About #2 (disincentivize charter education): parents created charter schools because they disagreed on the choices that was made for them in public education. It is very hard to fight this, as 1- they see a huge difference in test results 2- they want to give their children the best chances in life.
Finland solution was to ban all private education. Once rich kids were forced to go to public schools, then suddenly education became a larger part of the gov budget, those parents spent more time asking for reforms, volunteering etc.
They have one of the best performant school systems in the planet. And all it takes is not allowing a percentage of the population think of education as optional
> How does the existence of private schools enables this thinking?
Here is a simple example. There is a family with a combined 6k income, their expenses are 2k on rent and 1.5k on child private school, grocieries etc account for 500, savings another 500 and the remaining 1.5k goes on taxes.
Now the goverment proposes a 10% tax raise to improve public schools. Do you think this family would vote for or agaiinst that bill?
Now lets propose a counter example. Same salary, same expenses minus the private school, which gives the family 2k of savings per month. Now due to shortages in public schools they have volunteered at their kids school, helped with field trips, met other parents and families in their neighbourhood. Now the goverment does a 20% tax raise for public schooling. Would this family be more or less willing than the other family to vote yes?
By simply being involved you and your vote become resposinble for it. If you can pay your way away, specially if you stretch your finances to afford it, then investing in the system goes against your own interests regardless of the social externalities of your position.
We could have a society were parents of privately educated kids voted for a public school improvement, but psicologically and economically we know they by and large dont. Therefore the existance of private schooling comes at the expense of a fair, well resourced, and functional public education
Those who care about education, can leave to a private school instead, and not spend time trying to improve the public schools, just leave them to their fate: noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone.
Or that's how I interpret what GP said. Happening a bit where I live: richer families don't want their kids go to school in problematic suburbs.
> and not spend time trying to improve the public schools
> noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone.
It seems that those parents realize that if the system does not care about ensuring that kids in school actually learn things, then they better leave than trying to fix the kids of others (i.e., parents who does not care).
I would argue that it is a net positive for those public schools: those parents still pay local taxes while making sure that there are fewer students -> better student/teacher ratio.
Maybe depends on how hard or easy it is to improve the schools, on how much influence the parents can have? In Finland, apparently it was doable, but that's, in a way, a very different place than here.
No, I'm proposing the opposite: that states try to act more like Norway/Finland by themselves, instead of hoping the federal government will do so (which isn't going to happen).
And yes, schools are funded by local taxes, but it doesn't have to be that way: if states really wanted to, they could take that power away from municipalities. The constitution gives the states broad powers to run themselves as they like.
The idea that French people constantly fight for their rights isn't true either; they basically just love rioting. Americans interpret this as noble political activity because Americans have an incorrect belief that protesting is an effective method of political change that comes from misunderstanding Civil Rights/Vietnam protests.
But when you actually see interviews with French rioters you find they're all conspiracy theorists who think they've uncovered French QAnon. Or they're farmers who want even more subsidies and want to get rid of climate policy.
This is just wrong on all levels - French "manifestations" are not limited to the "gilets jaunes", which were a recent phenomenon that already died out. The gilets jaunes were mostly people who never went to a "grève" before, never participated in Labor movements, never joined a "syndicat"...
The Hiroshima museum, while advocating for a nuclear free world, has an interesting take on why the US dropped the bomb on them.
According to them, the US dropped the bomb because they wanted to show their strengths against the Soviets. It makes little to no mention of the bloody battles in the Pacific.
He has maintained iron clad control over Automattic, WordPress, and WordPress.org. How? By insisting on securing the proxy votes from investors. Investors — what on earth were you thinking?
There is something to say about corporate governance. When a CEO can actively harm the company without risking being fired, the role of the board has failed.
This will help the case of VCs to get board seats.
The board represents the share holders and if the shareholders support Matt, good for them.
According to the company “5% of our company time to WordPress core”, in a for profit company where none of the investors have any vision, you get a WP Engine scenario where (according to Matt) they contribute about 40 hours per week, or about 0.1% of the company time to Wordpress (they have 1000 employees)
That's just the reality of creating open source software.
Anyone (including companies) using it are free to do whatever they want with it (including reselling) and they aren't obligated to contribute in any way.
While this is a particularly dumb case, it's not the first time we've had this situation. Usually the company just relicensed the software going forward, forcing users to either start paying or forking/switching products.
The Sud-Ouest article must have been updated because the version currently online does not mention that at all. Quite the opposite, the article quotes an official that was surprised that Durov would come to Paris anyway even though he knew he was under an arrest warrant in France, and another source says that he might have decided to come in France anyway because he believed he'll never be held accountable.
These tests are often done by people with a high image of the charge. Despite all the research showing futility, they are used in startups time and time again. They do go away with experience.
There are many regulations that slightly inconvenience the many, to address the problems of a few. Individually these cases are benign. As a group they compound complexity.
Each new reform should be evaluated on both its benefits and the burden that it brings.
Wholeheartedly agree. But we (as a society) have neglected the environment for far too fucking long now, some inconvenience for tiny gains is valid until we start seeing societal and environmental improvements.
reply