> States are starting to remove more unruly students from schools, and the Trump Administration is getting out of the way.
IMO this is much-needed reform. I hear many classrooms have a serious problem where a small set of disruptive students make it impossible to effectively teach everyone else. These students aren't being taken out of school or put in special education, allegedly to preserve their future opportunities; except their future outcomes still suck, they aren't "rehabilitated", and they negatively influence and disrupt the education of OK students.*
Apparently this was done for "racial" reasons: black students tend to be removed from school more often than white students. This is exactly the type of thing Democrats are criticized for, and rightly so; it's not racist to enforce reasonable rules and laws that happen to affect one race more. It's the wrong way to enforce "equity" and is a big factor why "DEI" is so unpopular, which is a shame, because there are genuinely, mutually uplifting "DEI" policies that face backlash by association.
For example, good policies that would help low-income black students, but also low-income white students and pushes them up rather than pulling others down: funding more, better school meals and free extra-curriculars. When done effectively, the funding pays for itself, because some of the students who benefit grow up to be productive members of society instead of criminals. However, the key is "effectively", which requires understanding that not every student can be saved, at least by those particular policies, and letting go of students who can't do the bare minimum. For school meals, that means not forcing students to take fruit and vegetables they don't eat (a policy I believe was spear-headed by Obama), and ordering less fruits and vegetables if many go to waste. For free extra-curriculars, that means quickly and effectively banning students who can't behave, because otherwise everyone else will leave (and unless it's a major offense, let banned students rejoin eventually, but only if they first demonstrate better behavior and improve their grades).
* A related problem is high-achieving classes being taken away allegedly for fairness to not-high-achieving students. Basically a scaled-down, real-life imitation of Harrison Bergeron (https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html), a short story that was ironically taught in my school.
15 year public educator here. There's a lot to say on this topic and generally I agree. Around 2012/2013 many of the codes of conduct changed to try and combat the very real data showing black students being disproportionately supended. Discriminative policies in some case, discriminative people in others.
Like many problems, the situation is a lot more nuanced than OP Eds and news articles about "frustrated teachers" make it seem.
I will say, however,
That I was made to take fruits and vegetables long before the Obamas were in office. The tropey hate against Michelle Obama for trying to do something with school lunches shouldn't solely land on her, they were bad before.
And it brings up the point that it's all down to the states anyway. All of it, everything.
But if certain factions have their way public ed. won't exist anymore, nothing will be funded and the only reasonable education you can get will be if you're lucky enough to have a family that can afford to line you up to a "decent school."
I never thought teacher pay could outweigh working conditions like this. Now teachers can get back to teaching, and feel respected for it, instead of effectively telling them "We don't need you to teach, just go through the motions. You're a babysitter for the kids we can't control."
https://archive.is/iaGfH
> States are starting to remove more unruly students from schools, and the Trump Administration is getting out of the way.
IMO this is much-needed reform. I hear many classrooms have a serious problem where a small set of disruptive students make it impossible to effectively teach everyone else. These students aren't being taken out of school or put in special education, allegedly to preserve their future opportunities; except their future outcomes still suck, they aren't "rehabilitated", and they negatively influence and disrupt the education of OK students.*
Apparently this was done for "racial" reasons: black students tend to be removed from school more often than white students. This is exactly the type of thing Democrats are criticized for, and rightly so; it's not racist to enforce reasonable rules and laws that happen to affect one race more. It's the wrong way to enforce "equity" and is a big factor why "DEI" is so unpopular, which is a shame, because there are genuinely, mutually uplifting "DEI" policies that face backlash by association.
For example, good policies that would help low-income black students, but also low-income white students and pushes them up rather than pulling others down: funding more, better school meals and free extra-curriculars. When done effectively, the funding pays for itself, because some of the students who benefit grow up to be productive members of society instead of criminals. However, the key is "effectively", which requires understanding that not every student can be saved, at least by those particular policies, and letting go of students who can't do the bare minimum. For school meals, that means not forcing students to take fruit and vegetables they don't eat (a policy I believe was spear-headed by Obama), and ordering less fruits and vegetables if many go to waste. For free extra-curriculars, that means quickly and effectively banning students who can't behave, because otherwise everyone else will leave (and unless it's a major offense, let banned students rejoin eventually, but only if they first demonstrate better behavior and improve their grades).
* A related problem is high-achieving classes being taken away allegedly for fairness to not-high-achieving students. Basically a scaled-down, real-life imitation of Harrison Bergeron (https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html), a short story that was ironically taught in my school.
15 year public educator here. There's a lot to say on this topic and generally I agree. Around 2012/2013 many of the codes of conduct changed to try and combat the very real data showing black students being disproportionately supended. Discriminative policies in some case, discriminative people in others.
Like many problems, the situation is a lot more nuanced than OP Eds and news articles about "frustrated teachers" make it seem.
I will say, however,
That I was made to take fruits and vegetables long before the Obamas were in office. The tropey hate against Michelle Obama for trying to do something with school lunches shouldn't solely land on her, they were bad before.
And it brings up the point that it's all down to the states anyway. All of it, everything.
But if certain factions have their way public ed. won't exist anymore, nothing will be funded and the only reasonable education you can get will be if you're lucky enough to have a family that can afford to line you up to a "decent school."
I never thought teacher pay could outweigh working conditions like this. Now teachers can get back to teaching, and feel respected for it, instead of effectively telling them "We don't need you to teach, just go through the motions. You're a babysitter for the kids we can't control."