> the schools are able to kick out any underperforming students

Being able to kick out disruptive students has a pretty big influence on the remaining students.

How do you distinguish between underperforming-non-disruptive students and under-performing-disruptive students, especially as the almost all the disruptive students are going to be underperforming anyway.

▲

5 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

lupusreal 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You make it sound difficult. It's not. Schools are filled with security cameras. When a student attacks another, expell him. And none of that "the victim tried to defend himself so we have to expelled him too, we don't care who started it" horse shit. The schools have cameras, use them.

	▲	lelanthran 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with all of that. What I was getting to WRT to the GP's post about how charter schools kick out under performing students in order to "prove" that the public school system is inferior. I'm trying to determine how he distinguishes between kids that are kicked out to make the school look better and kids that are kicked out because they are disruptive. I already know how to do that (cameras, etc), I'm just wondering why he doesn't consider that school that kicks kids out might be kicking out disruptive kids.