Ultimately, one can't say better than this

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread."

Stealing bread at least arguably protects the poor right now however invisibly . . . widespread theft would destroy the system that creates bread for them to steal (and the rest of us to eat).

But the minds of our nation's poor children are already starving.

Comments

Okay, seriously Meg, that's just a tad overwrought. No one is going to agree with you because you make a sappy plea. I think that a lot of good points have been made on both sides. This is not one of them however.

Posted by Kate | October 30, 2007 3:48 PM

And many people who weep for them, as you do, don't support vouchers, because they genuinely believe that vouchers are not the way to go about feeding those minds. The individual merits of those dueling arguments, of course, have been thrashed out here endlessly. But there is that separate, connected argument about the moral indefensibility of the voucher crowd that you've been making. And I wish you could acknowledge that there are many, many opponents of vouchers who are committed to the education of those poor kids in a real, everyday way you aren't, and never can be. The demonization of the teachers' unions is a sad thing. Independent of the merit of the criticisms against them is the loss of the fact that those unions are actually made up of teachers, many of them who are incredibly committed and dedicated to helping poor children succeed academically, doing what can be an enormously hard job for often pitiful wages. Not all teacher, certainly, maybe not even most, but a very large number. Are they guilty of the kind of hypocrisy you have been routinely accusing your opponents of having? Do you really question their dedication, their passion, their sincerity? Again, you can question their methods, their politics, their rationality; but constantly questioning their motives is, I think, a dead end, and a failure to begin with the basic assumption of good faith that any discourse requires.

While disagreeing with your utterly, I recognize your passion and your emotional and intellectual sincerity regarding this issue. What I find depressing, unfortunate and unfair is your refusal to do the same to those who disagree with you.

Posted by Freddie | October 30, 2007 3:54 PM

I agree that we need changes in many urban school districts, but I don't see how vouchers will magically solve anything. We've already tried letting private businesses run schools. They weren't better at it. The schools that are good at it have the option to kick kids out before they have truly upset the classroom.

Has a private or parochial school ever taken over a failing public school and shown that they can succeed under the same conditions that the public school failed? Has one even offered?

Vouchers strike me as a dogmatic solution to a pragmatic problem.

Posted by freelunch | October 30, 2007 4:08 PM

That's just cryptic.

Posted by southpaw | October 30, 2007 5:24 PM

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread."

The law, in its majestic inequality, will send the poor man to a cold jail cell while the lawyered-up rich man will go home to a nice warm bed.

Posted by ndm | October 30, 2007 8:13 PM

I don't know if a private high school has ever taken over a failing public school system, but a private college has: Boston University took over the Chelsea, MA school system in 1990. Their 15th report to the legislature, dated September 1, 2006, is (PDF alert!) here. If even half of what they allege is true, it has been a resounding success.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | October 30, 2007 8:51 PM

And the minds of some econobloggers are positively anorexic.

Posted by Geddy Lee | October 30, 2007 8:52 PM

Thanks for the Chelsea reference Dr. Weevil. It's very interesting.

Posted by freelunch | October 31, 2007 8:59 AM

Funny you should say that, but I don't think that it's true, because bakers will still try to make a profit, and so more likely society would tend towards some equilibrium position where bread theft was at a low enough level to allow baking as a business to continue. For instance, bakers would put up prices of bread, and give a certain amount for free distribution somewhere far away from their shops.

Or, less directly pressure other guilds to take on more apprentices, or expand out-of-town production.

Secure, well-specified property rights don't have to look like 19th C England or France.

Posted by Marcin Tustin | October 31, 2007 2:09 PM

NMegan,

But the minds of our nation's poor children are already starving.

Could their minds be starving because of the public monopoly stranglehold you insist on imposing upon education?

Is it possible they'd have better options than they do if you folks abstained from regulating and collectivising education?

Posted by John T. Kennedy | October 31, 2007 8:36 PM

Snx for you job!
It has very much helped me!

Posted by dadeClatalump | March 20, 2008 5:23 AM