and explain how your idea is the best thing for any of them.
Cognitive disabilities, hormonal imbalances, and mental retardation could be helped by military school? Would that socialize people with those problems?
Look, I don't want to hammer this point too much, but do really think the solution to all disruptive kids is being sent to a military school? Check out that very small and anecdotal list of different reasons for kids to misbehave in class, and explain how your idea is the best thing for any of them.
The kid who is far ahead of the others and just bored won't be bored in military school. The military is much more a meritocracy that wants to get the most out of everyone. They will recognize the kid is officer material, and make sure he's being challenged all the time. And if it doesn't challenge academically, it will certainly challenge physically. There's no boredom when you wake up early, go to bed late, and have a schedule full of non-stop work.
Abused at home? Well, the abuse will end immediately since you won't be going home. It's military school. You don't go home. If being taken away from abusive parents and getting some intense physical training isn't going to help that kid deal with abusive parents, what will? And that's only assuming child protective services doesn't get to those parents first.
The kid with ADD who can't concentrate will learn to concentrate. The military has doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists that will be damn sure to give proper medical analasys and treatment, if necessary. A little time with the drill sergeant every day will definitely help with attention skills.
Want to establish a reputation? The homogeneity of the military will get that idea out of your head right quick. The last thing you want in that kind of environment is to be the nail that sticks out. Because the nail that sticks out is hammered down.
Even someone well behaved and smart like me would have benefited from some military schooling. I would probably be a lot less assholish with the smack talk, since I would have gotten smacked right away. I probably wouldn't have a hunch from being forced to stand and sit up straight. I'd be able to do a pushup. A year or three would have done me some good.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that anyone in military school actually be forced into the real military. It should just be a school that is military-style in its nature. Nobody should be actually participating in defense in any way. If they want to join the real military later in life, that's up to the individual.
Okay. I'm actually at the point where I'm not sure if you are trolling or not. And so, Rym's assertion stands. Insofar as any thing is able to be legitimately confused by intelligent people with parody thereof, said thing is stupid.
Cognitive disabilities, hormonal imbalances, and mental retardation could be helped by military school? Would that socialize people with those problems?
If the cause of those is environmental, then yes. If the cause is medical, then yes because the military takes doctoring seriously. And obviously if someone wouldn't physically qualify for the military at all, then this won't be an option for them.
I don't see why this is even that crazy. In my school district they had what was known as "alternate school." Any kids who were expelled, still went to alternate school. It was just one hallway in the middle school that was physically segregated from the rest of the building where the really bad kids went to school. Quite a few of them were actually good kids who just got busted on stupid zero tolerance policies for marijuana and such. Also, some people chose to go to alternate school to get away from the regular school environment. I knew a few girls who got pregnant and elected to switch to alternate school where there were much fewer people, it was quieter, and they wouldn't have to walk through crowded high school hallways being stared at.
So this kind of behavioral segregation is already going on, so why not do more of it?
One misbehaving kid, no matter what their reasons are, is disrupting the entire classroom. Needs of the many, needs of the few, you know? In a classroom of say 30, why should 28 of them have their education hindered because 2 are troublesome? You can easily just separate those 2, and the remaining 28 will have a vastly superior educational experience. Instead of spending so much time on disciplinary issues of just a few students, the teacher will be able to spend almost all of the time on academic issues with all the students. Meanwhile, the troublemakers can get the special attention they need without ruining things for everyone else.
Maybe even now that the teacher doesn't have to spend so much time on discipline, you will be able to do without the academic segregation. The teacher will have time to recognize which kids are further along than others, and come up with creative ways of pushing all the students to their limits even though they are in the same room. You know, instead of breaking up fights and policing bullshit.
If you tried to send me to a military school on the grounds that I'm smart and the military is a meritocracy so I'd like it, I'd request that my parents homeschool me or send me to a non-military private institution.
Well the american military is kind of a weak example considering that it's basically an unskilled labour position you would probably be correct.
However here in Canada I can tell you first hand that the military approach works 99% of the time for this kind of bullshit, and the 1% that it doesn't work that individual leaves to do whatever else they would be doing. The reason it works is very simple, very high expectations are placed on you immediately, therefore the general status quo goes up, you are then put in an environment where your sense of individuality is removed and focus is placed on the group. It no longer becomes 'do I want to do my homework' and is more along the lines of 'if I don't do the homework then everyone in my squad/flight/unit will suffer and then they will be angry at me because I caused them to be punished. In short they engineer an intense form of peer pressure to motivate almost everyone.
This works to eliminate most of the 'drama' and other interpersonal bullshit that detracts from what you are supposed to be doing as well. During training they put you through semi traumatic group experiences that form an intense bond where most of the inter group distractions get eliminated and people start to work to support each other in a much more helpful way. They also set it up so that everyone develops leadership qualities to some extent.
Because of the unique environment the military provides most of the 'segregation' and 'disciplining individuals' in classrooms would be unnecessary. People would spend more time helping each other succeed.
For example all of the people that I study with or who have helped me in classes are either currently in the military or were in the military, and I didn't choose them because of that, I often met them, worked with them and found out a month or so after the fact.
So you shouldn't put the hate on something before you know what it actually is.
I'm not saying that military schooling doesn't work, and I'm certainly not hating on the military; I'm saying that I know what my learning style is, and I know that the methodology used in US military academies would have done nothing but breed a streak of rebelliousness and resentment towards learning in me. Also, I've been a technical pacifist since I was young enough to understand war, so it doesn't jibe with me ideologically either.
Definitely not hating on it, though. I've got some good friends training to be officers or clandestine operatives, or actively serving in skilled positions (air force pilots with double majors). It's just a personal choice, and I have a HST-style fetishistic obsession with military tech, so I certainly can't fault anyone for joining up in exchange for schooling if it works for them.
You say it wouldn't work for you, but were you a troublemaker in school? Do you think if your teachers had to list the children who were causing a serious and repeated disruption to the learning environment, that your name would be brought up?
So you shouldn't put the hate on something before you know what it actually is.
I am not putting hate on anything, nor am I bashing the idea of a military school or academy. I'm just completely baffled at Scott's complete lack of empathy, and his reductive thinking.
Eg. Problem: Child getting abused at home and playing up in class. Solution: send kid to military school.
WTF? No!
There are many reasons for children to be playing up in school. The teachers don't have time during the class to figure out the underlying reason, and then when not in class its difficult to study the same problem. This is why my brother's job, when he last worked at a school, was to spend time with all of the "bad kids" to work out exactly what needed to be done. In most cases the solution was unique to the child, and in most cases the solution he came up with worked. How many kids did he send to military school? None!
With some older kids, some kind of boot camp might be just what they need, but this shouldn't and couldn't apply to everyone, as Scott says. I would have hated military school! I don't want my individuality to be subsumed into the group, and I don't want to be put through any kind of traumatic experiences (although the traumatic experiences I've had have made me a better person).
Unlike Scott and most of the other people here, I didn't get straight A's at school. I wasn't a nerd. I don't know shit about calculus or algebra. I got my degree at university in two years instead of three, but in doing so got a basic pass mark. But you know what? I'm doing okay for myself. Under Scott's system I might have had to go to military school... I certainly wasn't the least disruptive kid in class!
One day Scott will have an idea about what needs to change about society, and it will include HIM doing extra work, or spending more of HIS money, or inconvenience HIM in some way. Or someone like him.
But you know what? I don't think Scott is capable of thinking like this.
You say it wouldn't work for you, but were you a troublemaker in school? Do you think if your teachers had to list the children who were causing a serious and repeated disruption to the learning environment, that your name would be brought up?
There are also kids who are major problems and major disruptions because they have a mental disorder, and there are kids who are just assholes. If you send the one with the mental disorder to a boot camp, it will only be worse.
Unlike Scott and most of the other people here, I didn't get straight A's at school.
I didn't either.
I certainly wasn't the least disruptive kid in class!
How disruptive were you, exactly? I don't think you quite understand the level of disruption I'm talking about here.
- Students standing in the hall and kicking classroom doors for five to ten minutes at a time - Students fighting - Teachers pelted with paper, pencils, erasers, and rocks whenever they turned their heads - Assignments torn up and thrown on the floor the moment they’re passed out - Teachers cursed at, threatened, and sometimes even assaulted - Classroom supplies vandalized or thrown about the room - Groups of students running the halls and showing up to one or two classes at most - Constant yelling and shouting from the hallways - Gang writing written on the walls with permanent markers - Students talking and yelling so loud in the classroom that nobody could hear the teacher
If you send the one with the mental disorder to a boot camp, it will only be worse.
Military school isn't boot camp. The military has a great deal of expertise at handling mental disorders and things like PTSD. I have a great deal of confidence they will be much better at handling mental disorders than your average public school.
Scott have you ever been to Military school? Do you have an idea of their curriculum? Its all well and good saying send problem kids to military school but how do you know that it is best for them educationally. Again not bashing on the military.
My girlfriends mum works with kids that have been thrown out of schools for being disruptive and can unequivocally agree that, yes they need some discipline but they need someone to talk to far more.
To shy from Scott's specifics, I think we can all agree on the simple fact that those far above and far below the median of the bell curve all need specialized education, and that the high cost likely involved should not deter us from trying to provide it.
The higher end is actually probably much cheaper. In middle school, they just bussed me over the the high school for science classes. In high school, they had special high performer tracks with excellent teachers. Whenever there weren't enough students advanced enough in one area to warrant a teacher and full class (the minimum was around 8 students), independent study was offered as an option. The high performing students were by and large free to do whatever they wanted so long as they continued to be high performers.
Give the smartest and most motivated the freedom to challenge themselves and they almost invariably will. The problem with our schools is that not only are these students not challenged, but they are actively opposed in challenging themselves during the school day.
What I would propose is that all schools have an option for high performing students to gain a degree of freedom so long as they are able to demonstrate core competency.
The low performers are likely much more costly to help, as even if motivated, their cases will likely require various specialized and personal intervention. The high likely cost, however, is no excuse. I would propose government funding of guaranteed special education in public magnet schools for any student who demonstrates need where their local public schools are unable to address it. Thus, if the local school has programs to intervene and integrate successfully (without holding high performers back), the student can attend his normal school. But where small, rural, or otherwise struggling schools are unable to provide, the government must provide an alternative.
The purpose of these magnet schools is an economy of scale for particular issues. Violently disruptive children are a very different problem from, say, children with specific mental handicaps or dangerous home situations. Removing a child from a toxic home environment to, say, a boarding school, might be the best option in some cases. Specialized schools need to be available to allow tailored intervention for all cases, as we certainly can not expect every school to be able to address every edge case.
TL;DR: Guarantee special education for both ends of the bell curve whatever the cost. Where this isn't feasible, consolidate to gain an economy of scale.
How disruptive were you, exactly? I don't think you quite understand the level of disruption I'm talking about here.
Here's the thing: I had no bad experiences with disruption in my school. In the majority of classes the students were separated according to ability, and everything worked out. In the first year at secondary school I was in the LOWEST class, with all the disruptive smelly kids. In the last year at school I was in the second highest class. Depending on the class, we often didn't have a teacher assigned full time. Most kids just got on with it. I don't remember any classes being overly disrupted.
If those things you list happen on a regular basis, the problem probably doesn't lay with the kids, it lays with the school or the education system itself. Why should the kids be punished at that point?
the problem probably doesn't lay with the kids, it lays with the school or the education system itself. Why should the kids be punished at that point?
On this point I agree strongly. Our system definitely has major, fundamental problems, and many of the issues children are not facing are likely just symptoms thereof.
If those things you list happen on a regular basis, the problem probably doesn't lay with the kids, it lays with the school or the education system itself. Why should the kids be punished at that point?
So you were opposed to my academic segregation idea, so I offer a behavioral segregation idea. Then you suggest that my original idea of academic segregation is the way to go. WTF?
Also, on the issue of expense, that's another good reason to go with military school. In the US, the vast majority of tax dollars go to the military. We can't seem to get any of them diverted to education. Well, if we made the military provide the most expensive part of the education, that would take care of that.
So you were opposed to my academic segregation idea, so I offer a behavioral segregation idea. Then you suggest that my original idea of academic segregation is the way to go. WTF?
WTF? When did I ever say I was against academic segregation?
My primary school had 21 children. And two classes. Aged 10, I was in the same class, and often being taught the same thing as the 8 year old children. This isn't just non-segregation of ability, but also age. In my previous post I mentioned being put in the lowest level in my first year, and this was in maths class, and I see it was purely because of being taught at a level two years younger than me for the few years before I went to the secondary school. Thankfully I went up through the levels every year at secondary school!
My views on education are way more complex than saying "segregation good/bad" though. In some cases and classes, sure. In other cases, I think it is better to be integrated.
Also, on the issue of expense, that's another good reason to go with military school. In the US, the vast majority of tax dollars go to the military. We can't seem to get any of them diverted to education. Well, if we made the military provide the most expensive part of the education, that would take care of that.
Again, Rym's Assertion holds true here. I'm still not completely convinced you're being serious on this point.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott is going full retard bycutting around $3 billion from Miami-Dade's education budget, which is stupid enough as is considering hepromised he wouldn't cut the education budget.He's trying some good ol' fashioned revisionism too. As if that wasn't bad enough, that lying, greedy fucker is doing it in order tofucking pay for motherfucking tax fucking breaks. This is why I hate, HATE republicans.
Don't even get me started. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio is pushing House Bill 5 to break all public employee unions, meaning teachers, firefighters, police, and other employees would no longer be able to do collective bargaining. Kasich plans to bomb Ohio education back into the stone age by reducing new teacher salaries to $17,000 and salaries for teachers with master's degrees to $32,000. He wants to have the power to fire any teacher who strikes, and fine them twice their daily salary for each strike day; this includes hiring permanent scabs during any public employee union strike.
Have you guys heard what is happeningin Wisconsin? I think what the Democrats did yesterday was a pretty ballsy move in order to stop the legislation from moving forward.
Kasich plans to bomb Ohio education back into the stone age by reducing new teacher salaries to $17,000 and salaries for teachers with master's degrees to $32,000. He wants to have the power to fire any teacher who strikes, and fine them twice their daily salary for each strike day; this includes hiring permanent scabs during any public employee union strike.
I'm getting really really fed up with policies that are not supported by facts. "We should repeal Obamacare because it's going to bankrupt the government!" "Um, no it's not. We have facts and shit. In fact, repealing it will make things worse" "I don't believe facts, I just go with what I think."
So, is there some kind of teacher salary problem in Ohio? Is the state spending an inordinate amount of money on teacher salaries? What's the basis for this policy?
I'm getting really really fed up with policies that are not supported by facts. "We should repeal Obamacare because it's going to bankrupt the government!" "Um, no it's not. We have facts and shit. In fact, repealing it will make things worse" "I don't believe facts, I just go with what I think."
So, is there some kind of teacher salary problem in Ohio? Is the state spending an inordinate amount of money on teacher salaries? What's the basis for this policy?
Classic special pleading comes into play too, I'd bet. "Oh, these facts come from the obama government, so they're OBVIOUSLY fiddling the numbers"
Comments
My brother worked at school as an assistant in charge of discipline and dealing with disruptive students. He told me "It's really difficult for the teachers to understand why the children are misbehaving. To them, the kid is just playing up, but there are so many reasons. One child was far ahead of the others, and was just bored. Another child was being abused at home. Another child had ADD and couldn't concentrate. Another child was a new kid and wanted to establish a reputation he didn't actually deserve. To the teacher, all the kids were the same, and the teacher tried dealing with them all the same. Of course, the solution to each problem child was completely different."
Scott, it's back to the "tone" thing again. I know you are saying this to "help" the "bad kids", but you're really not doing yourself any favors. The bad kids are humans too. Have a little bit of compassion. Or at least pretend. Imagine you are in Bladerunner, and you're trying to pass yourself off as human, rather than being mistaken for a replicant.
Military schooling really isn't all that much different from regular school. You go to class, you do homework, you take tests. The major differences are that everyone wears a uniform, you address people as with respect at all times, you stand up straight, you keep quiet and pay attention in class, you listen to orders OR ELSE, and PE class is about ten times harder. It's mostly just a more restrictive and imposing environment to contain the kids who continually try to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Abused at home? Well, the abuse will end immediately since you won't be going home. It's military school. You don't go home. If being taken away from abusive parents and getting some intense physical training isn't going to help that kid deal with abusive parents, what will? And that's only assuming child protective services doesn't get to those parents first.
The kid with ADD who can't concentrate will learn to concentrate. The military has doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists that will be damn sure to give proper medical analasys and treatment, if necessary. A little time with the drill sergeant every day will definitely help with attention skills.
Want to establish a reputation? The homogeneity of the military will get that idea out of your head right quick. The last thing you want in that kind of environment is to be the nail that sticks out. Because the nail that sticks out is hammered down.
Even someone well behaved and smart like me would have benefited from some military schooling. I would probably be a lot less assholish with the smack talk, since I would have gotten smacked right away. I probably wouldn't have a hunch from being forced to stand and sit up straight. I'd be able to do a pushup. A year or three would have done me some good.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that anyone in military school actually be forced into the real military. It should just be a school that is military-style in its nature. Nobody should be actually participating in defense in any way. If they want to join the real military later in life, that's up to the individual.
I don't see why this is even that crazy. In my school district they had what was known as "alternate school." Any kids who were expelled, still went to alternate school. It was just one hallway in the middle school that was physically segregated from the rest of the building where the really bad kids went to school. Quite a few of them were actually good kids who just got busted on stupid zero tolerance policies for marijuana and such. Also, some people chose to go to alternate school to get away from the regular school environment. I knew a few girls who got pregnant and elected to switch to alternate school where there were much fewer people, it was quieter, and they wouldn't have to walk through crowded high school hallways being stared at.
So this kind of behavioral segregation is already going on, so why not do more of it?
One misbehaving kid, no matter what their reasons are, is disrupting the entire classroom. Needs of the many, needs of the few, you know? In a classroom of say 30, why should 28 of them have their education hindered because 2 are troublesome? You can easily just separate those 2, and the remaining 28 will have a vastly superior educational experience. Instead of spending so much time on disciplinary issues of just a few students, the teacher will be able to spend almost all of the time on academic issues with all the students. Meanwhile, the troublemakers can get the special attention they need without ruining things for everyone else.
Maybe even now that the teacher doesn't have to spend so much time on discipline, you will be able to do without the academic segregation. The teacher will have time to recognize which kids are further along than others, and come up with creative ways of pushing all the students to their limits even though they are in the same room. You know, instead of breaking up fights and policing bullshit.
On that idea, you went full retard, Scott.
However here in Canada I can tell you first hand that the military approach works 99% of the time for this kind of bullshit, and the 1% that it doesn't work that individual leaves to do whatever else they would be doing. The reason it works is very simple, very high expectations are placed on you immediately, therefore the general status quo goes up, you are then put in an environment where your sense of individuality is removed and focus is placed on the group. It no longer becomes 'do I want to do my homework' and is more along the lines of 'if I don't do the homework then everyone in my squad/flight/unit will suffer and then they will be angry at me because I caused them to be punished. In short they engineer an intense form of peer pressure to motivate almost everyone.
This works to eliminate most of the 'drama' and other interpersonal bullshit that detracts from what you are supposed to be doing as well. During training they put you through semi traumatic group experiences that form an intense bond where most of the inter group distractions get eliminated and people start to work to support each other in a much more helpful way. They also set it up so that everyone develops leadership qualities to some extent.
Because of the unique environment the military provides most of the 'segregation' and 'disciplining individuals' in classrooms would be unnecessary. People would spend more time helping each other succeed.
For example all of the people that I study with or who have helped me in classes are either currently in the military or were in the military, and I didn't choose them because of that, I often met them, worked with them and found out a month or so after the fact.
So you shouldn't put the hate on something before you know what it actually is.
Definitely not hating on it, though. I've got some good friends training to be officers or clandestine operatives, or actively serving in skilled positions (air force pilots with double majors). It's just a personal choice, and I have a HST-style fetishistic obsession with military tech, so I certainly can't fault anyone for joining up in exchange for schooling if it works for them.
Eg. Problem: Child getting abused at home and playing up in class. Solution: send kid to military school.
WTF? No!
There are many reasons for children to be playing up in school. The teachers don't have time during the class to figure out the underlying reason, and then when not in class its difficult to study the same problem. This is why my brother's job, when he last worked at a school, was to spend time with all of the "bad kids" to work out exactly what needed to be done. In most cases the solution was unique to the child, and in most cases the solution he came up with worked. How many kids did he send to military school? None!
With some older kids, some kind of boot camp might be just what they need, but this shouldn't and couldn't apply to everyone, as Scott says. I would have hated military school! I don't want my individuality to be subsumed into the group, and I don't want to be put through any kind of traumatic experiences (although the traumatic experiences I've had have made me a better person).
Unlike Scott and most of the other people here, I didn't get straight A's at school. I wasn't a nerd. I don't know shit about calculus or algebra. I got my degree at university in two years instead of three, but in doing so got a basic pass mark. But you know what? I'm doing okay for myself. Under Scott's system I might have had to go to military school... I certainly wasn't the least disruptive kid in class!
One day Scott will have an idea about what needs to change about society, and it will include HIM doing extra work, or spending more of HIS money, or inconvenience HIM in some way. Or someone like him.
But you know what? I don't think Scott is capable of thinking like this.
My girlfriends mum works with kids that have been thrown out of schools for being disruptive and can unequivocally agree that, yes they need some discipline but they need someone to talk to far more.
The higher end is actually probably much cheaper. In middle school, they just bussed me over the the high school for science classes. In high school, they had special high performer tracks with excellent teachers. Whenever there weren't enough students advanced enough in one area to warrant a teacher and full class (the minimum was around 8 students), independent study was offered as an option. The high performing students were by and large free to do whatever they wanted so long as they continued to be high performers.
Give the smartest and most motivated the freedom to challenge themselves and they almost invariably will. The problem with our schools is that not only are these students not challenged, but they are actively opposed in challenging themselves during the school day.
What I would propose is that all schools have an option for high performing students to gain a degree of freedom so long as they are able to demonstrate core competency.
The low performers are likely much more costly to help, as even if motivated, their cases will likely require various specialized and personal intervention. The high likely cost, however, is no excuse. I would propose government funding of guaranteed special education in public magnet schools for any student who demonstrates need where their local public schools are unable to address it. Thus, if the local school has programs to intervene and integrate successfully (without holding high performers back), the student can attend his normal school. But where small, rural, or otherwise struggling schools are unable to provide, the government must provide an alternative.
The purpose of these magnet schools is an economy of scale for particular issues. Violently disruptive children are a very different problem from, say, children with specific mental handicaps or dangerous home situations. Removing a child from a toxic home environment to, say, a boarding school, might be the best option in some cases. Specialized schools need to be available to allow tailored intervention for all cases, as we certainly can not expect every school to be able to address every edge case.
TL;DR: Guarantee special education for both ends of the bell curve whatever the cost. Where this isn't feasible, consolidate to gain an economy of scale.
If those things you list happen on a regular basis, the problem probably doesn't lay with the kids, it lays with the school or the education system itself. Why should the kids be punished at that point?
Also, on the issue of expense, that's another good reason to go with military school. In the US, the vast majority of tax dollars go to the military. We can't seem to get any of them diverted to education. Well, if we made the military provide the most expensive part of the education, that would take care of that.
My primary school had 21 children. And two classes. Aged 10, I was in the same class, and often being taught the same thing as the 8 year old children. This isn't just non-segregation of ability, but also age. In my previous post I mentioned being put in the lowest level in my first year, and this was in maths class, and I see it was purely because of being taught at a level two years younger than me for the few years before I went to the secondary school. Thankfully I went up through the levels every year at secondary school!
My views on education are way more complex than saying "segregation good/bad" though. In some cases and classes, sure. In other cases, I think it is better to be integrated.
This is why I hate, HATE republicans.
I think what the Democrats did yesterday was a pretty ballsy move in order to stop the legislation from moving forward.
And we wonder why there are so many stupid people.
So, is there some kind of teacher salary problem in Ohio? Is the state spending an inordinate amount of money on teacher salaries? What's the basis for this policy?