It's morning in Wisconsin

[Jacob]

The biggest question is the balance:

1: Kids with potential to do much better in a different school, other factors notwithstanding.

2: Kids for whom terrible home/family/social environments are the primary factor in their (lack of) educational success.


Okay, is it better for society to remove the kids in category 1 and let category 2 rot, or is it better to keep them as-is and hope the 1s help the 2s (even if that causes a lot of wasted potential for the 1s)?

Which helps minorities more?

Ideally, the system helps kids from high resource families and those from low resource families according to their needs.

Linking school funding to academic success would seem to especially nurture high resource kids while abandoning those from low resource families.

Theoretically, a well executed voucher program would help kids end up in the schools best suited for them and thus help everybody, but a badly executed one would essentially link school funding to academic success and thus further screw the low resource kids.

[derspiess]

I think that if you're concerned about such things (as I think you are, and as I think derSpiess is not)

Your constant lack of faith in my humanity makes me giggle

Anyway, I am sorta concerned about such things.  But I'm mostly concerned about helping students and parents who want to help themselves but are unfortunately trapped in crappy school systems.  A lot of those who would be left behind in crappy schools are beyond help and frankly don't want help anyway.

[Jacob]

Your constant lack of faith in my humanity makes me giggle

Anyway, I am sorta concerned about such things.  But I'm mostly concerned about helping students and parents who want to help themselves but are unfortunately trapped in crappy school systems.  A lot of those who would be left behind in crappy schools are beyond help and frankly don't want help anyway.

That's exactly what I figured, so in this case you're giggling at me being correct

[The Brain]

The idea that funding is the most important resource for the success of a school is strange to me.

[derspiess]

I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).

Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?

[derspiess]

That's exactly what I figured, so in this case you're giggling at me being correct

[DGuller]

I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).

Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?

See my cream/crap post. :contrast: 

[derspiess]

I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).

Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?

See my cream/crap post. :contrast: 

I'm not sure I buy the premise. 

[Jacob]

I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).

Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?

Not if the school is continually losing funding because funding is linked to school performance.

[The Brain]

I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).

Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?

Not if the school is continually losing funding because funding is linked to school performance.

In which system is this the case?

[Admiral Yi]

Not if the school is continually losing funding because funding is linked to school performance.

I'm not aware of any system that awards resources on overall academic performance.

Vouchers withdraw the per capita funding for students that took the charter school route, but that leaves per student spending in the public school unchanged.

[Jacob]

In which system is this the case?

I am under the impression that it is one of the proposals associated with introducing a voucher system in the US. The idea is that competition for resources would encourage schools to do better.

[PDH]

I actually think the best argument against vochers is this:

The current system is not nearly so broken as people make it out to be, and in fact in most cases where people complain about "failed schools" the failure is not on the part of the schools at all, but on the community, society, and cultures that created the disadvantaged groups that habitually fail when it comes to education - whether that be inner city black kids or rural America white trash."

Sure, blame the victim.

[mongers]

The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent  . . .

Pretty strong words.  How exactly is democracy being perverted?

In our society, if groups of people want to pool capital and associate together for the purpose of operating a business enterprise, the law not only permits that but extends special protections and privileges to such group (like limited liability).  Thus - among other things - allows these different individuals to act with a single collective voice in their interaction with employees.

Since FDR, the US has given recognition to the rights of the employees to do the same thing - i.e. to bind themselves together as a collective for the purpose of interacting and negotiating with their employers.  And from the POV of the employees, the need and value and doing this is the same whether the employer is a private or public entity.  Why should an employee lose associational rights just because he or she happens to work for an enterprise ultimately run by the State of X as opposed to the shareholders of X, Inc?  If the only answer is the risk of corruption, then IMO Guller and Seedy have a point, and the same argument can be used to attack the raison d'etre of the corporate form, particular in the post-CU era.

[Barrister]

The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent  . . .

Pretty strong words.  How exactly is democracy being perverted?

In our society, if groups of people want to pool capital and associate together for the purpose of operating a business enterprise, the law not only permits that but extends special protections and privileges to such group (like limited liability).  Thus - among other things - allows these different individuals to act with a single collective voice in their interaction with employees.

Since FDR, the US has given recognition to the rights of the employees to do the same thing - i.e. to bind themselves together as a collective for the purpose of interacting and negotiating with their employers.  And from the POV of the employees, the need and value and doing this is the same whether the employer is a private or public entity.  Why should an employee lose associational rights just because he or she happens to work for an enterprise ultimately run by the State of X as opposed to the shareholders of X, Inc?  If the only answer is the risk of corruption, then IMO Guller and Seedy have a point, and the same argument can be used to attack the raison d'etre of the corporate form, particular in the post-CU era.

Since both Minsky's post, and my response, have been overtaken by talk about school vouchers, here's my response:

Of course no one would object to employees voluntarily coming together to collectively bargain.

But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions.  Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement).  And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union.  What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?