Schools should drop underachieving students

"If the child aims for a 70%, it means that the child is trying. However, due to lack of studying, the child may fail." -> In the context of school, trying implies studying therefore the argument that it could be due to a lack of studying is invalid. "The blame can indeed be put on the teacher for not teaching well enough." -> The teacher has been hired to follow the educational standard that the school system, through previous deliberation, has decided upon. If the teacher teaching method does not meet this standard then the class average would be lower and she would be flag in the system which would lead to an investigate. In order for the school to drop a student they must be sure that he is an underachiever therefore they could not drop any student that was under a bad teacher since there would be doubt as to whether or not he truly was an underachiever. "then the child may be put in extra support." -> The school system has a limited budget that it can use to allocate educational resources for all the students. The cost of the ratio of one teacher per 30 students is high but it pales in comparison to the cost of having to give a ratio of one private tutor per problematic student. In addition, there is no grantee that this lesson will help the student over come his academic struggles and even if it does the student may still end up dependent on extra help in the following years. By placing all these resource on the struggling students, the school would be shortening the already very small budget it has for all the other student thereby lowering the educational experience of all the other students. Hypothetically, this could lead to bigger class and more underachievers. This can create a circular problem that progressively worsens the school system as they must increasingly support more and more underachievers. "Or, forced to go to summer school and is forced to do something extra, to achieve failed class." -> One of my argument is that a teacher teaching pace is depend on the underachieving students. This idea places a group of underachievers in the same class. However, not all these students are underachiever to the same the degree. Therefore, in this summer school the class pace would be glacial since it would be dictated by most underachieving student of them all and summer school also drains the school budget which the other student end up paying for. "If the child fails all subjects and gets below a 70% in all of them, it means the the school is not providing enough activities to reach the child"s interest. " -> A student has access to so many exciting sources of interest outside of school that it can be very difficult or almost impossible to stimulate his interest with academic activities. The academic have to rival video games, television, sport and social activities. All these are not directly related to academics. I use the word directly because computer programing could be link to video games but two activities are so different that they do not necessarily interest the same people. In addition, these students may not be interested intellectual learning. So how should the school system compete with this? And why should it be force to? Since attempting to do this could end up slowing the education process even further. "If the child has household issues (abusive/criminal parents, parents who do not care about their child"s education etc") then the fault is not within the child nor the school. Therefore, there is no reason to drop the child if he/she is not at fault." -> Whether the child is at fault or not, he Is still a burden to society. This may seem harsh but this is because this argument only views one perspective. It is not the schools or others students fault either yet they would end being penalized as a result. The situation is unfortunate but taking away from the majority in order to help the few is also immoral.