[ZeroGravitas]

It is both a loophole and the main point.

It's the main point for people who want their children to succeed at the expense of the rest of society and it's a loophole when they try to sell that concept to the rest of society as "we can teach better for cheaper so give us your tax money and let us replace universal public education" rather than "we have thrown some of your children on the scrapheap for you to expensively support for the rest of their lives and either don't understand or don't care that this is of net negative value".

[greenhexagon]

Please also consider: removing the one or two severely disruptive students from a classroom results in drastically better education for the 20+ students who remain, which is likely a benefit to society at large.

Based on my own education, a public school where every single day the same 1 or 2 students disrupted the lesson, assaulted nearby students and forced the teachers to waste hours on maintaining order rather than teaching, the result wasn't that the median student pulled the troublemaker up, it was that the troublemaker caused the entire classroom to not learn anything.

Society would have been far better off to have the couple students unable to thrive in a conventional classroom go to an alternative school and have all the other students get a decent education.

[autoexec]

> Please also consider: removing the one or two severely disruptive students from a classroom results in drastically better education for the 20+ students who remain, which is likely a benefit to society at large.

Charter schools aren't needed for that though. Public schools are supposed to already be doing it. Either in the form of escalating detentions/suspensions followed by expulsion, or by moving the most problematic kids into emotional/behavioral disability classrooms/schools, or in the worst cases sending the children to hospitals and group homes.

If public schools aren't doing this, there needs to be changes in administration, just like schools where they simply resort to arresting children and giving them police records for disobeying and being disruptive. Police shouldn't be involved at all for anything less than severe crimes.

[shiroiuma]

>Public schools are supposed to already be doing it. Either in the form of escalating detentions/suspensions followed by expulsion, or by moving the most problematic kids into emotional/behavioral disability classrooms/schools, or in the worst cases sending the children to hospitals and group homes.

The problem is that public schools can't do those things, for various political and social reasons. So the charter school thing is a workaround.

>If public schools aren't doing this, there needs to be changes in administration,

Again, this is a political problem, since administrators are picked by the local government. There's only so much administrators can do anyway. Ultimately, the whole thing seems to be a political and a cultural problem.

[HumblyTossed]

Of course it's a political problem. There are people who have been scheming how to dismantle public education. The short term goal is to funnel tax payer money to private schooling. The longer term goal is to make sure the lower classes simply don't ever get an education.

So, yeah, it is a political problem.

[philwelch]

This is a conspiracy theory made up and spread by teachers unions for their own vested interests.

[vacuity]

I can't speak on whether you're right, but there is genuinely a component where public schooling can't lump everyone together and expect things to work out. In high school, I knew someone who spread vicious rumors and made remarks about Nazi Germany and whatnot. Supposedly on the autism spectrum, although that's not an excuse either way. He was smart enough, but seemed more interested in aggravating and harassing people. There needs to be a separate schooling environment for people like that, one way or another.

[shiroiuma]

And speaking of Germany, over there they don't lump everyone together: somewhere around high school level, they split everyone into one of 3 tracks. Only one of those leads to college, the other two are for low-performers, and for people destined for the trades. Looking at the state of German industry, I'd say the system works out much better than the American system. However, a lot of leftists complain about it because it's somehow "unfair" for low-performing kids to not be grouped in with high performers where they can magically become better students by interacting with them...

[VirusNewbie]

If schools don’t have competition there is no incentive to do this.

[autoexec]

The incentive is : keep your job / don't get sued.

The law requires certain accommodations for students with disabilities and local elections should handle the rest. All that requires is an engaged community and parents can be extremely vocal/involved. Cities can have good reason to lean on schools too, because good schools bring people into an area and they bring money with them. In that sense, public schools do compete. Families and young adults looking to start them don't want to move to areas without good schools.

Incentives are there, it just takes work and paying attention. A lot of people don't even bother voting in local elections and those that do don't always give much thought to who to elect as superintendent or to the school board. When communities don't take the time to invest in their schools they don't get much out of them. It's part of the reason why poor communities that lack the time/money/energy to be as involved tend to have poorer quality schools. Adding to that are the wealthy families that move to where schools are better or don't move into those areas at all.

[HDThoreaun]

So you kind of just explained why public schools aren't actually competing, at least in poor areas. The issue is that many of the families in these areas do actually care about education, but are unable fix their schools because of others apathy. What should they do?

[autoexec]

Organize. Campaign. Reach out to other parents. Name and shame. Apathy is hard to overcome, but most people already want good schools. Even people without kids don't want to be surrounded by uneducated people and don't want to deal with the problems they cause. Making time for local politics is a hard sell, but I've become increasingly convinced that it's our best chance to enact meaningful changes and improve our day to day lives.

[Fjskeifndjd]

I’d argue that the majority of people have some desire to be good at their job, and take some pride in that. Competition is a terrible substitute for an effective culture, especially in environments dominated by externalities such as the entire lives of the children that are taught. I doubt many teachers spend much time checking other classrooms to see who is best, they have more important work to be getting on with

[aeturnum]

I think that all makes sense in a narrow way but I think you are sidestepping the actual challenge of education.

As the root comment pointed out - we already know that you improve outcomes by excluding low performers. Schools that can be selective take advantage of that. If you are in a position to attend one of those restrictive schools it may improve your outcomes!

However, the question of "how to do a good job educating kids" on a national level must include everyone in the measure. It might be worth having schools for troubled kids! But you have to look across the results of the troubled kids and the more normate ones. I think the root comment's point is that...this seems to have copied the techniques that charter schools use to improve their educational outcomes...but that arguably those schools are not "solving" the same problem as public schools and comparing them does not reveal any insights.

[jvanderbot]

Actually I disagree that a measure of success of an educational system is its breadth. If serving 95% achieved vastly better outcomes and 5% received no education (or an alternative one!) Would that necessarily and absolutely be worse? What about 99/1 or 99.9 etc

[toomanyrichers]

Agreed. It’s uselessly idealist to imagine you can serve the 100% without making the 99% much worse off. Actually worse than useless — it’s making things worse for the 99%!

Having seen just how much damage a single disruptive student can do, I think there must be alternatives for those that need them — if only to stop disrupting everyone else.

[aeturnum]

> If serving 95% achieved vastly better outcomes and 5% received no education

Good luck convincing the families of the 5%! I'm not arguing this approach wouldn't improve outcomes - just that it's not considered an acceptable solution to "the problem of education." So it doesn't seem like a good faith contribution to the conversation the article is addressing because I believe it's already been rejected as an option.

[brightlancer]

> Good luck convincing the families of the 5%! I'm not arguing this approach wouldn't improve outcomes - just that it's not considered an acceptable solution to "the problem of education." So it doesn't seem like a good faith contribution to the conversation the article is addressing because I believe it's already been rejected as an option.

Of course it's an option: this is why charter schools, private schools and home schools are increasingly popular!

Government education is the only meaningful way in which the majority of people are prohibited from meaningful choices for their kids because the government says "but what about the bottom 5%" -- so folks _opt out_ of government education entirely.

This is why "progressive" (i.e. leftist) politicians and activists are trying to make opting out as difficult as possible -- even though "marginalized minorities" disproportionately support opting out.

But despite the "progressive" (i.e. leftist) politicians and activists, the alternatives are increasingly popular. It's slow, but there is improvement on the alternatives.

[davemp]

The truly disruptive students will likely receive no meaningful education regardless.

[rayiner]

> As the root comment pointed out - we already know that you improve outcomes by excluding low performers.

That’s not quite the point. By excluding low performers, you can improve the outcomes of the other kids, beyond what would be possible by mixing everyone together. So you can achieve a net societal improvement that way.

[ZeroGravitas]

If those excluded kids are just moved from selective charter schools to non-selective public schools then, by the same argument, they'll be reducing the outcomes of the non-disruptive kids who don't have parents involved enough to take advantage of the system.

So unless these charter schools have a side business selling Soylent Green made from disruptive pupils and those with learning disabilities, they're not actually improving overall results.

[aeturnum]

> By excluding low performers, you can improve the outcomes of the other kids

Isn't this is what the root comment is saying? I did not summarize the entire thing but that was my understanding of its point.

> you can achieve a net societal improvement that way.

You can improve the outcomes of the non-low-performers, but it's hard to say it's a "net societal improvement" because the low performers are also part of society.

[brightlancer]

> You can improve the outcomes of the non-low-performers, but it's hard to say it's a "net societal improvement" because the low performers are also part of society.

That depends on the improvement vs loss -- IME, it is a net improvement.

With 100 students, 5 are disruptive, verbally abusive, maybe physically violent. How much does that 5% bring down the other 95%? If we remove that 5% from the other 95%, how much does the 5% lose versus the 95% gain?

IME, the gains in the 95% are miles ahead of the losses in the 5%, which makes it's net improvement.

[HDThoreaun]

I have no kids. My support of charters has nothing to do with that, especially seeing as I would live in a good public school district anyway.

I thought this was clear with the comment but I don't think charter schools teach better or cheaper. They just make it easier for kids to succeed by removing distractions. Before charters almost all of the poor children in the district were being thrown on the scrapheap. Now many of them are getting the education they deserve. I'll admit that I have no perfect solution. I'm not sure there is one. But it seems clear to me that I can't sit by and allow underprivileged students to face the conditions they historically have at public schools here.

[VirusNewbie]

>It's the main point for people who want their children to succeed at the expense of the rest of society

Having a child achieve their full potential actually helps society, it does not hinder it.

[nine_k]

Also, think about these disruptive kids.

They are the minority. They clearly don't function well in the conventional school setting. They are struggling to learn the material. They learn how to disrupt though, and how the grown-ups around them are powerless. They learn to be constantly blamed, and feel miserable, defiant, or both. A lot of wrong lessons.

This makes the lives of these disruptive kids worse. Being in a public school robs them of a chance to become decent people and get an education. These kids should receive a special education, tailored to their special needs, like e.g. autistic kids get a special education.

[trealira]

I think you're giving them a little too much credit. Plenty of disruptive kids have a perfectly fine home life, have an iPhone, get expensive toys or technology bought for them. A lot of them are just jerks who were never punished by their parents, received few punishments from teachers and staff who had little power, and enjoy being disruptive or bullying others, and don't give a shit if they flunk all their tests or classes. The teachers say they're going to become a janitor or drop out of high school at this rate, and they don't care because they've been told this all their lives, because their disruptive behaviors haven't gotten better since kindergarten, only gotten more violent and more sexual. And somehow they manage to squeak by to the next grade.

I say this speaking from my own experience as someone who went to a Title 1 school before taking a test to get into a magnet program when transitioning to high school (about age 14); the difference in disruptive behavior was like night and day to me. I still remember it very clearly.

If education can improve the most by punishing and expelling disruptive students more often, sending them to other schools, I wouldn't be opposed. It would help the non-disruptive majority of students reach their full potential, which is a better outcome than trying to help the disruptive minority at the expense of everyone else.

[nine_k]

I agree, a lot of disruptive kids are not highly disadvantaged. Their problem is a bad environment that helped develop their worst attitudes, so they do enjoy disrupting, bullying, and seeing other kids and grown-ups dumbfounded and hurt.

This is not good for them already. The current public school system just keeps helping them develop these valuable antisocial skills. These kids keep thinking that everyone around are weak fools, and that their disruptive behavior is a way to win.

A different environment, where there is nobody to easily bully, where the grown-ups are not bemused or annoyed by their conduct but expect outbreaks and are prepared to handle them, where the kids are shown different examples of adult behavior that they are used to, might help. More, well-prepared psychologists who definitely should be present in such a school would help these kids understand themselves, their disruptive impulses, why these impulses are ultimately bad, and what ways out are there. These kids are still kids, many not even teenagers. They are still actively learning what a social life is; giving them a good example tailored to them is utterly important.

I do not expect 100% success rate, but I'm pretty certain that it might work much better than a typical helpless public school.

[marcus_holmes]

You said "punish" so many times. Punishing unruly kids doesn't stop them being unruly. They just learn to hate the system and everything in it.

I got expelled from 2 kindergardens, and then was sent to a Montessori school. Where I was fine, even helpful.

"the beatings will continue until behaviour improves" just doesn't work, has never worked.

Maybe we shouldn't have one school experience for all the kids. Maybe some kids work fine with an authoritarian system and like having a set of rules to follow. Other kids don't.

[loandbehold]

You are conflating two unrelated issues: 1. Letting students learn their own way as opposed to memorizing teachers' instructions 2. Letting disruptive kids disrupt education of their classmates

#1 is good, #2 is bad. In fact #1 never works when #2 is present.

[marcus_holmes]

I'm not an education expert. But I think you have to ask why the disruptive kids are being disruptive. It might be that #2 is caused by not having #1 (at least, that was my experience: I stopped being disruptive when they let me do my own thing).

[theGnuMe]

I agree with you as a parent of a kid who has been labeled as disruptive. My kid is a smart sweet loving child who has big emotions and gets overstimulated. If anything he is bullied and taken advantage of by the other kids, yet he is the one who is disciplined because he has big reactions in the school setting. Kids can be really mean. In many sense the school is inflexible largely because of budget constraints. This is why we have large class sizes. Can you imagine handling 26-30 4th graders?

I am lucky in some sense because I can afford all the therapies, private tutors and teachers as necessary. I can throw money at the problem where as many kids have parents who cannot. Even then throwing money at the problem doesn't guarantee anything. You have to find the right fit for your kid and hopefully they learn the skills they need and adapt along the way.

To the rest of the commentors in the thread, you cannot segregate kids. The schools need to adapt to them and meet them where they are. In the US Federal Law guarantees this but the reality is that schools are underfunded by a huge amount so when we talk about individualized education and special education services, everything is cookie cutter.

BTW if any parent in this thread section can recommend a great public school system with appropriate Level 3 services please reply. I can literally move anywhere. A 70k a year private school would be hard to afford right now as would a $1-2 million dollar home in said school district but there is really no good information out there for parents.

[marcus_holmes]

Thank you for trying :)

Everything seems to be about forcing the kid into a standardised set of behaviour patterns: "behave like this or we will punish you".

Some kids don't work like that.

[trealira]

I only said it 3 times.

I don't mean to say that everything should be authoritarian. But to maintain a good school for the students who go to a non-authoritarian school, there still needs to be some degree of punishment, or expulsions. Just like in a non-authoritarian government, people who commit violent crimes still need to be sent to jail for the safety of others. Once away from the others, they can be reformed and reintegrated back into a normal setting, where the teachers can trust students not to get into fights more, and kids can learn in a quiet environment where others also want to be high-achievers, or at least are motivated to not become drop-outs.

I just don't think there's enough of that in schools like the one I described. Sorry, I kind of let my past color my tone more than I should have.

[theGnuMe]

You've heard of the school to prison pipeline right?

https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/juvenile-justic...

[trealira]

I've heard of it.

I don't think having over-authoritarian discuplinarianism is ideal. It's probably a backlash to schools not having enough funding or resources to deal with the assaults and the fighting, so they do the exact opposite of what they'd been doing, or what they think of as the opposite. Going too far the other way, overly disciplining students for minor behavior and failing to change their behavior isn't best either.

[xyzzyz]

Yeah, I sadly only heard about it, not actually witnessed it. It doesn't really work anymore, unfortunately, and criminals are kept alongside normal people for far longer than acceptable.

[gotoeleven]

It does work and has always worked. You're living in fantasy land.

[marcus_holmes]

as someone who it has never worked for; you're so wrong.

I was beaten as a kid. It just made me angry. So f*cking angry. It didn't stop me from acting up. I learned to take the beating with pride. I got smarter about when to act up. Everyone involved, literally everyone, had a worse result from this.

I would have had such a better life (and everyone around me) if the people who were supposed to be taking responsibility for me had actually stopped beating me and tried understanding me (like they were supposed to).

[nine_k]

It works, but not in a way you'd like it to.

A related saying of some guy who knew this stuff: "You can make a throne of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long". You can force people with punishment, but they will try to revolt and get revenge once they have a chance; even a small chance, and a small revenge.

[kelipso]

By that time they will graduate and it won't matter anymore. It's school, not a society consisting of adults.

[rayiner]

Ruining the educational experience for the 90% to drag along the 10% is likely a bigger net negative.

[lmm]

> either don't understand or don't care that this is of net negative value

Or genuinely think it's of net positive value.

One disruptive kid can spoil the educations of 29 others pretty easily, and probably won't even gain anything from staying in school. It's a dead-weight loss. But we're too chickenshit to openly do anything about it, so the rich buy their way away from the bad kids one way or another, and the decent-but-poor get to suffer.

[mips_r4300i]

This happened to me, and was one reason why my parents pulled me out of school and I taught myself at home with a standardized curriculum.

It was only 1 kid in the class, but he was ruining the entire class almost every day, and the administration didn't want to risk the political fallout.

It was great to be able to learn as fast as I wanted with no distractions. Sometimes what has to be learned wasn't interesting and I didn't go any faster at it, but I did pull ahead in math by a couple years by 8th grade.