> I never claimed that my plan would produce more scientists and fewer criminals
You literally said this morning: "Hilariously, the solution to education funding is more of the 'short term economics'. We should spend less money on educating would-be gangsters and more money education would-be scientists."
> Expelling a student for bringing a gun to school is hardly tantamount to 'kicking kids to the curb the minute something bad happens'
Expelling a student for hitting a teacher is, and you mentioned that too. The gun issue depends entirely on why it happened. Some kids are already expelled for bringing guns to school. Some kids don't have a clear concept of why bringing the gun to show off to their friends is so bad. Education, not expulsion, is the only way to prevent it, and the only way to (literally) teach them the lesson. Expulsion only does one thing: disenfranchises the child and leaves them more likely to escalate their bad behavior outside of school. It leaves them at a disadvantage socially and economically and more likely to have to resort to crime in order to live.
How about instead of having a contrived debate about a very tiny minority of kids with guns, we enact some actual gun control in this country, and prevent any kids from having any guns in the first place like other countries do? Then we don't have to criminalize children, and we don't have to expel them in a fit of incredulity. Best of both worlds, and far cheaper than expulsion and incarceration.
What does any of your tirade about child criminals have to do with solving education funding? How many kids in the US are bringing guns to schools, and how much money does it cost in the aggregate?
> We should respect parents' interest but empower teachers to tell them to hit the sand if they're overbearing.
What does that have to do with education funding? What is your point here? You suggested that keeping time-hogging parents from teachers was a solution to the education funding problem. How, exactly?
> the 60% of the budget that goes to normal and high achieving students is the only part of the budget that has a positive ROI.
Lower than average achieving healthy students make up 50% of that group you say has a positive ROI. There are also plenty of special needs kids that are physically handicapped and not mentally handicapped.
What is the ROI of education, exactly? How is it measured? Care to share any sources to back that claim up? You just ruled out both all school administration and all special education. How do schools function without administration? Do you believe that school principals and school districts are useless?
If you stopped special education programs and the social services that go along with them, as you suggested, suddenly the parents of those children will need to find alternative care. In many cases that will mean the parent has to care for them during the day themselves, which will pull them out of the workforce. Regardless of the cost of special education, your suggestions could be a net drain on the economy.
> but at the least we'd do better if we didn't spend 40% on the failures.
What data do you have that it's failing? Under what metric are you declaring all school admin and special education to have zero return? I'm pretty stunned how deeply discriminatory your statements have been repeatedly. I hope you never have to be on the receiving end of your own ideas.