Earlier in the week, the Washington Post published an article detailing the troubles that low-income communities have due to a lack of supermarkets and banking services. As Karen Dillon summed up, “despite a high number of customers and sufficient wealth to support large, full-service grocery stores and mainstream bank branches, many of these neighborhoods haven’t seen either in decades.” So the only options that residents of these communities have are overpriced corner stores and check cashing outlets that charge exorbitant fees.

According to a new report released by the Education Sector, the same problem is inherent in education. Conservatives like to claim that “choice” will be enough to reform the education system, and public schools will all be whipped into shape if a couple of charter schools open. Alas, the truth is not so simple:

Early advocates of school choice argued that increased choice would unleash market forces, including parental demand for good schools, entrepreneurial interest in building better schools, and competition among schools to serve students. Low-income, urban neighborhoods that have long suffered from low educational achievement, they said, would benefit the most from choice-based school reforms, as families wielded their new consumer power to drive improvements in their children’s education. But the past two decades of choice reforms have demonstrated that choice alone is insufficient to drive large-scale improvement. School districts have proven remarkably resistant to competitive pressure, parental demand has not culled poor-performing schools, and it is far more difficult to start and grow successful schools than originally envisioned.

The report found that while some charters in low-income communities have been very successful, many others simply fizzle, shut down, or are no better than their terrible public counterparts. This is an important point. It’s not enough to plunk down a charter school and say “there is a choice, therefore the work is done.” Deciding between two equally lousy choices isn’t really a choice at all.

The Education Sector advocates “establishing the informed demand necessary to support a market focused on school quality.” Indeed, unless people are well-informed enough to make an intelligent choice, the market simply doesn’t work. People don’t know what they are choosing between, and therefore true pressure to drive bad schools into oblivion doesn’t exist. And then far more must be done across the education spectrum, including expanding learning time and rethinking teacher pay and tenure policies. Only then will the education system start to get into the shape in which it needs to be.

According to a report today in Politico, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) “is trying to resurrect the Employee Free Choice Act by reaching out to a group of Democrats looking for cover on the politically treacherous bill”:

Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Jim Webb of Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Dianne Feinstein of California are participating in preliminary talks to modify the “card check” bill, according to lobbyists and aides. Aides say Harkin is holding daily, closed-door conversations with interested lawmakers, business groups and labor unions.

This is good news. Lost in much of the the EFCA debate, which mostly centered on the kerfuffle over “the secret ballot,” is the simple fact that labor reform is still necessary and has a good chance of getting through Congress. Various methods for reforming the union election process have been floated, including a proposal from Feinstein that would allow workers to mail in their ballots directly to the National Labor Relations Board. Other key provisions — including arbitration to ensure that workers who vote to form a union actually get a contract — are still being negotiated.

Plus, it’s not like the problems that EFCA is meant to address have gone anywhere. In fact, a new study out today from the Economic Policy Institute found that over the last 20 years “employer opposition [to unionization] has intensified…and the nature of campaigns has changed so that the focus is on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity”:

Although the use of management consultants, captive audience meetings, and supervisor one-on-ones has remained fairly constant, there has been an increase in more coercive and retaliatory tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment and other discipline, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions.

The study found that “employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of the campaigns and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent,” while firing pro-union workers 34 percent of the time.

Of course, the business lobby has already committed itself to opposing any compromise on EFCA. “Let us be clear and frank on this matter; there can be no acceptable ‘compromise’ on any issue of labor law reform due to the very real threat posed by EFCA,” wrote the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce, a front group composed of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others.

Pressure from the business community has also led some senators, such as Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), to try to avoid the issue. Harkin, however, is threatening to bring the original bill to the floor. “We’re trying to get the necessary compromises made to get this through,” Harkin said, but if a compromise cannot be found, “it is my intent that we will put the original bill on the floor and make people vote on it.”