It's morning in Wisconsin

[Jacob]

Yeah, pretty much-- by continuing to fund failing schools

But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.

Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.

[DGuller]

I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.

I don't think that's irrelevant at all.  Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have.  A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.

[derspiess]

Please leave your guns at the border.

Wusses.

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy has foresworn sleep while this thread is alive.

Ed Schultz and I will not rest until every bratwurst in Wisconsin has its union rights enshrined in law.

[Admiral Yi]

But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.

Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.

This is the meat of the critique of voucher programs.  Better students who are forced to stay in crap schools help out the boneheads. 

The flip side of course is that the eggheads have to suffer if they can't leave.

[derspiess]

I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.

It helps keep it interesting for him, I guess.

[CountDeMoney]

I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.

I don't think that's irrelevant at all.  Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have.  A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.

Meh, when Jacob does it, it's cogent, lucid and thoughtful.  When I do it, it's all ZOMG THERE HE GOES AGAIN EQUATING POOR NIGGERS WITH POVERTY

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think that's irrelevant at all.  Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have.  A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.

Touches on racism is as far as it goes.  The current public school system (unless we're talking about magnet schools and the like) systematizes geographic segregation.  Vouchers confer mobility.

[derspiess]

This discussion drove me to check something in the Cincinnati Public School website.  I noticed they proudly identify themselves as "Ohio's Highest Rated Urban School District."  Wow!!

[CountDeMoney]

I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.

It helps keep it interesting for him, I guess.

I hope your kid knocks up a negress with a voucher.

[The Brain]

But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.

Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.

This is the meat of the critique of voucher programs.  Better students who are forced to stay in crap schools help out the boneheads. 

The flip side of course is that the eggheads have to suffer if they can't leave.

Just use the Swedish system. Even die-hard Socialists like Americans should find it in their hearts to accept it.

[derspiess]

I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.

It helps keep it interesting for him, I guess.

I hope your kid knocks up a negress with a voucher.

Now does he have to use the voucher for that purpose? 

[garbon]

I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.

I don't think that's irrelevant at all.  Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have.  A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.

Wait Yi said as far as touches.  Per Seedster's comments - it is like the main contributing factor.

[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.

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?

[The Brain]

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?

WTF What kind of crap country has this system?