I think a solution to both is to expel students who, for example, assault other students or teachers. Other commenters are blaming parents, and sure we should incentivize and facilitate better parenting, but in the short term what is more successful at reducing violence is expelling violent students.
Society at large has tools and systems in place to better deal with a violent person, student or otherwise.
really? for minors?
These schools certainly aren't reforming misbehaving students.
You are just pushing the problem down the road if you have an increasing number of violent kids and expel them all from school-- how are they ever going to become productive members of society? You just end up with society either paying for them being in prison, subsidizing them (because uneducated and unmotivated labor is close to worthless) or paying to literally clean up their shit because you basically routed them into a "careeer" as homeless person.
If parenting standards have slipped so much that violence in schools becomes a significant problem, you need to either fix this by getting the parents to do better or by having the education system itself patch those deficits; any other "simple solution" is just gonna result in immense costs to your whole society that compound for decades.
By learning, for likely the first time in their lives, that actions have consequences.
This is obviously not the case.
Violent behavior obviously has to be sanctioned and hopefully corrected, but excluding children from education is not especially helpful there and has insanely costly side-effects.
And maybe subsidizing them is the cheapest outcome: better we give them a small amount of money and get them to leave us alone, than spend more trying and failing to get them into schools, the workforce, or prison.
I'm not advocating against this. But keeping their education timeline somewhat on track is highly preferrable in my view (inserting "fixed delinquents" into classes of younger children seems very undesirable to me).
> And maybe subsidizing them is the cheapest outcome: better we give them a small amount of money and get them to leave us alone, than spend more trying and failing to get them into schools, the workforce, or prison.
I honestly don't see how this could ever apply.
You have basically an average >$200k investment from the parents alone, plus all the direct/indirect subsidies starting with day care. Between low-wage working adult and "worthless person" there is at least a $50k/year swing in expected value to society every year they work, too.
Even if your success rate of "fixing" child delinquents is laughably low (say 15%), and costs you like $100k per attempt it is easily worth it; its not even close.
Expulsions are not a sentence to prison. There are other schools. The objective is not to correct the behavior of the violent minority but to protect the rest of the student body and educators.
The expelled student will eventually learn to tone down their behavior, they don't need to become saints or model students just to stop hitting people.
That's how all other organizations work in the world, try hitting a waiter and then returning to the same restaurant. Why would hitting a teacher be different?
That's letting things go way too far. If an incorrigible can be identified, whether that be via their bad behavior, phrenology and/or an excess of melanin, we can weed them out by age nine or ten, sterilize them to make sure they don't pollute our society even more, separate them from the decent, hardworking folks and, if they won't work for the benefit of the society that's footing the bill for their palatial accommodations, summary execution would certainly be warranted.
The above is satire and quite disgusting. The sad part is all of you (and you know who you are) who nodded along with the above paragraph and thought, "Finally! someone is making sense and telling the truth!" are far too many and far too pleased with your hatred and disdain for your fellow humans. Have you no vestige of humanity within you? Shame on you!
Some neofascists like eugenicist talking points?
You lost me at "incorrigible" and honestly just mentioning phrenology will get every non-moron to just dismiss any argument.
Do you believe that my argument is on a slippery slope towards eugenicist nonsense? I disagree on that and would argue the reverse; children are too valuable to immediately "discard" (by exclusion from education) because of delinquency.
I said:
>The above is satire and quite disgusting
about my statement. And I followed it up with:
>The sad part is all of you (and you know who you are) who nodded along with the above paragraph and thought, "Finally! someone is making sense and telling the truth!"
Do you fit into that category? If not, then my bile wasn't directed at you. Or did you miss that part?
I had assumed that your hyperbole was directed at my paragraph you quoted, and ment to insinuate that said paragraph was only a few exaggerations apart from eugenicist nonsense.