Is that right? By "run" do you mean school presidents or boards, or something else?
As for the whys, it's hard to say. My theory is that the leaders of the schools think they can still pacify the problematic students, if not outright re-educate them. The students still bring in money to the schools (even if it takes a little while), so there is at least a small incentive to keep them enrolled.
That there hasn't been more school leadership taken to account over stuff like this may mean it hasn't been so damaging to the reputation of the schools, or at least in their perspective.
Is that right? By "run" do you mean school presidents or boards, or something else?
As for the whys, it's hard to say. My theory is that the leaders of the schools think they can still pacify the problematic students, if not outright re-educate them. The students still bring in money to the schools (even if it takes a little while), so there is at least a small incentive to keep them enrolled.
That there hasn't been more school leadership taken to account over stuff like this may mean it hasn't been so damaging to the reputation of the schools, or at least in their perspective.