If only disruptive kids were expelled instead of placated MANY of us might have had a better education.
It is so wrong for adults to fail to protect children who want to learn simply because they want a facade of feel-good egalitarianism.
I agree that keeping them in general education is bad too, though. A caring society would take that kid somewhere with specialised staff that will help them work through their issues.
The problem is the selective and performative guilt:
Why don’t kids who have a terrible home life, but are studying diligently to better themselves and improve their lives equally deserve our help?
For this same reason I've always hated (since a kid) the way anti-drug education has been presented to children. It's not taken seriously and doesn't present the reality of how prevalent drug (even prescription) use is among adults in society. It doesn't treat prescription drug use, alcohol, nicotine or caffeine abuse with any weight whatsoever and doesn't prepare children for the reality of having to deal with people who are on drugs.
Are people with a pattern of disruptive, dysfunctional behavior allowed to be present in your workplace?
Is this something you would see as desirable to experience, for the same reasons you've given that children should experience it?
Yes, actually. The standard to fire people is high and HR wants these people constructively managed out rather than fired. This is incredibly common in large corporations.
Had a bad hire once that abused an entire engineering department for 2 years while they had no responsibilities and did no work until they were finally bored enough to quit.
These are not gotcha questions. I'm honestly trying to understand your worldview here.
If you get expelled _by a public school system_ you may not have another option.
My worldview is that all kids have the right to an education, regardless of how "manageable" adults interpret their behavior. "Disruptive children" are more often a failure of the adult to meet the needs of the child. Also they're children. They haven't learned how to behave like adults yet. Expecting them to do so is cruel.
What if most people don't want this type of education? Are they wrong? Do you have the moral authority to force it on them?
They should learn by being subjected to the effects of their dysfunction? I honestly don't grasp this strategy. It's like saying that we should learn that some people are psychopaths by going to live with them..
Never dealt with them again once I left high school. Not even any close calls.
That shit's like living in a war zone. No one sends their kids to a war zone so they can "learn to survive". No good lessons exist in a war zone, not even in between people stepping on landmines or getting pulverized by airstrikes.
All that exists in such a place is a bunch of trauma, and yes, debilitating/mutilative injuries, for those that somehow manage to get sneak back out of them.
Bullying is like this too, though obviously to a lesser degree.
I strongly suspect that most people get their ideas about what bullying is from the same half-dozen made-for-tv movies and other narrative fragments thereof on the subject.
It's not just the constant picking and poking that bullies do, it's the way they make the entire school environment like a prison yard. You never know when someone is going to do something to you, or how a teacher (guard) would react. Teachers exacerbating the problem because, while powerless, they mostly threw up their hands because they were not allowed to send the student out of the class.
Public school in America is, in a word, prison.
It wasn't the only way that schools were like prisons, just the most uncomfortable of those. We can be honest now, we're well distance from it at this point.
> You never know when someone is going to do something to you, or how a teacher (guard) would react.
Did you ever have any of the teachers join in? Not just decide that it was your fault, but to actually pick up on the name-calling and contempt? When it happens during class, that's the cue for everyone else to join in too, even those who'd always be too timid.
But pretty much the whole administration does this in more subtle ways, you know? For me, this happened on the school bus more than anywhere else. I was in second grade, they were in highschool. An hour's bus ride to school every morning, an hour home each afternoon. Bus driver was an old asshole of a curmudgeon and from his driving I doubt he could see 6ft in front of his face (let along 14ft back through a mirror). When my mama went to the administration to try to have a stop put to it... they threatened her with me being thrown off the school bus. We lived in a rural area, she didn't have a car at the time. The implication was that if/when I missed school, it'd be truancy. She'd be arrested, I'd be put in foster care.
You know, me. The second-grader who is a troublemaker just provoking the 16 yr olds into beatings, into having my clothes torn and stained with god knows what, into having my hair snipped off whenever my head was turned.
I can't even tell anyone about this shit. No one believes me. I don't believe it myself. My memories seem like lies to me.
> Teachers exacerbating the problem because, while powerless,
Sounds alot more like "only following orders" to me.
As to how 18 years of being forced into a small room with them helps prepare you for that, I hope you'll enlighten me.
No, all it does is make sure that any child with a bad home life has no future. Sure, it solves the "problem" of making one teacher manage 30 kids meaning one kid can DDoS the system but it does that by ignoring it all together.
Mom's a teacher, and "bad" kids LOVE her because she's extremely good at her job. Those bad kids pretty much universally just need attention because they get none in normal life. There are still occasionally young psychopaths but they generally do get expelled at some point. Otherwise most bad kids would come do their homework in her class because she was basically the only adult in the building they respected. She was literally "just" a french teacher but because she understands what it means to be a teacher she was an intervention for many a "bad" kid.
You want one bad kid to not spoil the bunch? Stop making undertrained, underpaid "teachers" without even an education degree oversee a class of 30 kids. How good could one person possibly manage 30 adults, let alone kids. Stop hiring glorified baby sitters because that's all you can get for $30k a year in salary. Stop treating teaching like a disposable profession.
Teachers can be bad and do have the capability to pick on children. Having these kinds of outcomes totally allows a teacher to single out a child they don't like and wreck their whole life.
Adults are intentionally victimizing the majority of students to cater to their own shallow virtue signaling.
There are scenarios in life where we're all in this together and excising people for their inconvenience isn't what's best for society.
You don't just cast off disabled people into the void, for example. Unless you have a solution for where to put these problem public school kids that isn't juvenile detention, I don't want to hear it.
We're talking about children here. They don't know how to behave like adults yet. Cutting them out of society where they fail to meet expectations is cruelty.
I think you misunderstand what a zero-tolerance policy is and how it's applied. There literally is no tolerance. There is no nuance to them. If an incident is reported they are required to take action. There isn't a decision-making process past the point of the incident being reported. Everyone involved and any witnesses literally have to keep their mouths shut.
You say children should learn this, and then you say that this is because they will have some new capacity for empathy they wouldn't otherwise have.
I see no reason to believe this proposition is true. What if instead, when they learn this, it just makes them more vulnerable to various kinds of dysfunction themselves? What if, even if learning about this is a good thing, it's only a good thing when they're well on their way to adulthood?
You have no real evidence of cause and effect here. Just a lazy asumption. "But when I learned of this, I immediately had intense feelings of empathy!" doesn't mean much because you're not even a single data point, but an anecdote. Self-reported. And not a young child.
> or caffeine abuse with any weight whatsoever
This is coming from someone who would legalize heroin, cocaine, and meth and sell it from liquor stores: no one ever sucked cock in the alley behind the pawn shop for a hit of caffeine. It's not in the same category.
Public education is like Lord of the Flies. There is no room for empathy, only survival.
We need to have structures that can address this behavior in a way that fosters societal integration. This "spillover" might not be a problem given proper staffing... but a 1:25 ratio is never enough to handle problems and never will be.
Is that really possible in the US? IIRC, the government has a mandate to educate every child, including those that are extremely developmentally disabled (which is why special education is such a huge item in school budgets). If a kid is expelled from school, wouldn't the district be legally required to find some alternative arrangement?
Despite being treated as such, schools are not day cares, and parents still have some responsibility for the upbringing of their children. If the kid misbehaves enough, it is on the parent.
In places with mandatory public education, parents suing the district for not providing education for their expelled child are likely to win.
Home life should be addressed by child services, etc. Granted in reality they are often as understaffed or as incompetent and corrupt as any other government service, but at least that's their mission. School teachers should not be doubling as social workers.
But underfunding is a big problem whichever way it's structured, and I of course agree with you that it's not something you can just say "this is the responsibility of the teachers to do on top of their existing responsibilities".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEA_2004
All a parent has to do is ask for an individualized education plan, IEP, and a public school will have to do a metric ton of cover your ass to be able to expel a child.
This is not making concessions to "liberal ways of thinking".
On the other hand, federally legislating that local school taxing districts provide services costing $x and if they do not, open up local taxpayers to litigation of $y where x and y are quite large is…something else.
How is a poor school district serving poorer taxpayers supposed to provide expensive IEP for every problem child and/or collect all the evidence to expel them, and at the same time provide quality education to well behaved kids?
The Republicans only had a slight majority. And after a change, the bill passed in both chambers almost unanimously.
I don't know what the answer is, but "all children are owed a public education and in fact we'll arrest their parents if they drop out" and "public schools can kick children out" are self-evidently not compatible policies.
That's not all we're doing. We're also protecting an entire classroom of children from disruptive behavior.
If it's gotten to the point where we would consider expulsion, then some of those children, or their families, likely find that disruption so intolerable that they themselves would need to arrange transportation to far flung school districts. That's why so many underprivileged families are desperate to get their kids into charter schools.
As I keep trying to point out in this comment tree, people seem to have learned that it's morally appropriate to talk about only one type of victim here. I don't agree. I think it's morally necessary to always discuss both the disruptive child and the classroom they are disrupting, always in the same breath.
If you want to argue it's a better distribution, or that there is some reason to believe expulsions will push "problem children" to smaller classrooms on average, then fine, but absent those arguments it's very clearly worse for the student and their parents but not better for anyone else (or rather, it's maybe better for specific other people, but also worse for yet other ones, and on average no better for anyone).
Changing behavior requires pressure and people generally do not like it when they notice it.
Some aspects do give me pause.
Such as Any regiment which makes things worse. We're all just guessing; people need to be empowered, so hopefully they can muddle thru things.
Thresholds need to be obvious and ruthlessly enforced. Not fuzzy and optional. (eg If a student assaults a teacher, insta removal, to never come back. And so forth.)
Alas, forging these kinds of rulesets, and then sticking to them at scale, is all but impossible.
Also, most people blathering about public education are repeatedly proven worse than wrong. (Including me.) So am deepyly skeptical of fixes and silver bullets. I insist there's at least some existence proof before supporting any reforms.
The next year I was at the private school across the street. Suddenly I wasn't a problem child anymore there.
I had already been taught algebra at home by first grade. I was in the "gifted program" in public school and the curriculum was still boring and slow. Teachers lasered in on my boredom and made my life miserable despite (or perhaps because of) being able to answer anything. I thrived a little more in private school in part because the children were on-average smarter but also because instead of the school treating everyone like they were special and going to save the world (and rewarding only the kids they liked) they taught children the value of group conformity and not being the nail that sticks up.
How/why were students they liked rewarded? Teaching is a job, there are tests and many times grading is subjective. The only factors I thought would come into play are.
1. How much the student tried, cared, or showed interest during class
2. The content of the test (answers-objective, writing-subjective)
3. If they were disruptive in class which normally led to 1 and 2 being negative
What unjustified reasons would a teacher have to show favoritism to a portion of students excluding rare situations like sexual relations and nepotism?
--------
"because instead of the school treating everyone like they were special and going to save the world"
How? When I was in school I went from class to class where the teacher would read material, show examples (i.e.) math, or have a class discussion. Do you mean they inflated grades? Then you wouldn't have done poorly in public school as you said.
If you mean they verbally told students they were doing good when they weren't why would they do that? Public school students have to take standardized test which are so important for the school that it's a common complaint that teachers only teach the test. If this is the case how does rewarding unworthy students benefit the teacher or school. Why would they do that?
----
Your comment hit a nerve because it is very dense with political talking points.
- public school teachers are corrupt (i.e.favoritism )
- public school teachers are bad at their job
- public school teachers are too soft and treat kids like snowflakes and this has a negative affect.
Between my experience and the data I would say it comes down to class and gender, but maybe in the reverse order.
In my primary school education, both public and private, there was a pervasive and often oppressive favoritism towards the girls in just about all situations.
We've been starting to see the results of this in the data for the last couple of decades where men have worse education outcomes by a sizable percentage.
That seems like an awful lesson to impose on children. "Keep your head down and don't do anything to attract attention. Go to your grave having spent your life hiding among the faceless crowd".
Shitty teachers that play favorites won't not exist in a private setting. Shitty teachers that demand abject compliance from students to soothe their egos won't not exist in a private setting.
It sounds like a bored student was disrupting the education of 30 others, so teachers punished them more than the other students? They should have probably kicked you ahead a grade if you were so far ahead of your peers, but that would require someone in the situation to attribute your behavior to boredom rather than mere defiance. Did your parents not suggest such a thing? Was it not an option for some other reason? It sounds like a change of environment brought you away from old grievances and that the increased coursework gave you something to do. It's completely possible that a grade skip in the same school could have done the same.
It's a crucial survival skill. You learn when and where in your life to apply it. The "lesson" is that the whole world doesn't revolve around you. Please keep me away from the karens that _haven't_ yet learned that about life.
> It sounds like a bored student was disrupting the education of 30 others, so teachers punished them more than the other students? They should have probably kicked you ahead a grade if you were so far ahead of your peers, but that would require someone in the situation to attribute your behavior to boredom rather than mere defiance. Did your parents not suggest such a thing? Was it not an option for some other reason? It sounds like a change of environment brought you away from old grievances and that the increased coursework gave you something to do. It's completely possible that a grade skip in the same school could have done the same.
Most of my time in that school was fine, I just got unlucky one year and got a nasty old tenured b* of a teacher who decided from day one that she hated me and directed constant negative attention towards me. I just wanted to be left alone. I had had 5 consistent years at that school already without problems, but she was besties with the principal. Later on in her career she got rubberroomed by the school board, so I don't think the problem was me here.
>The "lesson" is that the whole world doesn't revolve around you
These strike me as very different things.
Teaching kids to remain grounded, respectful of others and how to live within an existing system is one thing.
The former sounds like teaching them to avoid garnering attention at all, which is quite another.
I've read about cultures where standing out, for good or bad, is socially punished. "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be mowed down". I would not want us to foster such a culture here.
I could agree with "don't stand out for the wrong reasons".
>Most of my time in that school was fine
It doesn't seem this has much to do with the debate between public and charter schools at all. Just a poor experience you unfortunate enough to have gone through.
In reality, it did not actually work this way. I did get into at least one fight where administration got involved, and they let me off the hook. (Neither of us got suspended, in fact.) In my own view, I 'started' that fight although I did not 'instigate' it, not that the difference matters much. Some kid in line for PE kept kicking the back of my shoes, and after the fourth or fifth time, I started punching him.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, I don't know but I have to at least consider that a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further.
You could even argue the opposite, that if you're going to get suspended for being attacked you might as well try to bite their ear off and go down fighting, but no one does, they just focus on the innocent kid getting suspended.
But I would suggest that in a debate over whether or not it's a good idea to punish children who are innocent (e.g. being attacked in a one-sided "fight"), the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are benefits to the approach, not on others to demonstrate that punishing innocent kids, or people in general, isn't a bad idea.
On another note I highly suspect residual trauma is a reason for teachers having issues with parents, and schools with willingness to fund. The tree remembers and assumes the worst of teachers based upon their own experience.
What is it with education that makes people so willing to internalize well known Fascist values?
Acceptance of that thought is common; of collective punishment is common; blatant repression is advocated everywhere. If you take the values of a common school and try to apply them to adults, you will get either punched away or arrested.
Kids being unfairly punished for being attacked encourages more attacks, though, especially if it is punishing all participants regardless of role in a manner that is less of a punishment for the kind of people who would be inclined to attack and more of a punishment to those who would not.
I categorically oppose "zero tolerance". It removes judgement, ignores context. It's a strategy for bureaucrats to absolve themselves of responsibilty.
But I actually don't know if it's better, worse, or indifferent. If it proves a net win, I might change my stance.
Please share if you find any such research. Thanks.
I was raised by a single mom who worked a million hours and didn’t have a baby sitter when I let myself in after school. Don’t see how “working too many hours and being stressed” is a new phenomenon because most of my extended family is poor and have always been. My mom told me not to steal and don’t be an obnoxious asshole in school, wasn’t exactly rocket science.
The lack of discipline from the parents, mentors, and teachers early on is why the State has to do it later. Discipline is not orthogonal to 'help'.
…and does that work? Recidivism rates would suggest otherwise.
Somehow, that part of medicine never makes it into these “alternatives” — which makes claims of “systems thinking” or “crime as disease” sound like shallow pretenses for performative virtue rather than legitimate considered policy.
All I'm saying is that it's pretty obvious jailing criminals is incredibly expensive and not particularly effective at reducing future crime.
> Discipline is not orthogonal to 'help'.
Yes, but discipline alone will never work. Never has.
And replace it with what?
Some of these exist to some degree already. Some of the issues are systemic and not just related to those in prison. For example, the decline of real wages over the past 50 years and the rise of barriers to entry for many things (renting, jobs, etc) has made it difficult for lower skilled individuals to succeed. If you feel you have no hope in the system, then you will be more inclined to act outside the system.
None of this is an excuse for someone to break the law, merely an observation that the current system might not be maximizing societal benefits but rather too focused on punishment alone.
I've seen irate voters at town meetings upset that tax dollars were being using to pay for books and tutoring for inmates, let alone mental health counseling. As a country the US is incredibly far off from the mindset of prisoner rehabilitation. We treat prisoners like animals, and for some reason are surprised when they keep acting like animals.
Some would argue that disciplining is helpful in many cases. Proper disciplining is not just punishment but should include an explaination of why what they did was wrong and what the right thing to do is.
Kids having discipline is a slightly different topic, but can be partially built through the process above.
This is a very difficult problem to solve and people will often support the stick and complain that someone doesn't deserve the carrot. Everyone needs both.
Now in admin hes some kind of teacher manager and he had teachers come to him, sometimes physically crying, unable to deal with a child with a behavioral problem. His says 99% of the time these problems are corrected with a single phone call to the parents. Just one call but no - young teachers these days don't have the guts or social wherewithal. So his job is now teaching adults how to make phone calls.
Another thing to realize is a lot of these kids do respond positively to teachers when they show them that they care and aren't there to simply baby sit and yell at them. He has had many students come to him later on thanking him for breaking their balls and setting them on the right path. Kids aren't stupid - they want respect but are treated like little monsters to be corralled and controlled like cattle.
Showing the kids you truly care is incredibly powerful for them - it connects at the human emotional level and those positive interactions boosts the kids moral and they feel more confident or centered in life.
Other public institutions outside the school system need to be in place to support the parents who are stressed and overworked and barely have time to parent.
And their right to be helped stops at the line where they're causing harm to the learning of others.
Discipline in schools isn't and cannot be about holistically reforming the problem kids, it's about making sure those who want to learn can.
You can't dump the entirety of systemic poverty, racism, mental health, etc. on the education system and expect it to work well.
Since they are a for profit enterprise, unlike public schools, wouldn't there be a financial incentive to have as many customers as possible?
In one particular area what is the reason a charter school would be better than a public school. Since the entry factor for most (excluding schools for smart kids) is money why wouldn't the same problems occur at a charter school? Finally, why can't we just fix public schools?
Uh, because more customers will leave if the private school is no better than a public school.
"Finally, why can't we just fix public schools?"
That's a good question without a good answer. Perhaps the best answer is the meta that people don't agree on the course of action that would "fix" the schools since there are numerous opinions on what that is, resulting in no action or half measures.
The school district must educate everyone. When a school expels or excludes a student that student is still a live human that must somehow be educated. They may need to be bussed somewhere. Or to be sent to another school in another district. All of this is very expensive. Never mind that someone needs to administer this.
So in a public school expelling a student increases costs significantly, several fold. In a private school, it decreases costs. The private school just tells you to hit the road.
The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
- a terrible kid was constantly given presents from a teacher, chocolates, and small things she could give him so that he would stop misbehaving in class. normally these prizes would go to a single student every day, for merit, but once this terrible person kept getting them, everyone else became pissed and demoralized.
- the young kids copy the teachers behavior, and it creates this culture of "they have a harder life than you" when trying to complain about the terrible students in their vicinity (which i completely disagree with, they're not trying hard at all that's why they get like this), so when terrible people bully decent, kind, and hardworking students, there's no sympathy for the hardworking students. they get treated like shit and abused from the future-criminals who do nothing but degrade the experience of everyone who attends, then they get told "get over it, you have everything" by their peers who for whatever reason weren't bullied, and refuse to help. its cult-like behavior
- you also have kids who are way too old for their grade, by at least 4 years. someone who should otherwise be way ahead of the classroom they're in is 2x the size of anyone else, is a literal delinquent, and is for some reason still allowed in the public school system where they either terrorize their classmates, get them into their same terrible habits, or bully people who express any kind of discontent with their behavior.
> The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
But it might not be that much more complicated. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but in our district there was an "alternative" high school, which had a reputation among the kids as the place you'd end up if you were too much of a behavior problem.
That said, the kids at my schools were well-behaved in class and I never knew of anyone specific who was expelled.
If behavior problems are getting more widespread, maybe embracing more of an explicit containment strategy is appropriate.
The complicated part is the "why" of their behavior, which can range from an antisocial personality disorder, to not getting enough attention at home.
Sadly many of the cause of behavior problems is from systemic issues like poverty, or poor mental health services across the country.
The bottom line is that neither the kids nor the teachers want to, or deserve to, deal with the byproduct of other failed systems.
The failed systems should be fixed, and services provided to these kids to the extent possible, but OUTSIDE of a classroom setting.
The cost of past failures can't be borne by the students and teachers in the public school system.
You can have specialized people look at the "why" after you remove the disruptive (some times dangerously disruptive) person from forced prolonged contact with innocent ones.
It's certainly very good to look and fight the causes; as it's important to give the people chances to go back on track, and protect them at that new environment too. But forcefully submitting everybody else to them is just horrible.
It seems obvious to me (since the experiment is repeated over and over within millions of families) that environment plays a major role in behaviour, but tbh I don't see good behaviour rubbing off onto the 'bad' kids, it's almost always the other way around, or at best, a productive environment is disrupted by a few troublemakers.
So 'good' kids should get an environment free of disruption so they can do what they do. And the 'bad' kids should get an environment much more focused on encouraging good behaviour, so they learn to do the good stuff too. Win-win.
Proactive parents will typically want their children in good schools, regardless of their child's behavioural history. (This doesn't mean they refuse to acknowledge the issue, though some will. It simply means they want their children to have access to better supports.)
There is an overarching philosophy within the school system that integration is better than separation. I don't know if this has to be the case, but it has been historically true. Think of it this way: even though some of the best teachers may want to serve the most challenging schools, good teachers almost always want to teach in good schools. Where does that leave the challenging schools? If they're lucky, with a great teacher. More often, with a bunch of mediocre teachers.
Related to that, schools rarely have the resources to distinguish between students who would benefit from integration and those who would benefit from specialized and separate programs.
In some ways, the 'best' teachers should be assigned to the 'bad' kids, certainly those with the best command of a class. The 'good' kids don't need that so much.
Why wouldn't this apply to private schools especially because in that situation parent's have financial leverage?
I don't think it's fair to Black or female students to equate their integration with the "integration" of students who are specifically disruptive.
Kids have more behavior problems and remember things poorly when they're hungry.
Kids that don't have a stable housing situation struggle to focus in school.
Kids with untreated medical problems struggle to focus in school.
Kids with absent parents (like a parent that tries to work multiple jobs) struggle in school
Kids with parents in unstable relationships (poverty screws up relationships and forces people into suboptimal relationships to combine resources) do poorly in school and are more susceptible to abuse
Kids that are the victim of abuse struggle to focus in school.
Hey you guys remember when in the 80s we convinced all the women that it would be empowering and freeing to start slaving away as a corporate drone and that would be the best life for them, that kids didn't need 2 parents at home?
Isn't it great how that panned out.
I wouldn't attribute a lack of home stability to women empowerment. A lack of home stability is often caused by poverty. A poor mother cannot afford not to work, cannot afford suitable environments to raise her children while she works, and must make difficult decisions regarding proper nourishment/safe place to sleep/access to utilities/physical presence.
Childcare and household chores were too time intensive for a woman with small children to go off to work.
Nannies and maids were generally unmarried, childless women.
I’m the early 20th century only 5% of married women worked outside the home in the US https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor...
Whether you intended to or not, it is exactly what you were saying.
When my daughter was born, a coworker asked if I hope she'll be a programmer one day, and my answer was that I hope not; I want her to be able to stay at home like her mother, and if she can't and has to work some corporate job, that means I will have somehow failed her. If she wants a job like mine, then again I will have probably failed her somehow.
I don't get the mind reading. Why? It's like we read completely different posts.
The boys school had a good reputation and would have engagement with the local schools via sports and dances.
During covid, someone observed that it exposed the primary role of public schools to be day care.
You could conceivably create schools composed entirely of the kids who got expelled from somewhere else, which I think some districts have actually done (continuation schools), but you're effectively creating a juvenile prison system for people who didn't commit any actual crime and definitely never got a trial.
Cite a study, draw incorrect conclusions from it that support your argument, find some exception to the norm and use that as your example, and don't forget - describe how you were brought up and how that was better.
In a dorm the week before finals, 90% of the students are urgently trying to prepare for finals.
10% are drunk and or high and playing frisbee in the halls 24 hours a day.
From friends who have taught high school in poor neighborhoods the situation as similar, only more violent.
I went to public school as a kid and the disruptive kids were expelled. Not just kicked out of class - totally kicked out of school and told to find a new one! One reason I send my kids to private school is if you don’t want to learn they will kick you out. In public schools today you get a few bad kids and it ruins the whole class. This is a big reason why teachers are quitting en masse from public schools - they are behavioral consultants rather than teachers. The pay has always sucked - it’s the lack of ability to discipline bad kids that makes it miserable, and then parents blame you for everything when you just want to teach math and go home.