should local school districts create laws to weed out the bad kids?

[freepcrusher]

I'm starting to think that schools should have some sort of zero policy standard. If a kid is missing too much class, failing most of the classes etc, why not just kick them out with the option of them going to an alternative school. People say that a high dropout rate is a bad thing but without the bad students disrupting things, it probably makes day-to-day functioning easier. Now this is not an endorsement of someone like krazen, but its some food for thought.

[fezzyfestoon]

No, but maybe give weed out to the bad kids.

[dead0man]

I'm not sure about your plan, but I do think we should spend more money on the top 5% of kids instead of the bottom 5% of kids.  In 2005 (if you can find more recent numbers I'd be interested in seeing them) American schools spent $8billion on the mentally retarded and only spent $800 million on the gifted.  That's not right.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd look at streaming at the high school level instead. If they get put together instead of disrupting the learning of others, the school would function much better.

[TNF]

So punish the most vulnerable students by separating them from everyone else? Sounds like a grade A solution.

[DC Al Fine]

So punish the most vulnerable students by separating them from everyone else? Sounds like a grade A solution.

If they are actively disrupting other students' attempts to learn, yes.

[Link]

In 2005 (if you can find more recent numbers I'd be interested in seeing them) American schools spent $8billion on the mentally retarded and only spent $800 million on the gifted.  That's not right.

I call it the Terri Schiavo philosophy of how a government should be run.  When a lost cause pops up that you can frame as some tear jerker religious issue certain people assume we have unlimited funds.  But what in comes to spending an increased amount of money on say kids that can actually learn or 60 year old productive citizens who would really benefit from Medicare expansion all you here is cut, cut, cut.

It is a totally ass backwards way of running a country.

[TNF]

So punish the most vulnerable students by separating them from everyone else? Sounds like a grade A solution.

If they are actively disrupting other students' attempts to learn, yes.

Would it not be better to address the root cause of the disruption? Schools perform poorly largely because of circumstances outside of their control. AKA laissez-faire capitalism tearing up the social fabric underneath the feet of the students, their parents, the teachers, you name it. Disruptive students tend to come from homes with parents that are never there. Fix that, and you end a lot (but not all) of the disruptions. So, bring back to 40 hour work week and ban anyone from working over 48 hours in one week.

[Link]

Would it not be better to address the root cause of the disruption? Schools perform poorly largely because of circumstances outside of their control. AKA laissez-faire capitalism tearing up the social fabric underneath the feet of the students, their parents, the teachers, you name it. Disruptive students tend to come from homes with parents that are never there. Fix that, and you end a lot (but not all) of the disruptions. So, bring back to 40 hour work week and ban anyone from working over 48 hours in one week.

Yes.  I would honestly be in support of CUTS to K-12 education spending.  Pouring money into a school isn't going to fix a broken home life.

Unfortunately I don't agree with your analysis of the root cause of poor home lives.  A lot of poor students come from homes where no one works.  Simply having someone around more in a hovel isn't going to solve most kids' problems.  Good social programs such as housing, medicine, food, drug treatment, jobs training, sex ed, etc are what we need.  You can pay a teacher 150K a year plus benefits but if a 14 year old girl gets pregnant it isn't going to make a difference.

[memphis]

Few points I wanted to make. I've spent plenty of time in Memphis City Schools, which have plenty of "bad" kids.
1. There's not a strong correlation between bad behavior and bad test scores. A lot of bright kids cause problems and a lot of slow kids have learned to sit quietly. Although disruptive students make it difficult for students to learn, these are two largely unrelated issues.
2. In "bad" schools, kids who are performing "at grade level" are an extreme minority. Yet, there is intense pressure not to label kids as "special ed." Cause labels are bad. And racist I have zero doubt that a majority of students at MCS would be labelled "special ed" at a wealthy school district.
3. In contrast, most students in bad schools are not very bad behavior problems. Only about 10% or so are chronically out of control. Unfortunately, they get the rest of the kids all riled up because everybody wants to see a confrontation between the badly behaved kids and the teacher. By far, the most common behavioral problem in ghetto schools is that kids haven't mastered the art of STFU.
4. I think people would be suprised how transient the "bad" kids are. In the midst of a given school year, about a quarter of kids in Memphis change schools.
5. Schools are the only "safe" good environment in many neighborhoods. Outside of school, you have a bunch of blight and crackheads. Maybe a couple of gas stations and fast food restaurants. And nobody has a solution for that.
6. Students physically being in school keeps them out of trouble. Crime peaks in the late afternoon and in summers when school lets out. And yes, correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's hard to rob people when you're physically stuck in school.
7. Separating the disruptive students is a double edged sword. The "regular" teacher would love it, but what do you do with the disruptive student? Standard practice has long been suspension, which is a such a bad idea. The kids would rather not be in school anyway. And having them on the streets is no good either. Some sort of behavior modification program would be nice, but I have my doubts about its effectiveness and the pricetag would be enormous.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Very good post, Memphis. It shall be placed in the good post gallery .
 

1. There's not a strong correlation between bad behavior and bad test scores. A lot of bright kids cause problems and a lot of slow kids have learned to sit quietly. Although disruptive students make it difficult for students to learn, these are two largely unrelated issues.

I agree full well. I have no behavior record at all, and I pull a completely unremarkable GPA. I am the most average student possible-Get 100s in PE for trying and leadership for showing up, 90s/80s in everything else, and struggle in Biology and Geometry. At the same time, the most disruptive students are usually the kids with high GPAs who would rather waste their life/talents away.

2. In "bad" schools, kids who are performing "at grade level" are an extreme minority. Yet, there is intense pressure not to label kids as "special ed." Cause labels are bad. And racist I have zero doubt that a majority of students at MCS would be labelled "special ed" at a wealthy school district.

It seems that wealthier/better performing school districts are all too willing to label kids as ADHD/ADD and put them on ridilin. That stuff messed me up in third grade. It is awful. I rather schools not label for the most part.

3. In contrast, most students in bad schools are not very bad behavior problems. Only about 10% or so are chronically out of control. Unfortunately, they get the rest of the kids all riled up because everybody wants to see a confrontation between the badly behaved kids and the teacher. By far, the most common behavioral problem in ghetto schools is that kids haven't mastered the art of STFU.

True of all schools, though the problem in ghetto schools all across the country is overstated, which is very sad.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

No, but maybe give weed out to the bad kids.

This gives me an incentive to misbehave.

[DemPGH]

The OP makes a great deal of sense, and is logical. Unfortunately, it is prevented by NCLB, which by all standards is garbage, because if the drop-out rate is too high the federal Gov. can come in and take over a school.

I support states rights / cities rights / regional rights to deal with very specific kinds of problems (not broad, sweeping, philosophical things) where they can demonstrate that there exists a problem, and this would be one. Cities like Chicago wanting stricter gun control because they have a problem with guns would be another.

Students also need to know that in real life they only get so many chances, and that nothing in life resembles a school bureaucracy. If students do not abide by the rules, kick them out. Work with them, surely, but at some point enough is enough. They'll pull everyone else down.

[DC Al Fine]

Would it not be better to address the root cause of the disruption? Schools perform poorly largely because of circumstances outside of their control. AKA laissez-faire capitalism tearing up the social fabric underneath the feet of the students, their parents, the teachers, you name it. Disruptive students tend to come from homes with parents that are never there. Fix that, and you end a lot (but not all) of the disruptions. So, bring back to 40 hour work week and ban anyone from working over 48 hours in one week.

 Simply having someone around more in a hovel isn't going to solve most kids' problems.  Good social programs such as housing, medicine, food, drug treatment, jobs training, sex ed, etc are what we need.  You can pay a teacher 150K a year plus benefits but if a 14 year old girl gets pregnant it isn't going to make a difference.

More or less this. Single motherhood and teen pregnancy are the root of the problem. Honestly, the best way to address this would be social pressure to marry a girl if you knock her up.