<p>Tough to even remove the worst offenders. I favor county run schools where the kids that are disruptive or do not care can go. I think it is unfair they ruin it for other kids.</p>
<p>In my previous home town we had 3 high schools. A kid was charged and then found guilty of sexual assault he served his juvenile time and was not allowed to return to the high school where his victim attended. He was sent to one of the other high schools. Great solution. Do not think it was not a level playing field the other two high schools sent their miscreants to one of the other two schools, It was a charade of shipping each other the problems.</p>
<p>I say give them vouchers and let the town catholic school have at them.</p>
<p>“I say give them vouchers and let the town catholic school have at them.”</p>
<p>My son’s Catholic high school expelled a kid when he was overheard calling his mother a b**ch in the parking lot. Another was expelled two months before graduation after a locker search when they found pot in his locker. </p>
<p>I highly doubt the Catholic high school will take them even with a voucher. And, of course, there is no law requiring the Catholic school to do so.</p>
<p>I am also more offended that Damon referred to teaching as a profession being paid a sh***y salary at that rally. I echo other posters in thread that are or know teachers, love what they do and knew full well what the job was before taking it, as well as their expected earnings. </p>
<p>It is a calling and not for everyone. Another frustrating thing about many of the hardest hit schools is that teacher burnout is a big deal. Young teachers come and go - the turnover is high. In some of the better districts, you find teachers teaching two generations of the same family - as was the case for some kids I know. </p>
<p>Pay is obviously different, depending upon state and credentials, but many teachers I know love the extended time off - particularly those with children. There are tradeoffs in many jobs. More money often equates to less vacation time off. </p>
<p>Often, private school teachers get paid the least.</p>
<p>In our school district we have an alternative school for middle and high school students who cannot remain in a traditional school setting. In other words for kids who don’t follow the rules(ie. problem kids).</p>
<p>I don’t see the asterisk word in the text of the speech at the SOS rally. That was in an interview. “A teacher wants to teach. I mean, why else would you take a ****ty salary and really long hours and do that job unless you really love to do it?” There are some people who believe a lot could be resolved if pay scales were higher.</p>
<p>I’m just not going into “SAT tells everything we need to know.”<br>
And you’ll understand some of us are tired of “proofs” that emanate from AEI and Heritage.</p>
<p>My point was if they want the vouchers they take the problems that come with them. If you want public funds you need to play by the same rules the public schools play by. Take all comers and you just can not boot disruptive or poor performing students.</p>
<p>Some Catholic schools have a competitive entrance exam, but most take “all comers”. But if you don’t follow the rules, you’re out. Why should miscreants be able to allowed disrupt kids that want to learn?</p>
<p>And parents who ARE paying tuition are not going to tolerate a situation in which the school is forced to keep a disruptive student in the classroom. These schools will lose their paying families if that happens. If a private school doesn’t keep their option of expelling problem kids, I don’t see why they would benefit in the big picture from taking vouchers.</p>
<p>So how about instead of providing vouchers we allow public schools to boot the kids we would allow private schools to boot. </p>
<p>But if taking public money requires certain rules about educating everyone (public schools) private schools that want the public money (vouchers) need to follow the same rules. Don’t want to follow the rules do not take the money.</p>
<p>Grove City College walks the walk and does not take federal funds because they do not want to have to meet the requirements that come with the money.</p>
<p>How would making private schools like public schools improve education? One of the reasons private schools outperform public schools is that kids are held to high academic and behavoral standards.</p>
<p>So before you start removing funds from public schools allow them to remove bad kids. If it is about improving education and not getting the government to reimburse parents for their decision to send their kid to a religious school do that instead of giving some parents vouchers.</p>
<p>So if we make the private schools just like the public schools, how is that improving anything? One of the reasons private schools are better environments for learning is that disruptive students are not present.</p>
<p>If they don’t have the option for expelling disruptive students with behavior problems, I can’t see the better private schools being willing to accept vouchers.</p>
<p>Bingo. I hate the traffic on the roads so I take a private ferry. Should the State provide me a voucher for my cost?</p>
<p>If government is to provide public education or public roads because we see that it benefits society does that mean if some individual decides they do not think the government provided service is perfect or best we should reimburse them for their personal choice?
IMHO we should take steps to improve the service while still allowing people to opt out of using that service but on their dime.</p>
<p>Lets allow public schools to remove disruptive students instead of providing vouchers if it is about improving education.</p>