That's not necessarily a misconception, but rather a simplification. BTW, how would you classify defamatory gossip? It's not permanent but it's also not transient.

It's gotta be another Topeka or "John" Hopkins.

One of the problems (dissaffection/lack of interest) and its resultant underperforming students might be the remoteness at which one as a student -and possibly as a parent- might perceive the cost (in money and time) of students' attendence in school. Basically, if I recall correctly, as a student there were some who immersed themselves in study; there were also others who were on the periphery of education and its intention to form the students.
Some students saw the institution as a device for learning and and method of progress (for their lives) others saw school as a necessary nuisance at best. That is they were dissaffected and had little interest in studying and or in the fate of themselves and the system. That is to say that they seemed to think that because taxes are paid (by their parents) that therefore they have an inherent right to vandalise property, disrupt the system, disnegage, etc. because, in their view, it was not really communal property but rather their own (and thus could/should do as they pleased). To me that is erroneous and detrimental logic but it permeates into other areas of society --areas where people feel some sort or entitlement (I'm not speaking of redress here). It's amusing to see people talk about public property as being theirs because they pay taxes instead of seeing it as public property.

Anyway, back to my point, some students realised the importance of education and took advantage of the system, others antagonised the current system to their detriment. Moreover the uninterested students take away from the positive experience schooling should offer students. Therefore, as more students resent the system and forego the opportunity it affors due to perceived disconnectedness between the school's budget's revenue source and the student it may be better, in some ways to have parents foot their students bills more directly. In that way, both parent and student see a vested interest in participating in school. I don't offer a solution as I am not a social scientist nor an economist. We would also need to take into account those who could not afford the total monetary cost of education and subsidise them but perhaps not at the 100% level so that they also feel vestment.

Nevertheless, schools are governed at some degree by the people they serve, and if enough people sight systemic problems they do have recourse [vouchers seem to be an outcome of the dissatisfaction to some degree]. Speech, in school, I think ought not be stiffled, so long as it not yeild to detriment in others. That is to say, I think students should be free to express themselves but not go overboard so much as to impinge on others. For example, this student should be able to communicate his views on drugs, but to do so as a serious matter, not as a juvenile prank in quest for attention. He ought have an outlet where he can express his opinions (and thus his right to speech) but he should not have his freedom overstep on the rest of the school body. Oh, what am I saying, it seems nearly everyone is retrograde and juvenile in their attitudes and only look out for "no.1" as they say.