Musk Critics Including Laura Loomer Claim Censorship on X, Loss of X Badges

[u/Doctor_Byronic]

https://www.cf.org/news/musk-critics-including-laura-loomer-claim-censorship-on-x-loss-of-x-badges/

[u/DownrightCaterpillar]

Why not make it so that you have to pay tuition for public schools if you're an immigrant to offset the costs? They shouldn't be getting free stuff without contributing to the system, and we've made out of state college students pay more as well.

"Pay more" and "pay for it" are two different things. As mentioned, the cost of educating a public school student in California (for example) is over $17k per year, per student. Considering the average 1st gen immigrant family has around 1 child:

Page 396

First generation independent persons have an average of 0.52 children per unit

That means they'll, on average, pay $17k/year. There's no way on earth that even above-average income immigrant households can shoulder that burden every year. Imagine, after income tax, paying for that. It's impossible even for regular American families. The solution is to do what you said, force them to pay for all of it, and turn away immigrants with trailing children. So that immigrants who are already in the US can be forced to pay if they have children enrolled in schools, and we can keep out immigrants who are already seeking to impose this burden on us.

For those who are thinking "but what about immigrants who can pay," you don't know they can pay. If you have money in your bank account today, you can lose it tomorrow for a variety of reasons. Or have a family member transfer money into your account, US government checks the amount, then you transfer it back after being audited. Thus pretending to be able to support your kid's education even if you can't. Alternatively, if you have the income to support a public school education, you can lose that job (and immigrants have far less job security than natives). There is truly no reason to pay for their kids. And of course we have no idea the reliability of credit agencies in other countries. And some countries, like Japan, don't even have 3rd party credit agencies; your bank serves as your credit agency and its data is not necessarily intended for consumption by those outside the bank.

Even if they're paying the financial costs, the negative impact of larger class sizes is one of the uncontested truths of education, mainly because of disruptive children. For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035506000607

For example, the synthesis of meta-analyses indicated that the presence of disruptive students (even one of them) in a class has the effect of decreasing achievement by 0.79—which is enormous. When I ask teachers if they would choose between a class size of 15 when I choose the students, or a reduction of 5 from their current class and they choose the students, they nearly always prefer the latter. For many teachers, it is the presence of a few disruptive students that often lead them to desiring smaller classes. There is a question also about the optimal class size; although there seems to be some ‘‘magic’’ in the literature and among policy makers around a class size of 15. When asked in a survey as to the optimal class size, New Zealand secondary teachers claimed that 16 was optimal for Year 13 (the final year of school), 19 for Year 12, 21 for Year 11, and 23 for Years 9–10 (which is not that different from the actual class sizes in NZ secondary schools).

Obviously, the larger the class size, the greater the potential for disruptive students. Simple as. Why introduce more students, thus diluting the quality of education? We already have a staffing problem with public school teachers, why make it worse?