I couldn't help noticing the irony of two articles that appear in today's New York Times.
"Gotbaum Says City Is Failing to Remove Violent Students" (by Elissa Gootman) reports the findings of a New York City public advocate. It turns out that "multiple and violent offenders" were still walking the hallways in 11 of the 12 City schools examined.
Skip to the second article. "Bush Urges Rigorous High School Testing" (by Anne E. Kornblut) heralds the President's recent call to expand the No Child Left Behind Act. Now, it seems, we're going to spend an additional $1.5 billion to ensure that high school students stop lagging in the areas of math and science.
I wonder. Could the presence of "multiple and violent offenders" in the classroom have anything to do with the under-achievement of students?
Most schools don't need more money. What's lacking is the political will to tell the kids who cause chaos, "Until you learn to control yourselves, get out!"
Frank-
ReplyDeleteSchools do not have nearly enough money! Underachievers are not necessary violent, and violent students are not always underachievers. It runs much deeper than that, and is never that simple. We don't have the luxury of castin out "problem students". By law, they much be served. And it wasn't cause by our president, either.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteMy comment about most schools having enough money is comparable to saying that most American households have enough money. But then, hardly any of them think that they do. Who thinks he/she has enough money? Like other families, schools will complain that they don't have enough. Exceptions excluded, I disagree. About suspending students from school, I'm merely saying that when there is a legitimate reason to keep a kid out (e.g., repeat violent offenders) then those rules should be enforced.