Apparently Agriculture and Veteran's affairs are more important than the Education of our children and future citizens? https://www.npr.org/.../a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of...
Sunday, November 17, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
69 comments:
Some Interesting Info
States need the funding for Spec Ed, Title one, and grants for low income college students. I don't think Congress will eliminate the dept of Ed.
I think they should leave it to the states to offer vouchers if they want, although I do not support them.
Laurie
I think the argument was that the Treasury Dept can take care of the money transfer tasks.
Best look after your own house first. Robbinsdale schools made a $20million error? On top of an existing $27 million financial mess? So hard to get good help these days, and are the kids learning anything?
Good to see you are still alive.
My district seems to have a LOT of problems. Thankfully I do not have any kids in it anymore. And we are encouraging the kids to send the grand kid to Wayzata or Osseo. I have had enough of a diverse poor student body and all the struggles that come with it. :-)
So, why can't the parents like you (or your kids) send their kids to ANY school, using a voucher? Even if every parent were offered vouchers, those in good schools would take them to their current public school, and even those poor kids in poor schools would not have enough space, at least for several years, in alternative, non-public schools that would serve them better. That's why my proposal to allow these new schools to operate in the same buildings, teaching the kids from those buildings, and maybe even in just selected classes. Solves a lot of problems with the transition and lets the public school infrastructure continue to be used, while the public schools themselves figure out how to improve with that "diverse" student body.
Same old problem... The amount of the voucher needs to vary by the needs of the child. How to estimate that number?
Don't estimate, calculate. Average local per-pupil expenses (varies by age and obviously by district), and then tack on a special-ed adder according to their IEP. Don't throw away what is good for 83.1% for the sake of the 16.9%. And I believe we categorize FAR too many kids as special ed, when a bit of proper teaching would be fine for many of them, or even just a few "remedial" classes. The costs short-change the other students.
At least you have not changed your story... Which has always been incorrect...
Actual cost varies by much more than just age, district and special need.
Are you ready to tell me about your "miracle" school that does great for little money?
Sure. Any school any Mississippi. They spend half what MN does and their kids outperform ours in reading.
And if costs vary beyond age (even the State formula grants twice the amount to high school students as it does to k-6), district and SE, what is it? Are you going to finally explain why some school districts in MN deliver twice the results for half the money, yet claim that district isn't a substantial factor? Especially when the state formula compensates for all that other "stuff"?
It does look like Mississippi may be getting its act together finally. Though it still has a long way to go. Miracle?
Apparently the formula is not specific enough... We know that districts are not funded adequately for special needs services and that they need to steal from the other revenue streams.
The same occurs when children are just below the "special needs" threshold in capabilities and support. That is why I can estimate cost and success with 4 factors: mobility, poverty, language, special needs levels.
Data Source
I say the formula is too specific, and factors in the wrong things. Nonetheless, if you say you can estimate the amount of a voucher from those 4 factors, let us do that and start passing them out. One suspects that "poor"/"disadvantaged" students will get larger amounts and I'm OK with that so long as EVERY parent gets one and allows that voucher to go to ANY school. I am convinced that is the only way to introduce competition into the "business" of education to produce better results at lower cost, like in any other business. Either that or, by government fiat, give every public school the state average funding and make them justify additional funding above that, TIED to some required improvement in academic performance, like NCLB was supposed to do.
I am convinced that Bush was right, that achievement gaps like MN's second-in-the-nation are caused by "the soft bigotry of low expectations," and that is why Mississippi has been successful, above MN.
Thanks for the data link. It confirms that in 2022, MS's 4th grade reading score was higher than MN's, on average. The number I was looking at was from 2023, and showed that, for minority students especially, MS's was MUCH higher. It simply tells me that it makes every difference in WHAT is taught and HOW it is taught. I think I've told you of my experience with the Mississippi schools, and how they take kids from where they are, academically, and get them to where they need to be. Up here, y'all tend to put a teacher in front of a class and lecture to the "average" student. Some could be replaced with a videotape. There should be an expectation that every kid will (more or less) "get it" and that if they don't, they need additional help. Like I do when I tutor at the Elementary.
Maybe someday it will happen... But I am not holding my breath.
I am not a fan of public money going to religious schools...
You still suffer from "confirmation bias" if you are looking for that one cherry amongst the data...
I am not a fan of public money being spent to damage children and the country as a whole. If education is a public good, and it is, then any money spent should be spent efficiently and to maximize that good. Far from the case with the current public school (essentially a) monopoly.
I'm looking at the same NAEP data you are, just a different side of it. Yes, it confirms what I already thought. Stating a logical conclusion clearly based on the official and available data is NOT bias. Even if you don't like it.
Minnesota's public schools ARE failing an entire generation. Something like 50% of all students cannot read at grade level. What other business is allowed to continue, so greatly subsidized, with results like that?
As for public money going to "religious schools" you are displaying a clear bias, totally irrelevant to the problem. Courts have already ruled that, so long as the educational purposes are met--i.e. the kids are taught essential subjects-- the incidental classes in religion do not matter. And what do you call the now-required classes in "CRT" or "LGBTQWTF" being taught in some parts of the public schools? I ask again: if you do not want to create true competition in education through the use of "the money follows the child," how do you propose to overcome the totally unacceptable status quo?
Same way as I usually recommend
Acknowledging that LGBTQ children in a classroom are normal is the same as acknowledging that White, Black and other children are normal. Not sure why you would be against that?
CRT Information
Are you one of those folks who want to down play slavery, the Jim Crow days, the KKK, race riots, etc and pretend that us White folks did not keep our kness on the necks of minorities for the first 190 years of our country's existence?
That's silly and beneath both you and this conversation. There are a lot of factors in success, but institutional racism isn't one of them. Except maybe in the inner city public schools they are forced to attend.
To which I always reply that you ate pushing on a very long wet noodle. Why not simply offer the financial incentives for better education to parents, and let the resulting competition solve the problems, whatever they may be? A good education is the route out of poverty, so start with this one thing within government control and let the structural/cultural stuff sort itself out naturally from there.
Because it does nothing for the millions of kids who have incompetent, addicted, etc parents. And those are the kids who need the most help from our society. Unfortunately you keep choosing to ignore those most unlucky of kids, while making easier for the more fortunate children to flee from them.
And you brought up CRT... Which of course is silly and a waste of words...
And don't even get me started on "LGBTQ kids" because there is no such thing, no more so than there are black kids and white kids. They are kids. Teach them how to read and do math, write a proper English paragraph and eventually how to become Successful and productive citizens of the United States. To even acknowledge otherwise Is a distraction and excuse for not doing the job properly. "Black kids can't learn"; Is that what you mean to say?
Is it silly that some form of "ethnic studies" (I have not checked into the full details) are now mandated in all public schools in Minnesota?
So how do you account for the fact that your so-called "unlucky kids," when given a Chance, suddenly turn into excellent students? I've seen it in my own tutoring experience, where a poor kid whose parents had limited English came to me and didn't know one number from another. By Christmas time he was Near the top of his class in math. And what are you going to do, simply classify a kid as "unlucky" and never try to teach them anything because they can't learn? Are you really willing to deny the 70, 80, Or 90 Percent of students Something better, Only so that you can continue to fail all 100% of them?
Those are lucky kids if their parents cared enough about academics to seek out a tutor. The millions of unlucky kids do not have that advantage.
Let's hold parents accountable, they are supposed to be responsible for raising their child into good citizens...
Kids are not interchangeable ball bearings. Their emotional and developmental needs need to be met as well as their academic. Denying who they are and the challenges they face is not an option. Especially when that little boy feels like a little girl...
"Approximately one in four children experience child abuse or neglect in their lifetime. Of maltreated children, 18% are abused physically, 78% are neglected, and 9% are abused sexually. The fatality rate for child maltreatment is 2.2/1000 children annually, making it the second leading cause of death in children younger than age one. Exposure to violence during childhood can have lifelong health consequences, including poor physical, emotional, and mental health. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of physical child abuse is key to preventing these adverse health outcomes; however, child physical abuse is under-detected and under-reported by medical providers."
Abuse / Neglect
I think you have missed the point. The tutors are provided by the school, with volunteers from the community. Costs are essentially nil, and the benefits tremendous for the individual students. It simply proves what I have been saying, that the public schools are not trying to reach the kids where they are and move them to where they need to be, but rather ignoring that some are different, or even worse condemning them to failure because their demographic "can't learn." It's sinful. Free the children!
As for this nonsense about childhood delusions, including Santa Claus and imaginary friends, kids who do not outgrow it as well over 95% do, should be given psychiatric help, not butchery. If genitals does not define gender, then how does cutting them off "affirm" gender? Let's confine the discussion to education, shall we?
I think you are missing the point. Good responsible parent(s) can find plenty of extra support within the current system or from volunteer organizations... That is if they work access it.
Taking money away from the schools that deal with the unluckiest kids is just plain wrong. Unless you want the "other schools" to be forced to take the kids with severe special needs and dead beat parent(s).
You are correct that genitals apparently do not decide one's sex. Are you not a man if you have your testicles removed due to cancer?
One's sexuality is determined by each individual, and they should be free to live as they wish and be supported by their community. Including their school teachers.
Or do you truly believe that LGBTQ is equivalent to Santa Claus after all these years? LGBT Stats Maybe you should move back to MS... :-)
You are still missing the point. These tutors are provided by the SCHOOL, using volunteers from the community. The children are identified by their teacher as those needing extra help, and they get that help, exactly as needed, rather than simply allowing them to fail, as a Typical public school would normally do. Good responsible parents have nothing to do with it. It is the responsibility of the school to see that every child is educated to their full potential, and offering a little extra help here and there should be the minimum expectation. And why would you deny good responsible parents the right to choose another school that might offer them a better education? Why would you condemn the children of good responsible parents to a life of penury and squalor?
We have covered this specious "taking money away from the schools" argument by saying that the amount of the voucher Should match the Estimated cost of educating that particular child (which you claim can be done from four factors). And I still believe you are looking at this backwards, as if the public school is entitled to the money that the parents should have to spend (from public funds for the public good) on their child's education. Especially since parents with kids in good schools can take the voucher to their current public school. Think of it as a simple matter of "taking your business elsewhere" when necessary. And again, it will be years after this competition is introduced (unfortunately) before the failing public school would be forced out of business. I would also include in the enabling legislation a LOT of additional educational freedom for the public schools to improve by managing their resources more effectively.
One other thing, and the same argument applies. Even if your statistic of 25% "abused" kids is true, which I'm certain is highly inflated, it does not relieve the school of responsibility for teaching those kids as much as they possibly can. We already have a mechanism whereby teachers can report obvious cases of abuse and have the child removed from the home. That is rare and should be. Of the many kids I have tutored, I had only one whose home life was interfering with his education, and it wasn't really abuse as normally defined. The point remains, do we really want to penalize the 75% of kids who are not abused at home but ARE abused by the failing education system and prevent them from getting something better, just so that we can ALSO educationally abuse the 25% who were already being abused at home?
Yes. You are prepared to sacrifice the truly unlucky kids so private school kids can have us tax payers pay their bills. No thanks.
Or who do think will take care of the truly unlucky and troubled kids? Lord knows you are not willing make private schools take, keep and succeed with all children who show up at their door.
True competition means that the parties need to play by the same rules... Privates do not get to pick the cherries while the pits go elsewhere.
And you are prepared to sacrifice the 90 plus percent of kids who might benefit from escaping their failing public school. Especially since The public schools, freed from the requirements dictated from on high and given the same compensatory funding, could do just as well, but don't. You can presume whatever you want, but the fact is that wherever vouchers are offered that might enable parents to choose a better school, applicants can number as high as 100 to one. If school choice does not result in improvements at the local public school, by date of competition, then they simply deserve to go out of business. What they are doing to the next generation is criminal. Kids are not unlucky by nature of their environment. They are unlucky because of the school they are forced to attend.
Of course they are...
And your math is kind of funny... ~82% of kids graduate in MN. (at or above basic performance) 62 are proficient or advanced. And 10% are challenged by special needs.
That means ~20% are truly struggling to succeed academically... Unfortunately most of our truly impoverished / incompetent adults and their very unlucky kids live in the same areas. :-(
Since most of us wealthy folks have run from their communities.
We've got a lot of "funny math" surrounding this issue, not including the crazy way math is being taught these days.
First off, I'm not sure you can prove that the 82% graduation implies anything about proficiency at or above, since the DFL eliminated the graduation requirements. "ST. PAUL (WCCO) -- A recent study shows that as many as 40 percent of public high school students who enter a public college or university has to take at least one remedial course in reading, writing or math."
Second, even if true (and it probably is) 82% "success" statewide doesn't really impress, when things like HCZ have 100% in the "unluckiest" areas. Meanwhile, Minnesota's unlucky neighborhoods do much worse, where even 4th graders are only about 30% proficient. If vouchers were only given to those demographics, or better yet to just those in "failing schools" (and we know which ones they are), as most voucher programs propose, we could have the greatest impact where it is most needed. [BTW, most surveys say the universal school choice more popular than the targeted approach.]
And the other statistic that should be considered: IF the voucher were simply made universal and based on the actual cost of each child, 90% of parents overall would choose their current school, while 60+% of parents in failing schools would choose alternatives. Why would you deprive them of that right for their child?
Please remember that I like HCZ in general... However you seem to be forgetting that their system involves heavy family system involvement before the baby is even born. All those parent education and pre-k activities that you do not support.
Same reason I always note, I am not going to send the most unlucky children to the wolves as you wish to. Or have you thought of a way to care for and educate special needs and kids with dead beat / incompetent parents?
I am still waiting after all these years to show me the miracle school that works with all comers... Irregardless to the parent, special needs, behavior issues, etc...
You are still under the liberal delusion that "compassion" requires "equality of outcomes." Therefore, you would deny the 80% of kids at failing schools who COULD do better in an alternative school that opportunity, crippling their whole lives (and now we hear the nation as a whole), simply because you think (unproven) the other 20% can NOT benefit from an alternative. What makes you think that (at least some) public schools, who cannot teach 80% of kids to read, yet can magically teach the 20% "unlucky" or "special needs" kids to read? Why SHOULD a "miracle school" work with "all comers" when the public schools so egregiously do not? And I am back to the same question you ask, in reverse. Public schools, especially in urban districts, are failing at an outrageous rate, where 60% of kids can NOT read at grade level. That is unacceptable and all you do is criticize the one reasonable solution rather than offer one of your own. You are NOT going to change the whole society, (except by getting this generation a good education and the better life that goes with it) so tell me how you are going to change the SCHOOLS. And quickly.
Thankfully it is not my job to hold parents or schools accountable...
And I do not see vouchers as a reasonable solution like you do.
Good thing it is NOT your job, because it isn't possible to hold every individual parent "accountable." (I dislike that word because it assumes some consequence, unspecified, for some unspecified and highly subjective failure.) But because the schools are run by the government, which supposedly is you and me, we CAN hold schools to some standard of cost-efficiency and "product quality." NCLB actually did that, but got neutered quickly by the education-union-government complex. That is why vouchers-- call them whatever you want-- that introduce /competition/ into K-12 education Is the quickest, easiest and most reasonable solution to this totally unreasonable problem. There is nothing in the in the highly desirable idea of "public education," i.e. education of the general public, that requires it be done in public buildings, by public employees, under massive government micro(mis)management. Any solution which preserves the existing status quo structure is unacceptable and foolish.
Schools do so much more... Since Parent(s) do not. :-(
And your point is? Parents are not responsible for the education of their child. The public schools have claimed that responsibility AND authority. What vouchers do is to place the responsibility on the parents to CHOOSE a school that best suits their child's education. What is missing from your "analysis" is twofold-- first that the public schools are perhaps doing far too much that is not simply education. Second is that what seems to be missing is the idea that parents should be able to take their voucher to the public school, if that is deemed best. And again, I would say the voucher should be specific to the child, or at least based on individual "compensatory factors" like the current school-based state aid system. I don't care WHAT other "services" any school provides, if the kids aren't learning to read, they should be allowed to take their business elsewhere. Unless, of course, you want to have government MANDATE that the public schools rapidly improve and close them down if they do not? School reconstitution, it's called.
does it work
No... The parents are still responsible for raising and educating their children... Especially in MN where we have many Magnets, Charters and Privates.
Jerrys Link
More regarding SF Schools Still struggling...
What makes parents responsible? Are they required to pay taxes to pay for public schools? OR FOR THE EDUCATION of their children? And if they cannot afford taxes, or pay very little, how can they possibly discharge this responsibility you have assigned them?
One of the benefits of vouchers, especially universal vouchers, is that it impresses upon parents that responsibility. Rather than just despair that their kids are condemned to a failure factory-- aka local public school-- they are required to evaluate their potential options, if available, or to demand something better for their money.
BTW, neither of your links works for me, but it doesn't matter. You can post all the inductive anecdotes you want, but the inescapable logic is that our public school system is effectively a monopoly that costs too much and delivers too little. The obvious solution is to break the monopoly. Education is NOT something government is uniquely qualified to do. Private competition is required to keep the government schools focused.
https://www2.wested.org/www.static/online_pubs/state_intervention/Reconstitution.html
http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/SF/Brief_history_SF.htm
As I noted many times before, in MN parents have MANY MANY options.
If they do not care or know enough to research charters, magnets, open enrollment, moving, etc... Giving them vouchers is not going to make a difference.
Really? Imagine you are a single mother in Minneapolis, on welfare with two kids of school age that you want to succeed in life (the rule, not the exception). You recognize (or should, and WOULD, if government would inform you) that the nearby public school is failing your kids. What ARE those glorious choices you claim you have? Assuming they actually exist, how do you know about them, and how can you possibly access them? If you HAD the resources, in the form of some sort of voucher, would you not automatically want to use those resources carefully, to maximally benefit your kids?
You keep claiming they are responsible for their kids, but that they are irresponsible because they haven't chosen one of those supposedly easily accessible alternatives. Yet you have not ALLOWED them the resources to BE responsible! If you won't force the schools to be responsible for educating kids, and you won't give parents the resources to be responsible for educating them, how do they get educated? What do you have against poor people?
Stop making excuses for them... We provide public libraries with free internet. And the MN Dept of Education does a GREAT job of grading Public schools.
Report Cards
https://rc.education.mn.gov/
And there are other orgs like Great Schools.
And there are other orgs like Great Schools.
https://www.greatschools.org/best-schools/minnesota/burnsville?distance=5&lat=44.76&locationType=city&lon=-93.2758
It is interesting that you want to make it easier for charlatans to prey on poor stupid people to have them sign over our tax dollars to them. :-O
https://news.yahoo.com/news/private-school-got-over-1-215749572.html
I mean from what I remember... You don't want them constrained by the normal rules and you do not want to force them to report results to the MDE?
Not quite right. If vouchers were truly universal, and alternative schools were regulated only to the degree essential-- test scores better than the publics, financial audits-- I would want the public schools to be equally unfettered from the hundreds of State regulations that now prevent a real education.
What you are suggesting is that there is lots of information available to parents who want to know how their schools are doing, but most are going to go by what they see in their own kids, are they not? The immediate and inescapable evidence of their own eyes? So they know, and do not have to seek out confirmation because they HAVE NO CHOICE to make the situation better. And don't tell me they have choices, because that simply isn't true. The poor mom doesn't have the option to move to a new $400,000 house in the suburbs. When scholarships are offered, parents wanting one sometimes outnumber slots by 100:1. Why are you so determined to force and condemn these poor kids into failing schools that will keep them in poverty for the rest of their lives?
Please provide some examples of unnecessary State Regs? Most of "unnecessary regs" are there to ensure special needs kids are main streamed, to make sure minorities are not treat unfairly and to ensure schools do not ignore bullying. Others?
Schools are required to have a formal rules-intensive anti-bullying policy. They are in fact bullied into doing so. They are required to spend a fixed percentage on food service, on bussing, with regulations on how much bussing and on meal contents. They are required to report their finances in a specific chart-of-accounts format that is unhelpful for managing finances. They have serious curricular requirements, now including ethnic studies and some sort of gender studies, far beyond simple "sex ed." They are required to contract with the teachers union, and penalized if they do not settle with union demands. Teachers must be "certified," now including an affirmation that they have white privilege (or somesuch). I note there is no requirement that they be competent in the subject they teach, as raised such a stir in another state's schools recently.
I should note that there was legislation proposed to make a list of all "unnecessary" regulations, and report to the legislature. One wonders who makes the list.
An on topic, do you agree that universal vouchers require a universal "playing field" between public and private, with far fewer regulations all around? It would be like the court decision permitting religious schools to get vouchers, that "so long as the educational purposes are being met..."
Well here are the rules... So you want schools to be able to allow bullying, refuse certain kids/parents, not report financials in a consistent format, not have transportation requirements, etc.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/agency/129
I have no problem with vouchers if: the value matches the child's need, the Privates report data like the Publics, and all schools have to accept and keep all kids. Paying Privates to cherry pick the low cost / low problem kids is not a goods use of our tax dollars.
I think you have a bias against vouchers. No school I know of, or can imagine, "allows" bullying. That was true for many years before the legislature passed legislation saying it shouldn't be allowed, added dozens of pages of regulations about how to not allow it, and bullied schools to enforce it. ALL unnecessary.
You seem to want to eliminate from public schools the one option private schools have to make effective schooling possible, the refusal to serve disruptive students. Since most voucher programs are aimed at kids in poverty that, as a result are forced to attend failing schools, the ONLY kids available to schools accepting vouchers ARE those underperforming kids. You know, the ones you want to condemn to continue in those failing schools.
Yes, what I would argue is that the voucher should be universal, good at public, private, parochial or even homeschool, and with the "value match[ing] the child's need." I would argue that the regulations-- minimized-- should be the same for public and private and that the refusal to accept a voucher from an unruly kid should be one of those freedoms from regulation. There will be schools-- we have two here locally-- that will accept those problems, but will cost parents the differential, an incentive for them to deliver discipline at home. (Perhaps more effective as a threat than a real consequence.)
The only data privates need to share is their general overall budget and their standardized test results. If a private school can show improved test results and still turn a nice profit over what the vouchers bring in, more power to them. If the kids are being cheated out of an education, parental choice is still the answer.
You seem to want to regulate everything about voucher schools, while letting the public schools murder the futures of half the next generation. When will compassion and common sense impact your opinion?
This old saying sems appropriate... "You can not get blood from a turnip." The parent(s) of truly unlucky and troubled kids will not have the money to pay your penalty. What then?
Unfortunately many schools were allowing bullying, especially when it came to sexual orientation. Especially in the back woods schools that you like. :-) Therefore we got a law to ensure schools protected the queer / confused kids.
Until you require "option schools" to play on a level field... Probably never.
We required public schools to accept and deal with almost all comers, and it is really hard to expel kids for a reason. I expect the same from all schools that get tax dollars.
It is odd that you want privates to have the freedom to expel troubled / expensive kids that they can not "succeed" with.... Definitely cherry picking...
No wonder they do slightly better...
There you go again. Because the 1% of kids who are troublemakers must be taken into and kept in the public schools, the other 99% cannot learn. So, when somebody comes along with a solution that might let 30/40/70/90% of the kids get a good education WITHOUT those troublemakers, you refuse to allow it, and thus condemn them to lifelong failure. Whatever happened to the utilitarian philosophy of "the greatest good for the greatest number"?
The same thing with bullying. Teachers and parents, and peers, have always had means to deal with the bad cases, and the trivial cases cured themselves. I managed with no government intervention whatsoever, and from what I see all that this legal overkill has done is make it more likely that bullies will be bullied, with true (or false) accusations rather than handled with simple, case-by-case (not hidebound legal) actions. You want to keep bullying victims in a place where they are bullied, rather than a place that, at minimum, has an effective discipline policy, while offering all students a better education. Why you want to keep so many kids fearful and uneducated just escapes me, entirely.
"the greatest good for the greatest number"
is that also known as ...
"sacrifice the poor, infirm and unlucky for the good of the others"
"Don't we have debtors, prisons, work houses, etc" Scrooge... :-)
https://www.charliehealth.com/research/the-us-teen-suicide-rate-is-on-the-rise
By the way, where did you pull that 1% out of? I mean 80% graduate and not everyone needs to go to college. Unless you have something against the trades? :-)
And with 10% speciall needs. :-O And 10% really questionable parenting.
Post a Comment