Except you run into a few problems when implementing that, especially for public schools.

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.

I don't think you should segregate schools. Just classrooms. That gives students in 'bad' classes something to aspire to, and keeps them on the map rather than being written-off to a 'poor school', and parents should realise that, though their kid is in the 'bad' class, they are getting appropriate help, not just being discarded.

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.

These kids are still going to be on the bus, at recess, or at school functions. Not sure if you were ever bullied, but all three of those are prime locations due to lack of adult supervision.

I mean bullying is a thing worldwide to some extent, but I think America needs to fix it's high school culture. If not it's entire, aggressive culture.

Bullying is worldwide but to the same frequency and intensity?

IIRC bullying is much worse in East Asia (Korea/Japan/China)

I think you still need something to incentivise the best teachers to voluntarily sign up for the lowest performing classes. Obviously its way more prestigious to be the teacher with all the ivy league destined students than the teacher whose students are just trying to get set up for a community college or a blue collar apprenticeship. [This is not to say the latter cohort is less intelligent, capable, or important-- just less prestigious.]

The right answer is probably to pay the teachers of the problem kids more or adjust student teacher ratios- For example, with no behavior problems a single math teacher could probably handle instructing and grading 50 students, as this is the model in college calc.

For what it's worth, in New York City the Gifted & Talented classes are often larger for this reason. A 2nd grade G&T classroom where I was a student teacher had 30 students, for example; standard classes at the same school had ~20 students per class.

I see teaching these kids as a specialization in itself, so the incentive is to be a great 'turnaround' teacher, plus the pay should reflect that it is a difficult specialization.

I think you do want the "good" kids to be taught by the best teachers. That way they'll have better chances to succeed and you won't have so many good teachers get burnt out. I think people should just normalize sort of giving up on the "bad" kids and send them to the delinquents school or military school or whatever. The whole idea of having the best teachers teach the "bad" kids is completely wasteful of limited resources.

"Proactive parents will typically want their children in good schools, regardless of their child's behavioural history"

Why wouldn't this apply to private schools especially because in that situation parent's have financial leverage?

>There is an overarching philosophy within the school system that integration is better than separation.

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.

While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism) in the assumptions that "poor kids" will be more disruptive in class, there is, to my understanding, substantial data backing up the perception, with causal mechanisms that have nothing to do with race or "poor breeding", and everything to do with how grindingly awful it is to be poor in America.

Agreed, and to the parent comment's point, I believe the studies that prove this have already been done, it's just that they study the material effects of poverty in america, so they're more specific than 'poverty'

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.

Seems that the biggest problem all relates to an unstable family life.

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 don't think you understand: poor women have never been able to afford to be a stay at home mother. Stay at home motherhood has always been a middle class and above lifestyle. Wealthier women employ the nannies and maids that are obviously overwhelmingly women who aren't at home.

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.

Historically poor, married women did tend to stay at home, but frequently worked from the home sewing or washing etc…

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...

You're not looking back far enough historically.

sure everything would be rosy if women just spent their time breastfeeding somewhere near the sink or cooker.

We've fallen prey to the philosophy that being at home with kids isn't adding value to society. You should be out making some big corporation wealthy!

> I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce

Whether you intended to or not, it is exactly what you were saying.

"Women shouldn't be in the workforce" is a statement with ambiguous and even opposite meanings (with regard to why), so I think GP's intent is probably better captured by a statement like "raising children and maintaining the home is more important, more impactful, and more fulfilling work than almost all work outside the home".

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.

Sure, and in fact it's not only about poverty, I think there are some relatively wealthy (maybe white) kids who struggle because their families are dysfunctional, it's all about their close environment.

> While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism)

I don't get the mind reading. Why? It's like we read completely different posts.

It's just a bad-faith take, ascribing intentions as a smear on the OP.

I'm not claiming to read anyone's mind; I wasn't commenting on the opinions of the GP or GGP, but rather on that assumption as it exists within our culture.

That still only goes so far because sometimes its a disrupted life at home that causes the in class disruptions.

Only, the measure of what constitutes 'bad behavior' is inconsistent as heck. I had cerebral palsy and undiagnosed ADHD as a kid and was constantly being sent to the principles office for simply 'spacing out' and getting distracted. I would have been royally screwed if I had been diverted to a school for kids with behavioral problems. Eventually I got glasses, got medicated, and thrived, but there were a lot of people who wanted to write me off without giving me a chance.

This used to be the case. Even in rural Wyoming. In each region there were at least one military-style dedicated boys school and girls school focused on disciplining bad students. Public school students would receive a few detentions and suspensions, followed soon after by expulsion to the boys school. Parents could also voluntarily and temporarily enroll their kid there if they needed disciplinary help.

The boys school had a good reputation and would have engagement with the local schools via sports and dances.

I benefited immensely from a homosocial environment, though in a snootier form of what you're describing. There's basically no incentive to be a cheeky little shit when there are no girls around to impress. I always thought it'd be nice if same-sex education were not just limited to expensive private schools and borderline prisons. I reckon a lot drama for students and teachers alike would vanish in these settings.