I've seen you post this many times so I'll assume it bothers you. How are Mississippi and its "Ilk" any different than our abbot districts? How comes it's horrible to talk about the failure of abbot districts and wasted tax money but ok to bitch about Mississippi?
School districts are far more hamstrung in their ability to enact policy one way or another than the states. For example, the recent law in Mississippi allowing companies to fire people for being divorced or wearing pants (among other things) cost the state millions in revenue.
OTOH, Newark is pretty constrained in the way it can generate revenue, it basically has the state and property taxes. If Newark started trying to freeze people out of the district based on wearing a skirt to work, I would say give them no funding. And, while I agree that is certainly waste in Abbott districts, I don't think there is an effort to cry "district rights" any time the district would be cracked down on for doing the wrong thing. Yet states like Mississippi constantly sue the federal government with laws like these, while having the highest poverty, obesity, lowest life expectancy, etc.
States are also free to provide incentives to get businesses and people to move in. Look at what NJ and CT have done to get Wall Street business and residents. Even with Abbott money, Newark cannot allow its teachers not to pay taxes.
What can happen, and what could have been proposed, is paying charter teachers big salaries, to lure the best talent. Lots of NYC charters pay low-level teachers in the six figures and they get people who have advanced degrees from the ivies.
And lastly, there has been minimal movement in the rankings of the states at the bottom of pile. The Abbott decision is far younger than Mississippi and its taking from the feds, and certainly the backwards impositions Mississippi has made on its own economy in the name of bigotry. I mean for crying out loud, there was a federal court desegregating schools there this year!
