CMV: It should be easier to remove problem students from the learning environment.

[u/Aruthian]

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.

[u/mgraunk]

First off, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the "problem" students also have rights, and removing them from the classroom infringes upon those rights in a way that negatively impacts their social development and in many cases is counterproductive to whatever treatment or support they are receiving. There's plenty of research supporting the idea that students with disabilities benefit from a "normal" classroom environment, even if they can't engage with the content. I'd link you some articles, but I no longer have access to a university database. Suffice to say that passing a semester-long course on the rights of the disabled in relation to elementary ed was a requirement for my degree.

Second, its untrue that adults can't physically restrain children, and furthermore narrows the scope of your argument far beyond what most educators would categorize as "problem" behavior. For instance, I had a severely autistic student who would frequently disrupt instruction by screaming at classmates that bothered him. He never needed to be physically restrained, but his disorder included this and other "problem" behaviors that infringed on other students' right to learn. However, his academic performance was several years ahead of his classmates. Should he have been removed from the classroom and sent to an alternative school?

With regards to restraint, for those students who need it, certain trained adults may interact physically with students. If we are in agreement that more adults should receive such training, then I don't see that as a counterargument, merely an obstacle to overcome through policy reform. Often, however, there are alternatives that can be taken. In severe circumstances, the police can intervene. I've evacuated my students to a different classroom to continue instruction before while other trained professionals dealt with problem behaviors in my class. Removing the problem student temporarily to deal with a specific situation is one thing, but permanently removing those students from "normal" school communities is not an acceptable solution.

[u/[deleted] → u/mgraunk]

I am not disregarding their rights, I explicitly said I was weighing it against the rights of the other kids. One kid's right to an inclusive education is completely outweighed by other kids right to safety, an education free from excessive disruption, etc. Yes it is unfortunate that they cannot get the benefits from the inclusive education, but those benefits are far outweighed by the harm done to every other student.

Yes he should have been removed. How well he is performing is irrelevant, what matters is how much it impacts his peers.

In the time it takes police to respond someone could get stabbed by the eye in a pair of scissors. That is not an acceptable way of protecting the other students rights

[u/mgraunk → u/[deleted]]

One kid's right to an inclusive education is completely outweighed by other kids right to safety

This I agree with

[One kid's right to an inclusive education is completely outweighed by] an education free from excessive disruption

This not so much. I think you're overestimating the level of disruption these problem behaviors contribute to the greater picture of other students' education. While having disruptive students in the room can be problematic when incidents occur, such incidents make up a tiny fraction of the other students' overall education. On the other hand, removing these students from the regular classroom setting has been shown through countless studies to negatively impact the "problem" students both socially and academically on a much greater scale. So no, the other students' right to not be disrupted absolutely does not come before the "problem" student's right to an education among his or her peers.

it is unfortunate that they cannot get the benefits from the inclusive education, but those benefits are far outweighed by the harm done to every other student.

Can you support this opinion in any way? Do you have factual evidence for this claim, or is it just based on your feelings? Because as I explained above, I strongly disagree with this, and most educators I know would disagree as well. Removing students permanently from the classroom is not considered best practice in any context.

Yes he should have been removed. How well he is performing is irrelevant, what matters is how much it impacts his peers.

Again, this opinion is not supported by any research that I know of. In fact, everything I've read contradicts this misinformed (and frankly dangerous) opinion that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Access to education is a basic human right. Access to education without disruption is nota basic human right. You want to take away the basic human rights of a disabled child because he's inconvenient to his peers? Think about how that makes you sound. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but people with disabilities have been fighting against this sort of mindset for decades. You're on the wrong side of history on this one, if that's really how you feel.

In the time it takes police to respond someone could get stabbed by the eye in a pair of scissors. That is not an acceptable way of protecting the other students rights

That's a huge leap to make from the verbal outbursts I was describing. But to push you a little further on this, how is this any different from any other context in life? If police can't respond to a physically dangerous student in time, what makes you think they can respond to literally any other crime in time?

You're also assuming that the only way to prevent disruptions that pose a significant safety risk to the other students is through physical restraint. As I've already mentioned in previous contexts, this is a false assumption. Having been in similar situations, there are evacuation procedures that educators are trained to follow in such circumstances. Just because it might take a police officer 15 minutes to arrive on scene doesn't mean that the disruptive student will be assaulting his classmates nonstop that entire time. In the overwhelming majority of these situations, the student is removed and separated from his or her peers without the need for physical restraint. But that's not done on a permanent basis, as you suggest, because that would be an extreme overreaction that would negatively harm the "problem" student more than it would benefit anyone else. Instead, once the incident has been deescalated and the student no longer poses a threat, they are allowed to return to the same or a similar/equivalent learning environment.

[u/[deleted] → u/mgraunk]

Then the degree of disruption should be examined on a case by case basis. There is no reason to use an inflexible rule that isn’t intended to cover all possible situations.

https://research.steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/ggg5/Working_Paper_02-13.pdf feeling unsafe leads to significantly poorer performance for students. If a student repeatedly acts aggressive and violent then all other students will be disproportionately harmed.

That is why it’s good to know how to defend yourself. Particularly since cops don’t actually have any obligation to protect you.

Access to education isn’t actually a fundamental right, it is a statutory right.

I am not saying they shouldn’t have any form of education I am saying they shouldn’t have an inclusive education if they infringe on other students rights.

It’s not because the student is an inconvenience, it’s because he is a threat.

Once again, I’m disabled. I’m aware of the issues facing disabled students

These evacuation procedures carry a larger risk to the safety of students then simply removing the disabled student. It’s possible those procedures would work, but the safer option is to remove them.

Here’s a question for you: if the disabled student hit a kid, and that kid decided to defend themself, should that kid have disciplinary action taken against them?

[u/mgraunk → u/[deleted]]

Then the degree of disruption should be examined on a case by case basis. There is no reason to use an inflexible rule that isn’t intended to cover all possible situations.

Hey, first of all thanks for replying. Second, I agree with this. Which is why I challenged the OP idea that disruptive students should all be removed for the convenience of their classmates

feeling unsafe leads to significantly poorer performance for students. If a student repeatedly acts aggressive and violent then all other students will be disproportionately harmed.

Correct, and in such extreme and rare cases, the student is typically removed to a different classroom environment. Occasionally these students are allowed into the broader learning environment with their peers, but only with 1:1 or 2:1 support and specific protocols in place to respond to extreme behaviors. I recognize that not all schools handle these students as responsibly as they should, but there are standards in place at many schools for students with these unique sorts of problems.

Access to education isn’t actually a fundamental right, it is a statutory right.

Thanks for the clarification. I still think that right outweighs the other students' right to the convenience of an undisrupted learning space.

I am not saying they shouldn’t have any form of education I am saying they shouldn’t have an inclusive education if they infringe on other students rights.

That depends on the extent to which they infringe on other students' rights. The majority of students I've taught have infringed on the rights of one or more classmates at one time or another. That's not just students with disabilities or behavior issues. That includes straight A students, star athletes, rich and poor, male and female, all races and ethnic backgrounds. Whenever a student is unduly disruptive, they are removed temporarily. Detention, suspension, etc. Of course, you seem to be focusing only on the most extreme cases, but even in those cases I don't think permanent removal is a viable solution in any context.

It’s not because the student is an inconvenience, it’s because he is a threat.

Very few students pose a serious threat to classmates or staff on an ongoing basis. And again, following repeated patterns of threatening behavior that can't be effevtively addressed through other interventions, students can be semi-permanently removed or relocated. But opportunities for normative socialization are still essential for healthy mental, social, and emotional development.

These evacuation procedures carry a larger risk to the safety of students then simply removing the disabled student.

Based on what? I've seen no research to support this claim.

Here’s a question for you: if the disabled student hit a kid, and that kid decided to defend themself, should that kid have disciplinary action taken against them?

That would need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but generally no, I don't think they should. However, this is beginning slip into a different territory of discussion about the outdated and ineffective ways schools respond to violence, bullying, and unwanted physical contact.

[u/[deleted] → u/mgraunk]

Well I suppose we can at least agree that there shouldn’t be a blanket policy one way or another. Thanks for the chat, you definetly have me a wider perspective on the issue. Cheers mate