[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Can either of you articulate why you think think that's a good idea? I have several family members who are teachers and their experience is that "problem students" (which I assume you mean behavioral issues) are disruptive and ruin the learning environment for the non-problem students. I think children would thrive better in an optimum learning environment. I also believe that the level should be tailored as well, i.e., smarter kids should be in accelerated learning environments, average students in normal grade level, and struggling/learning disabled students in specially tailored programs with extra staff and extra educational help.

One of the craziest things I've seen lately in public education (and there are many) is the idea that since some kids can't read/math we should dumb down the curriculum so that the low kids don't feel bad. Some have removed honors and AP classes for this purpose. I don't see how removing a proper level of learning from the high kids helps the low kids. This reeks of the whole participation trophy nonsense and is turning our youth into a bunch of weak snowflakes.

What am I missing?

I believe you are asking me to articulate why I think it is a good idea that charter schools do not discriminate against against children with disabilities. That is simple - the charter schools are public schools funded by my school tax dollars and all children have a right to an education in our public schools.

If the charter school wants my tax dollars then it serves the public and does not discriminate.

If the school wants to discriminate or otherwise have selective/private admission then it can have selective/private funding and leave public tax dollars for public schools.