One of the questions is whether the tradeoff to the effort of pulling up all the trouble(d) kids: are the lost resources going to help you from helping others? Could those trouble(d) kids drag down others?
It isn't necessarily a binary. There can be an understanding that schools are too quick to push out difficult students, but this doesn't mean that it should never happen.
As for busing, that was a massively unpopular strategy. There's no indication that parents and society are on board, and I'm not sure how to make that happen.
To go with your 1 in 100 example, 1 in 100 people is a psycopath.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20180...as-a-sociopath
They're also not evenly distributed, which is going to complicate any efforts to make sure to lift up every student.
Great point that it's not just about what's easier for teachers, but what's best for all the students.That sounds like a very American thing. I could be wrong. I don't recall schools here caring too much about that.
True, but that's a two way street. They are being paid by ALL students, and if a few are requiring more "attention" (RE: discipline) that also failing all the rest (who pay the same) to get subpar attention. Either way it's not 'fair', so I'd favour on the side of those there to learn, not those who don't want to be there.
The arguments about education being a right have some interesting implications. Does this mean it should be easier to charge parents with educational neglect.My philosophy is education is a right and privilege, but it's not one you should keep indefinitely. Easier to say, harder to implement. Thank god I'm not the education secretary.
There may be better services for the 1% when they're with an administration with the specialized training to deal with them.I think there is a middle ground. YES, you can increase the overall "team" by the better performances of the upper end raising the bar, and pushing and challenging the rest. But the most effective way to increase the most, surely, is sometimes chopping away the 1% who are seriously hindering the progress of the majority?
It seems there's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't argument on private schools. One would argue that if private schools are a business, they're not entitled to funding for educational services. Someone else would find some reason to argue that private schools shouldn't be entitled to funding for small businesses.
But isn't it also social darwinism to force the other students to be in classes with the "difficult" kids. And we should be clear what "difficult" means. These are students more likely to be disruptive, to threaten violence, to engage in hate speech, to be violent, to bring drugs, to destroy school property, to steal, etc.
One can also argue that difficult students have more incentives to behave if there are consequences to sexual harassment, cyberbullying, vandalism, etc.