(Guest post by Greg Forster)
EdChoice carries my post using the new NAEP results to bring us back to our earlier discussion of Ian Kingsbury’s finding about what our condescending friends at NACSA do to minority charter operators:
If you’re wondering why the education status quo wants heavy regulation, ask yourself why Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asked Congress to regulate social media: Regulation cements the power of dominant providers, shutting out smaller and less powerful rivals. That’s why heavy regulation does so much damage to minority communities. They have less political power to influence the content of regulations — which more powerful providers can shape in their own favor — and less ability to afford the enormous cost of compliance.
Borrowing Matt’s graphic above to make the point about Louisiana, land of the overregulated NACSA dream.
Sadly consistent with Walter Williams’ posit of the ineffectiveness of Black/Brown political power. In spite of the decades of Black/Brown political leaders in California, they’ve failed to move the needle positively for the very people they serve, and there are few states more heavily regulated than ours.
Protecting minority interests (of any kind) in a democratic society where the majority rules is one of the oldest political problems there is. Keeping the rules of the game clear, consistent, subject to as little arbitrary interpretation as possible, and (above all) as minimally burdensome as necessary is still the only way to make it happen.