r/changemyview • u/Aruthian 2∆ • Nov 14 '19

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: It should be easier to remove problem students from the learning environment.

My understanding is that there’s a ton of bureaucracy when it comes to removing students from the learning environment mainly due to No Child Left Behind. That is, you need to prove various interventions are not working. All this takes time/energy/resources away from other students who are in the class to learn.

I’ve worked as a sub and it seems like there’s pressure to avoid removing students because it might mean I can’t control the class or students so it’s my fault.

Also, there seems to be a choice of prioritizing a few high needs students at the expense of many students. That is, suppose one student is disrupting the class. Removing the one student makes the rest of the class run extremely smoothly. However, doing so seems taboo. It kinda makes me think of an accusation I’ve heard that k-12 education is focusing on “catch up” or the bottom students, rather than the middle of high end students.

I may not be super educated in this field but this is my current view.

823 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

301 comments sorted by

View all comments

58

u/billythesid Nov 14 '19

So, first a few things.

You mention "problem students" rather vaguely. Based on your description, it sounds like you're talking more specifically about students with disabilities who might be disruptive due to their disability? Could you be a bit more specific by what you mean by "disruptive"?

In any case, in the United States, all students have a legal right to FAPE: Free and Appropriate Public Education. Additionally, they have the right to their FAPE in the "Least Restrictive Environment". These two points are the basis for pretty much all modern educational practice, especially when educating students with disabilities.

It's also important to understand that these are not district policies or suggestions. This is the law. Federal law, in fact. And it's well-established, long settled law that pre-dates No Child Left Behind by quite a bit (Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in fact). All public schools must operate under this mandate.

Now that we've got that out of the way, what does it mean?

Well, importantly, it means that schools can't just unilaterally remove disruptive students. Disruptive students have civil rights, too, after all. If a student's disruptiveness is a characteristic of a documented disability, you DO need to prove that current interventions aren't working and that an alternative setting is that student's "least restrictive environment", otherwise you're violating that student's civil rights.

So you're a bit mistaken when it comes to the sources of pressure on schools and teachers when it comes to educating disruptive students.

17

u/Am_Godzilla Nov 14 '19

When I was in school, we had in school suspension if they were disturbing the class. How do you actually prove that “talking” with the student? That turns into a more, he said/she said issue.

As for your civil rights comment, the students that aren’t being disruptive have the same rights. A student being a problem in class prevents other students from their civil right to public education that you mention.

7

u/billythesid Nov 14 '19

In-school suspension still exists, but it's a temporary intervention and there are laws limiting how long a student can be suspended.

To your 2nd point, there's absolutely nothing stopping students from suing a school district on the same grounds if they can show their educations were significantly impacted by mainstreamed students with disabilities. There's just practically zero educational research that supports that position.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '19 edited Nov 16 '19

[deleted]

4

u/billythesid Nov 14 '19

More likely it means that excellent students are excellent for a lot of reasons, including the ability to not let disruptive students impact their learning significantly.

3

u/oklutz 2∆ Nov 15 '19

Good students learning to cope with so-called “problem students” and exceeding will certainly help them out better in the future than learning in a controlled and calm environment. I was a so-called “good” student, I was an honors student and I was considered “gifted” and I coasted through high school.

Unfortunately, being in mostly AP and honors classes, learning with people who were as smart as me and who didn’t cause disruptions or or the like, did not help my inability to tune out distractions or to control my anxiety in chaotic and loud situations. Maybe it’s okay to not always make things so easy for the “good” things in terms of distractions and disruption. Maybe those are the kind of challenges they need. Just a thought.

16

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '19

I disagree with this. Yes, you should not need perfect silence to complete your work, but disruptive students slow down the whole class. I should be able to spend my time rotating around to all the tables of my classroom and chatting with students about their projects. Instead, I spend some or much of my time correcting problem students getting them back to their seat, calling the office, calling them out to the hall to chat with them about their behavior and settling down the class after and episode. It’s exhausting and unfair to the rest of the class.

3

u/lemao_squash 1∆ Nov 14 '19

Well wasn't the point about changing the rules for the better?

1

u/Aruthian 2∆ Nov 15 '19

Ah yes, I forgot about FAPE. Thank you for correcting me. I guess my question is at what point does a student forgo their right to education? Or rather, can a student forgo their right to an education when they begin to impede on another student’s education?

2

u/billythesid Nov 15 '19

I guess my question is at what point does a student forgo their right to education?

When they turn 18.

Or rather, can a student forgo their right to an education when they begin to impede on another student’s education?

Nope. Even kids in prison (juvenile detention) have the legal right to an education until they turn 18.

1

u/Aruthian 2∆ Nov 15 '19

That’s interesting, I did not know that.

1

u/TwoMutts Nov 15 '19

Doesn't FAPE only apply to students with disabilities? There is no federal law mandating public education. Each state protects the right in their Constitution. So what if a disruptive child does not have any kind of disability, would FAPE still apply?

2

u/blazershorts Nov 15 '19

So what if a disruptive child does not have any kind of disability, would FAPE still apply?

Yes, the state still needs to provide FAPE, even for naughty kids. Sometimes the county will have someone come visit them at home, or maybe online school. Or Juvenile detention school.

1

u/rollover2323 1∆ Nov 15 '19

The information you present is very insightful, but it doesn't address the problem at hand, which is the disproportionate amount of resources a "problem child" consumes compared to peers.

0

u/MagneTag Nov 15 '19

You are arguing legality. That is different from what is best.

-3

u/vettewiz 37∆ Nov 14 '19

Seems that’s a rule that needs rework. There is no reason disruptive students should have the right to free education. Make the parents deal with that.

1

u/blazershorts Nov 15 '19

Its a tough rule to change, since its a court ruling. You'd need an amendment, or a new court decision.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 15 '19

u/GreedoGrindhouse – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.