May 31, 2013

"When we're talking about statewide expansion of voucher schools we're talking about moving into communities that don't want or need them..."

"... and in most cases are downright outspoken in their opposition to them... We're talking about diminished resources for students in our neighborhood public schools while private voucher schools essentially get a blank check at taxpayer expense with zero accountability."

91 comments:

AprilApple said...

Why are leftist progressive democrats so dead set against choice, competition and vouchers?

Parents should have choice. I thought leftists admired choice?

Turns out leftists are afraid of school choice and would prefer your child stay in a union school, even if that union school is failing your child.

Quayle said...

"while private voucher schools essentially get a blank check at taxpayer expense with zero accountability."

The stupidity of people that don't understand choice and free markets never fails to surprise me.

They want companies broken up because they are coercive monopolies, but it never seems to ever occur to them that the biggest bully coercive monopoly, bar none, is government.

bagoh20 said...

The only accountability is when people have a choice to go to a competitor. If they don't, then some people should be getting fired by the basket full. That ain't happening anywhere.

RonF said...

The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) represents public education employees.

And she says that they bring them into communities that neither want nor need them? We'll see what the people say. My bet is that not one voucher will go unused and there'll be demands for more.

AprilApple said...

"Blank check at tax payer expense with zero accountability"

That's how the current government unionist anti-choice system works now, honey.

wyo sis said...

RonF
I think you're right about vouchers and we could probably find quite a few Washington DC families who agree.

Eric said...

If private schools get built in communities that don't want them, they'll go out of business. To be fair, that might be hard for a union boss to understand.

Henry said...

...with zero accountability.

Except for their accountability to the parents who use the vouchers.

But in the union paradigm individuals don't exist. Never forget that.

LilyBart said...


They have vouchers in Sweden and are reportedly really happy with them.

Monopolies always hate to give up their control.

Michael K said...

"said Mary Bell, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council."

If course !

Synova said...

It sounds like what they are implementing is extremely limited... 1000 vouchers state-wide? Did I read that wrong? And it will require financial qualifications... you can only be at 150% of poverty level (or below) or you can't get a voucher for your kids.

(Also, by the by... one commentor was crying about having to pay for religious training but if shuffling the money cleanses it enough that Georgetown can be forced to pay for contraceptives, there can not *possibly* be a problem with shuffling the money for tuition to a local church-school. Nevermind that the law doesn't force anyone to take contraceptives and *does* force everyone to attend school.)

Tim said...

AprilApple said...

Why are leftist progressive democrats so dead set against choice, competition and vouchers?

Parents should have choice. I thought leftists admired choice?


Ha ha.

They lied.

They only support "choice" when it comes to in-utero infanticide.

Then, "choice," properly executed, rocks.

Choice to enable someone poor child to escape leftists indoctrination by a public employee union member, agent of the government?

Nope.

You can't have that choice.

Taxpayers MUST fund the dogmatic training and indoctrination of future Democrat voters.

edutcher said...

They're afraid of people voting with their feet.

Tim said...

And, just to be clear, anyone who has ever voted Democrat since at least 1980 is completely, inescapably complicit in this conspiracy to make America's public school system completely focused on manufacturing PC-compliant idiots.

Chip S. said...

The anti-choice people always whine about resources being taken away from public schools to pay for vouchers, but they never mention that the number of kids the public schools have to teach also falls.

Of course, fewer public-school kids means fewer public-school teachers--and administrators. Why, you might almost begin to think that these highly skilled education professionals suspect that the newly created private schools wouldn't want to hire them.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

AprilApple said...
Why are leftist progressive democrats so dead set against choice, competition and vouchers?


Because money laundering schemes need the laundry part to continue as an ongoing concern.

That's the Teacher's Union and the Public School System.

Vouchers threaten all of that.

Follow the money, as always.

Tim said...

Where's Moobs Mahal to defend the union re-educators?

wyo sis said...

I think Mahal outed himself as a straw man for liberals.

Original Mike said...

"When we're talking about statewide expansion of voucher schools we're talking about moving into communities that don't want or need them..."

Earth to liberals. "Communities" don't "want" anything. Some people within those communities do, however.

Original Mike said...

Was Garage also Inga? They disappeared at the same time.

CWJ said...

Amen Original Mike,

The quoted headline and link that constitute Althouse's post sre positively incoherent.

bagoh20 said...

"...anyone who has ever voted Democrat since at least 1980 is completely, inescapably complicit in this conspiracy..."


Whew, just under the wire there. I'm good.

Inga said...

I haven't dissapeared at all, I comment daily.

wyo sis said...

I'm not quite sure what happened to Inga. She shows up occasionally, but she took her avatar off so I lose track of her.

Sorun said...

8 arrested after brawl at kindergarten graduation

See how expectations have suffered in public schools? Back in the day, we were expected to get all of the way through high school before we could graduate.

Inga said...

You Hoo, arms waving, I'm heeeeeere!

wyo sis said...

Whoops Inga! There you are. Good.

Pogo said...

Public schools are like Spam, only mandatory, expensive, and rancid.

Their claim that "communities ...don't want or need" voucher schools is never proven or contested.

How the hell do they know if communities want or need them?

Original Mike said...

Sorry, Inga.

Tim said...

"Whew, just under the wire there. I'm good."

Yep.

Public schools in California began to go off the rails just about then - the whole "...invest in our children.." really meaning "support incompetent public school teacher unions" took root then - and if you couldn't see it, or voted for politicians who fostered support for public school unions over educating kids, you were/are complicit in the corruption.

kimsch said...

Well, May of 1980 is when the Department of Education commenced its "mission"... It's been 33 years now...

Petunia said...

Once I saw the quotation was from Mary Bell, who has grown immensely fat both literally and financially on her union salary paid for by forced dues, that just confirmed that it was a completely worthless observation. Just like the person who made it.

traditionalguy said...

The pretend work by attendance by union Administrators and teachers is a hard Hard gig to lose to benefit a few refugees from the government funded abortion mills.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Hey things move fast.

Don't you be fast too.

Unless you're a thing.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Our actions, if they be only that in a broader context, are important.

Our thoughts, which are in my uneducated opinion heavily influential when it comes to our actions, are not nothing when it comes to defining us and our lives.

Catholics, as per usual, are on the right tract when dealing with humans and their thoughts and actions.

But not this socialist Pope.

Too many will die now for anyone to indulge in socialist antimarketist voices.

Powerful ones like the Pope make me especially weary and frightened.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Is willful ignorance evil when the ignorance is contained within itself?

betamax3000 said...

Stop Public Education By Stopping Having Children. Education Problem solved in a Generation.

betamax3000 said...

Ming the Merciless Robot says:

I Do Not Approve of Vouchers. Vouchers slow down the Inevitable Progress of Accepting Ming.

Dante said...

In Walker's 2011 budget, the program expanded to Racine and income eligibility levels were increased to 300 percent of the federal poverty rate.

Sounds risky, but who knows.

Take a group of extremely at risk kids, and put them into private schools. In a fair world, if the kids do average, then it would be amazing. I wonder how the press will spin it.

Carl said...

From the article:

"opponents of vouchers say they should not be allowed to expand statewide because over time participation in the program will grow and take resources away from public schools."

It's that a point-blank admission that public schools suck, compared to any imaginable alternative?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

(virtually) rape those pupils for every dollar.

Rapists deserve it.

Many pupils are Republicans you know, so yeah Hitler-based.

Their kids deserve what Sheehan said when she was publicized.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Are cockroaches meek?

Perhaps they should inherent the Earth.

Rightly so considering America's election of Ted Kennedy via that shit state.

Who else was elected "Lion of the Senate" and what do your terms mean?

Fuck you Massholes.

You won, enjoy your victory.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

In many ways seeing humans as puppets or lil experiments is the only way to go high-falutin' conscious-free (to a point from what I know.)

Does this observation change shit, kinda like an ununcertainty principle?

Why does Heisenburg; Not I?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"You either love someone or ya hate em'." -D. Hopper in character

"You mutt." Colonial fucking God-be-most-very-damned fuckingagain Kurtz.

Methadras said...

NOES!!! You can't take away our union contract money, that was extracted from property taxes, that we negotiated in bad faith with our local Democrat representative that had no tax payer representation at the negotiating table on. That wouldn't be fair at all and we won't let you take that property tax money in the form of a voucher away from us and give to a parent to take to the school of their choice, public, private, or charter. Nope. We want to maintain a completely sandboxed system by which your children are wards of the state and you pay us through your property taxes to fuck them and you over while we line our pockets, and donate billions to our democrat operatives that will keep the gravy train going into infinity. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Aaron said...

In Sweden, they gave vouchers that were less than the public schools got, and still the voucher schools did better and were profitable.

Oh, and the public schools ended up improving as well.

Note that again: the public schools IMPROVED with vouchers and competition.

Jeff Teal said...

METHADRAS plus we get to indoctrinate your children to hate you and your values for six plus hours per day.So that when the kids turn out to be utterly dependent you can pay for them until your grandchildren come along.And the beautiful cycle continues .

Jeff Teal said...

METHADRAS plus we get to indoctrinate your children to hate you and your values for six plus hours per day.So that when the kids turn out to be utterly dependent you can pay for them until your grandchildren come along.And the beautiful cycle continues .

Alex said...

Even Inga is in agreement. Public education sucks.

rcommal said...

Meh.

Before the fight over the federal government taking over schools [from the states], there was the fight over state government taking over schools [from the locals].

So it went, and so it goes.

Heh?

rcommal said...

I wonder: How many fought his or her state's control over local control of schools, and how many do now.

rcommal said...

The problem with slippery slopes today is that they defy gravity:

Up we go!

caseym54 said...

I remember the anti-voucher ads the teachers ran in Colorado, where white parents were threatened with Hispanic children in their private-school classrooms.

I guess this is just more of the same; it worked.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

What connects humanity is truthanol.

You watch some jerk spell it truthanal and turn me loose.

By definition, and I should know, as I make 'em up like nuttin', it's truthanol.

Renee said...

If it is taxpayer dollars, it is not a free market.

The goal was a public education, not parental choice.

Achilles said...

Don't forget the primary intent of the public school system: to segregate. Remember it was democrats that pushed segregation in the south. Nothing has changed.

The leftists have designed a system that forces poor kids to stay in some schools based off of property values and regions while the rich can escape to private schools or have better public schools because they are in a better district with more property tax revenue. This also keeps black and Hispanic kids in the worst schools, poorly educated, and dependent on democrats for handouts.

Lining the pockets of union cronies is the way they grease the wheels and keep the system going. The true goal is to segregate and indoctrinate.

Renee said...

Charter schools like to tout their test scores and long waiting lists, especially when advocating for more charter schools.  But neither they nor their handmaidens in the local media ever talk about their attrition.

Using data from the Mass DOE’s website, let’s look at the attrition from several Boston charter schools, shall we?

Academy of the Pacific Rim had 81 5th graders in the 2005-2006 school year. Only  26 of those students remain as 12th graders this year.

Boston Collegiate Charter School had 88 6th graders in the 2006-2007 school year.  Only 35 of those students remain as 12th graders this year.

Boston Preparatory Charter School had 102 6th graders in the 2006-2007 school year. Only 39 remain as 12th graders this year.

City on a Hill Charter School had 130 9th graders in the 2009-2010 school year. Only 47 remain this year as 12th graders.


Parents do not have choice, the charters do. And will kick our your child instead of helping. Waste of tax dollars. A scam.


http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/03/charter-school-attrition/

rhhardin said...

Public education worked when I was a kid, but they didn't have political correctness or multiculturalism yet.

There were plenty of future union thugs with sharp rulers, though.

Molly said...

Vouchers would work fine for children with competent parents; but won't improve things, and might make them worse for children with incompetent parents (and those are the children who are "left behind" by the achievement gap).

Conservatives don't want to say this because the second part undercuts support for vouchers. Liberals don't want to say this because it is insulting (though true) to an important liberal voting block -- incompetent parents.

Molly said...

Vouchers would work fine for children with competent parents; but won't improve things, and might make them worse for children with incompetent parents (and those are the children who are "left behind" by the achievement gap).

Conservatives don't want to say this because the second part undercuts support for vouchers. Liberals don't want to say this because it is insulting (though true) to an important liberal voting block -- incompetent parents.

Bob_R said...

Pro-slavery arguments haven't changed from 1850 to 2013.

bpm4532 said...

Public schools could accept vouchers, too.

Rusty said...

Molly said...
Vouchers would work fine for children with competent parents; but won't improve things, and might make them worse for children with incompetent parents (and those are the children who are "left behind" by the achievement gap).

Conservatives don't want to say this because the second part undercuts support for vouchers. Liberals don't want to say this because it is insulting (though true) to an important liberal voting block -- incompetent parents.

Then, Molly, the incompetent parents can continue to send their children to public schools. They don't have to accept vouchers. That's the thing about choice.

Robert Cook said...

"Remember it was democrats that pushed segregation in the south. Nothing has changed."

Heh. Yes, because in the south the Republican Party was abhorred as "the party of Lincoln," so all the racists and pro-slavery advocates and other bigots became Democrats.

Those people have long since left the Democratic party in the south and have joined the Republican party.

TMink said...

Dear socialist who opposes school vouchers: People who do not want vouchers will not use them. You should not fear the government selling shit sandwiches (voucher supported private education) when turkey on wheat with avocado sandwiches (public school education) are free.

Unless it is you are trying to give away the shit sandwiches. Then worry. Worry a lot.

Trey

TMink said...

Bob_R wrote: "Pro-slavery arguments haven't changed from 1850 to 2013."

True enough. The anti-choice crowd is indeed treating poor Americans as slaves to the failed public school system. Brilliant observation Bob.

Trey

AprilApple said...

Vouchers are created to assist poorer families escape failing union-controlled public schools.

Failing schools - Like in Atlanta- where the unionist democrats in control of the school- used erasers to cheat on student test scores. The unionistas pocketed money too and were given back slaps by Arne Duncan. When the parents wondered why their children were still so poor at reading, the unionist democrat bureaucrat mobster progressive named Beverly Hall said "don't worry about it."

The Atlanta educators had, for years, been revising answers on their students’ statewide, federally mandated competency tests. This was done to improve the students’ scores, and unsurprisingly it worked. The Atlanta school system was celebrated. Its chief, Beverly Hall, was named National Superintendent of the Year in 2009 by the American Association of School Administrators, which declared her to be
“an outstanding superintendent whose leadership has turned Atlanta into a model of urban school reform. .  .  . She has demonstrated a commitment to setting high standards for students and school personnel, working collaboratively with the school board, and meeting the needs of the local community.”

Hall was also honored at the White House by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who later said, while the rumors of widespread fraud and corruption were already in the air, “Whatever the outcome of the state investigation, [Hall’s] accomplishments should not go unrecognized.”

Hall was also endorsed by the Gates Foundation, which found the Atlanta public school system “the leading edge” in “effective teaching.”


Perhaps Bill Gates should reconsider his blind faith in the cheaters and frauds in the unionist public school system?

Arne Duncan - LOL. What a tool.

Steve Koch said...

Robert Cook said...
"Remember it was democrats that pushed segregation in the south. Nothing has changed."

"Heh. Yes, because in the south the Republican Party was abhorred as "the party of Lincoln," so all the racists and pro-slavery advocates and other bigots became Democrats.

Those people have long since left the Democratic party in the south and have joined the Republican party."

Another dumb ass theory by Cook, who lives in an alternate reality (accounting for his astounding inability to learn about the real world).

Just sticking to the facts, the GOP was the party that freed the slaves and the dems were the party that discriminated against the blacks. To this day, the dems are the party that divides the country racially, pushing policies that discriminate on the basis of race (affirmative action), and opposing a color blind approach.

As always, the gop pushes a color blind approach.

I point this out not to convince Cook (that would be a wasted effort since he has the previously mentioned learning disability) but just to distinguish between fact and Cook's alternate reality.

kcom said...

Renee, unless you tell me where the "missing" students are now, the information you provided is meaningless. There are all kinds of reasons students don't stay in the same schools for 6 years in a row. Some good some bad. But the fact that they're no longer at that specific school is devoid of any meaning without further information.

Tim said...

"Those people have long since left the Democratic party in the south and have joined the Republican party."

Hmmmm.

So, all the old citizens of the Confederacy left the Democrat Party and joined the Republican Party?

Who knew any were still alive?

Asshole.

Tim said...

Robert Cook obvious knows nothing about inter-state migration.

Probably because Marx and C. Wright Mills didn't write about it.

Steve Koch said...

Molly said...
"Vouchers would work fine for children with competent parents; but won't improve things, and might make them worse for children with incompetent parents (and those are the children who are "left behind" by the achievement gap).

Conservatives don't want to say this because the second part undercuts support for vouchers. Liberals don't want to say this because it is insulting (though true) to an important liberal voting block -- incompetent parents."

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, nobody will be forced to use vouchers, they can keep their kids in public schools. Most likely the majority of incompetent parents will not rouse themselves to use vouchers (inertia being an especially powerful force with incompetent people) so their kids will stay in public schools by default. For the few incompetent parents with the initiative to use vouchers, is there any reason to believe that it is probable that their kids will end up in schools worse than the public schools they left? It seems like the result would be somewhat random (i.e. might be better, worse, or about the same, who knows?).

The arguments about vouchers by the dems are a cynical attempt to hide the fact that all they really care about is protecting unionized public school teacher's jobs, one of the most important privileged interest groups (PIGs) in the dem party. The proper response to the dem's unserious, cynical arguments is to ridicule them and treat these execrable hacks with the contempt and abuse they deserve.




Steve Koch said...

Renee said:
"Parents do not have choice, the charters do. And will kick our your child instead of helping. Waste of tax dollars. A scam."

Parents do have a choice, that is the whole point of vouchers so your first sentence is clearly false.

Second sentence claiming that the charter school will kick your child is inflammatory and absurd.

3rd sentence claims that it is a waste of tax dollars but that is exactly wrong cuz vouchers cost less money than the amount that the public schools spend on a per student basis.

4th sentence claims vouchers are a scam, again exactly wrong. Vouchers are a way to permit parents to choose the school their child will attend, vouchers are about freedom of choice and a way to improve education.

PackerBronco said...

One of the big differences between a private school and a public school is that with private schools the parent is the customer who business the school has to attract and keep by putting forth a quality product. In public schools, the parent is a meddler who should keep quiet and keep out of the way as the professionals run things.

PackerBronco said...

Molly said...
Vouchers would work fine for children with competent parents; but won't improve things, and might make them worse for children with incompetent parents (and those are the children who are "left behind" by the achievement gap).


I wouldn't say "competent parents" as much as "involved parents". And I think that's largely true. Children whose parents are involved with their education will do better and if you come from a two-parent family you are twice as likely to have at least one involved parent than if you're raised by a stressed-out single parent.

That being said, one way of improving education would be to get parents involved and that can be achieved by giving parents more choice and control over their child's education, starting with giving them the ability to choose the school.

Steve Koch said...

NotquiteunBuckley said...
"Hey things move fast.

Don't you be fast too.

Unless you're a thing."

NotQuiteUnBuckley is probably an Althouse sockpuppet.

n.n said...

A left-wing regime operates through the establishment and maintenance of monopolies and monopolistic practices. This does not necessarily imply a bad outcome, at least not immediately; but, as competing interests (e.g. markets, individuals) are marginalized or eviscerated, there is a predisposition to suffer corruption. First, it is progressive. Then with a convergence, it is conclusive, which is eventually followed by a revolution (e.g. French or American, but especially the former).

Sam L. said...

How, exactly, do they know the communities don't want them?

I suspect "they just KNOW".

Renee said...

Steve, It happens.

They won't even consider my child, because he has an IEP. They simply don't hire a special needs teacher, to save on their profits as a charter.

There are a lot of taxpayers, who do NOT have children. Why should parents have all the choice?

Parents are using other people's money.

It is like someone with housing assistance, want to choose their housing.

They can't.

I think people on welfare should fight for 'choice' and demand public housing in more affluent suburbs.

It's not fair.

cubanbob said...

"Heh. Yes, because in the south the Republican Party was abhorred as "the party of Lincoln," so all the racists and pro-slavery advocates and other bigots became Democrats. "

RC forgets that those racists were also populists whose votes were instrumental in passing the New Deal.

Renee thats not a bug but a feature. The charter schools like private schools want to get rid off disruptive students. For the betterment of the rest.

"Molly said...
"Vouchers would work fine for children with competent parents; but won't improve things, and might make them worse for children with incompetent parents (and those are the children who are "left behind" by the achievement gap).

Conservatives don't want to say this because the second part undercuts support for vouchers. Liberals don't want to say this because it is insulting (though true) to an important liberal voting block -- incompetent parents."

Why should competent parents have their children suffer to absolve the incompetent parents of their irresponsibility? That is what vouchers-competition does, bring accountability to the parents.

cubanbob said...

Renee speaking of other people's money why should other people pay for your kid's special needs?

Paul Zrimsek said...


It is like someone with housing assistance, want to choose their housing.

They can't.


What?

PackerBronco said...

They won't even consider my child, because he has an IEP. They simply don't hire a special needs teacher, to save on their profits as a charter.

So go elsewhere. When a store doesn't have the product you want, do you demand the government take over the market?

There are a lot of taxpayers, who do NOT have children. Why should parents have all the choice? Parents are using other people's money.

Because we believe, as Jefferson did, that an educated populace is the foundation of a free and democratic society.

It is like someone with housing assistance, want to choose their housing.

Bad example on your part. Studies have shown that public housing works best when the recipients have a sense of ownership over the property.

However, when the tenants are just cogs in the machine, public housing facilities decay and are left to rot. Jack Kemp did extensive work in this field.

Aaron said...

I think the union people just don't understand why vouchers work and why they would not really harm the vast majority of teachers.

Competition between schools allows for innovation. (This does happen in public schools, but much less often.)

This innovation can have NOTHING to do with costs, salaries, etc.

In Sweden, one private school came up with the idea of weekly one on one meetings between students and their teacher.

This is obviously a good idea so the child can be aware of their progress and problems.

There are many other good ideas for process innovation that drop wasteful practices and promote good practices that do not have anything to do with salary, etc.

And of course, other schools copy the good ideas and thus everyone gets better overall.

Again, the Swedish voucher system ended up with all schools improving, even the public schools supposedly saddled with the dregs that were not cherry picked.

I highly recommend listening to the CATO podcast waiting for superman which has actual school entrepreneur from Sweden talk about the system.

Synova said...

For years one of the arguments against homeschooling was that it was necessary to trap the children of good parents in public schools (and if private schools could be done away with as well, so much the better) because those parents would then be forced to make the school good enough for their kids. The basis of this argument was "bad parents". Most parents are "bad parents", they don't care, they don't get involved, and for *their* children's sake "good parents" should have their children held hostage in bad schools.

The concept of public schooling in this country (who knows about others) is that children must be compelled by law to attend because they have "bad parents". There has to be laws because parents would keep their kid at home working otherwise. Immigrants can't be trusted to send their children so they must be forced. It's always been about force and the assumption that parents are "bad parents" and will not send their children to school unless at the point of a gun.

Else why not provide free education that is voluntary? And it's been compulsory from the start. That's not recent.

But what compulsory gives us, and what an assumption of "bad parents" gives us, is a system where parents are essentially powerless and teachers expected to impose an education and a form on children apart from the desires of parents.

Because we don't trust people with their own children.

What is new... what is VERY new... is the notion that parents should be involved in schools, though anyone who has tried has found out that this is essentially a lie. You're a supplicant, nothing more.

One thing that has been found to be true is that when "bad parents" are given actual authority over their children's education, often through real school choice, they become better parents.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Renee,

What you're calling "attrition rates" need to be broken down. You are arguing that every last student who left a charter school between 5th grade and 12th dropped out or was expelled, using those extra-super-duper expelling powers that only charter schools and private schools have.

But it happens that there are other reasons for leaving a school system. For example, I didn't spend 5th through 12th grade in the same school system. Was that because I became a druggie and dropped out of school? Was it because the school was so lousy that my parents moved me out of it?

No; actually it was because my parents took a job in another part of the state. But you would count this as "attrition" and hold it as evidence against my excellent public elementary school.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Synova,

For years one of the arguments against homeschooling was that it was necessary to trap the children of good parents in public schools (and if private schools could be done away with as well, so much the better) because those parents would then be forced to make the school good enough for their kids.

The only reason they've not dared go against private schooling and homeschooling is that Pierce v. Society of Sisters is one of the precedents to Griswold, which is itself the main precedent for Roe. If it were possible to make an end run around that bit of Constitutional law, such that Griswold and Roe could be kept while Pierce could be thrown out, they'd've done it by now.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Synova,

I should have added that the argument you state was, of course, also the argument for "busing." Trap the kids of the educated parents in lousy schools, and the lousy schools will be forced to improve.

What's interesting is how this argument had to be backpedaled, rapidly, in the face of "top 10%" plans like Texas' and Florida's. Suddenly it was a terrible thing that minority parents were sending their kids to weaker schools, solely that they could make the top 10% of their graduating class. That having bright, ambitious kids in the classrooms of underperforming schools might be a good thing -- as it had been held to be all through the busing controversies by the "progressive" element -- didn't register when it was Black and Hispanic kids who were to be the leaven.

Andy Krause said...

Renee said, "Parents do not have choice, the charters do. And will kick our your child instead of helping. Waste of tax dollars. A scam."

I followed your link and also visited the Mass DOE site that has the actual numbers. The Mass DOE does not get any reasons for attrition. Without this information your statement is unsupported.

rcommal said...

How silly, so much.

Also, Robert Cook is wiser than most.

wtf+wth. Right?

Andy Freeman said...

> Using data from the Mass DOE’s website, let’s look at the attrition from several Boston charter schools, shall we?

Note that "we" didn't look at the attrition from any public schools so there is no evidence to suggest that these "several" are worse wrt attrition.