Jeff Bryant has paid close attention to the ongoing torrent of scandals surrounding charter schools, so of course he was astonished to see New York Times’ writer David Leonhardt acclaiming the “miracle” in New Orleans.
Bryant suspects this is but another example of Democratic centrists selling out those to their left, arguing for a DeVos’ style market-driven reform that disempowers ordinary people whose only power is their vote.
Leonhardt disdains elected school boards, like his fellow Reformers. He likes the market. But he claims that he is fact-based, when he ignores the facts that don’t fit his narrative. Leonhardt, he suggests, is a garden-variety neoliberal, willing to see a community robbed of its votes so that white kids can get the best schools and black kids get the D- and F-rated schools.
Bryant writes:
Ironically, the very next day after Leonhardt’s piece ran, an enormous charter school scandal came crashing to the ground on the opposite coast.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, an operator of a charter school chain in the city, who also served on the district’s school board, had to resign after pleading guilty to using his publicly funded charter school, including its employees (even the low-wage custodians), as a source of funding for his school board campaign, and then lying about it.
The day after, in Pennsylvania, a former head of an online charter school in the state was sentenced to serve 20 months in prison for conspiring to defraud the IRS, siphoning $8 million from the charter school he created to spend on houses, a plane, and other luxuries.
Revelations of these legal and ethical violations on the part of charter school operators are a near daily occurrence.
Yet proponents of charter schools refuse to acknowledge any problems posed by having publicly funded school operations left completely unregulated, bereft of transparency, and accountable only to the very narrow range of test scores they can mangage to produce by using intensive test prep and selective enrollment and pushing out of low performers.
Bryant adds:
In a ten-year retrospective on the New Orleans school reform model, Emma Brown wrote for The Washington Post, “Many community members feel that the city schools are worse off in ways that can’t be captured in data or graphs, arguing that parents have less voice than they once did and that the new system puts some of the neediest children at a disadvantage, especially those with disabilities or who are learning English as a second language.”
Today, over 20,000 children in New Orleans remain in D- and F-rated schools, based on state rankings, and schools are on a three-year slide, dropping 65 percent from 2014 to 2017. Most of the top-ranked schools are more than 50 percent white, and black students are far less likely to be taught by credentialed teachers, to attend schools ranked A or B, and to have access to advanced courses.
So evidence that charter schools have yielded academic gains in New Orleans or anywhere else are muddled at best. Nevertheless, establishment Democrats like Leonhardt argue charter school skeptics are the ones driven by ideology and twisting of facts.
There’s a reason for the desperate arguments promoted by Leonhardt and other charter school proponents.
Just as the general public supports progressive proposals for universal health care and minimum wage, surveys find that Americans have increased confidence in public schools while support for charter schools has dropped by double digit percentages among Democrats and Republicans.
Now there’s some facts for you.
If charters were as beneficent as Leonhardt says, we would expect to see dramatic charter gains in cities like Detroit and Milwaukee. But that hasn’t happened.
I’m casting my votes for progressives like Alexandera Ocasio-Cortez when one lands on ballots in my area. A vote for a Democratic neoliberal is the same as a vote for a moderate, corporate-sponsored Republican.
I really don’t understand labels like this.
In the Virginia primary for Governor, Ralph Northam, who some called a “neoliberal”, was a strong supporter of public education. The “progressive” who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders was honored as a DFER democrat of the month and was the favorite of public education privatizers. If the “progressive” had won, Virginia likely would be well on its way to charterization. Instead it is one of the few states left where the state strongly supports public schools instead of promoting charters.
The important thing is to think for yourself and look at ALL the candidates’ views and decide which issues you are willing to throw under the bus for other issues. I haven’t seen many progressives standing up for public education and I don’t understand why.
Right now, I’m not willing to throw public education under the bus so the pro-charter “progressive” can win and promote more charters. But I can understand why other people who don’t care as much about public education might be willing to trade off public schools for some other progressive goal.
But let’s stop saying that pro-public education Democrats like Ralph Northam are no different than moderate Republicans. On the issue of public education, it is sometimes the progressive Dems who are no different than corporate- sponsored Republicans.
NYCPSP,
You are right in that ultimately, it is governance and not labels are what help us to define how we vote. I will be align Bernie’s office to understand why he would endorse someone, although I know it’s hard to be a single issue voter or politician.
In the current context of political platforms, the most important voting issue is protection of the common good-public education that is integral to preservation of civil rights, democracy, livable wages, human dignity, an educated society, and social /political stability.
Since we live in a blizzard of false news (from the Trump administration and his hardcore followers and financial support, Russia), cherry-picking of facts, conspiracy theories, et al. from the like of the “We Foxed you Network”, it’s not easy to trust anyone.
The misleading media machine on the extreme alt-right repeatedly labels rivals with what they think are unpopular terms to stir the anger of their brainwashed deplorable mob when that rival candidate, that might be a true progressive, doesn’t fit the false label — but the label sticks until even some of their supporters think it is fact.
Who is the real Governor Ralph Northam?
I suggest turning to Vote Smart and see how he votes and Open Secrets to see where his campaign contributions come from.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/90253/ralph-northam#.W14dtdJKiUk
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2018&cmte=C00088591
Lloyd,
You vote on issues that are most important to you. I acknowledge that Northam isn’t good on many issues that are important to other progressives. But he happens to be excellent on public education. We all have to decide which issues are most important to us and vote accordingly in the primary. At a time when Virginia was one of the few states not yet taken over by the reform movement (thanks, Tim Kaine), I thought it was important that it remain pro-public education.
These issues are complicated and the reasons that progressives like Sanders and Warren have not endorsed the NAACP’s position on charters is probably because they don’t think non-profit charters are by definition a terrible thing. I wish the progressive movement would make public education an issue that is front and center. I support Cynthia Nixon because she has done so. And I certainly wish the most prominent progressives would endorse her over Cuomo.
In most cases, we will probably never find a candidate that matches all of our thinking so we measure how full their cup is by only pouring in the issues they support that we agree with.
The candidate with the cup with the most agreed on issues is the one we should probably vote for and we trust they will deliver on those common-ground issues.
Lloyd,
I agree, except that I believe it is the quality, not quantity of those issues.
If a so-called progressive isn’t coming out strongly for public education but is a supporter of “public” charter schools, and that so-called progressive is running against a strong supporter of public education in a primary, I will vote for the pro-public education candidate. I don’t care what label you give that candidate who is pro-public education but that’s who I will vote for in the primary. That’s how important I believe public education is and if a democratic candidate can’t bring himself to stand up strongly for public schools and stand up against charters, and that candidate is running against someone who IS willing to stand up for public schools in the primary, I will vote for the pro-public education candidate.
But I don’t have a problem with progressive voters throwing public education under the bus because another issue is more important to them. I respect their right to choose the most important issue and vote for the candidate who is strongest on that in the primary.
I do have a problem with those who insist the pro-public education candidate who I prefer is corrupt while the DFER candidate they prefer is not just because the DFER candidate is good on the issue that is important to them. I do have a problem with those who refuse to vote for the winning primary candidate (regardless of which one won) because they insist the other one is no different than the right wing Republican Trump surrogate.
I hope that makes sense to you.
I think I understand, but one word is missing that should appear several times in your last paragraph.
“allegation”
Too many people these days leave out that word when they express what they are thinking and sound like their opinion is an already confirmed guilty verdict from a judge and/or jury.
For instance, last week I was mowing my front lawn when someone that lives on my street stopped to ask about my battery powered mower. From there, we had a conversation that eventually led to him saying how great of a job Trump was doing because of the low unemployment numbers. I pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office predicted the current economy and low unemployment in 2015 and Trump did not deserve the credit.
He immediately switched the topic (FOX and Trump style) and said Hillary Clinton was guilty of murdering the father of her grandchild. I listen to him rant about how horrid Hillary was waiting for him to take a breath and end the conversation.
He continued his walk and I finished mowing the lawn and then went inside to fact check this conspiracy theory — and I couldn’t even find any mention of it.
I think it is up to us if, we get the chance, to mention the difference between an opinion and allegation of guilt and someone actually being found guilty by a judge and jury and point out that in the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.”
The challenge here is getting someone that loves Trump to listen and think about this.
We are on the same page, and it is not because of a pacing plan.
That is funny. A pacing guide for political views. A metaphor that has not been Literalized.
Arne Duncan is out selling his book so I’m reading all the gushing interviews with him:
“The challenge is that no one votes based upon education. It’s like we take it for granted. And when we take it for granted, it withers. It stagnates.”
Ed reformers all believe this, that “no one votes on education”. It’s as much a belief in the movement as the near-religious belief that charter schools are superior to public schools.
But is it true? We’ve seen people vote on education in the last two years. They’re voting against ed reformers, but they’re voting on education.
How does Duncan explain the vote on Issue 2 in Massachusetts and the defeat of the judges in Washington state, that Gates targeted for defeat?
If ECOT had been on the ballot in Ohio, Duncan would learn that the loss of a billion dollars allocated for education and the corruption of state government mattered to citizens…, unless Fordham attached its name to a big oligarch- buy of advertising to spin the story. Then, the Ohio media that never fails to promote the Fordham opinion and to ignore, the opposing opinion, would fall all over itself to make opportunities to praise ECOT.
Or the many times that states have voted down vouchers? See Utah–2006, etc.
These (corporate) ed reformers — pirates and frauds, all — aren’t interested in the facts that reveal the truth. They are only interested in money and whatever opens the doors to that money no matter how many cherry-picked lies they have to cook up.
Nothing these con-men claim can be trusted. The ed-reform movement is a total sham based on misinformation and lies designed to fool as many people as possible.
As they say…some of the people, all of the time …all of the people, some of the time…Diane leads a substantial of number of people who were never fooled by the education grifters.
Arne’s book. LOL. Ghost written?
Ghost written by scholars.
Success or KIPP scholars?
Speaking of fact versus fiction, and speaking of books, it’s been a while since we shared titles. Democracy in Chains and Listen Liberal were a couple greats of the scores of books I got because of all your recommendations.
I think ed reformers focus so much on charter and private schools because if ed reformers had to point to an ed reform policy or agenda item that improved PUBLIC schools they could not do it.
Look at the results of ed reform governance- lower funding for public schools, a zealous and insane focus on test scores, teacher bashing and union busting- none of these things improve any public school anywhere in the country.
Thus. we get millions of words written about charter schools and vouchers, and a complete absence of any any analysis of ed reform effects on PUBLIC schools.
Our schools aren’t just neglected under ed reform capture of government- they have disappeared. They no longer exist to these people.
Most of what is written about privatization is based on bias, not facts. When facts are presented by supporters of privatization, a further analysis generally reveals poor research methodology. Most of what is presented from privatizers turns out to be propaganda, not an evidence based study. Bryant’s criticism of Leonhardt’s work is based on facts, even though ignoring them is what privatizers do best.
What has Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or de Blasio said about charters or the rest of ed deform? Note how real ed reform does not seem to occupy much of the progressive agenda, if at all. So my sense is that the ed deform agenda is still an active elements throughout the Democratic party in various degrees.
Sadly, you are right. In Michigan, of 3 Democratic candidates for Gov., only one states that for-profit charters should be eliminated and he isn’t endorsed by the establishment nor Bernie. In Delaware, the Democratic candidate for Governor (endorsed by the DSEA) has a platform that says “market forces” should be introduced into education.
Personally, if I was a Delaware voter, I would vote in the primary for his opponent.
It doesn’t matter what people say or don’t say about education; it matters what they do or don’t do. What Sanders and Ocasio don’t do is take large donations from wealthy companies or individuals. Democratic socialists like Sanders and Ocasio are different than other Democrats. Since democratic socialists have track records of refusing money from millionaires and billionaires, one can trust them more continue to think and act for the people instead of the power brokers, and to favor unions and universal public service as opposed to privatization and instability for public servants. A new Democratic Party is emerging. (Or a New Deal is re-emerging.)
This is a good point, and a good litmus test for analyzing candidates. A candidate whose ed position doesn’t pass the smell test — but who is not in any corporation’s [incl ed-corp’s] pocket is a candidate who can be convinced otherwise on the issue’s merits, & who is sensitive to constituent pressure.
It remains a complete mystery to me as to why a true democratic socialist would not protect public education and be against any sort of privatization.
The democratic socialists care about public education. It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever for a socialist to want to privatize anything. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise with the constant repetition of “that time when Bernie endorsed a DFER.” It’s nonsense.
“It remains a complete mystery to me as to why a true democratic socialist would not protect public education and be against any sort of privatization.”
Chalk it up to 25 yrs’ misleading “progressive” [not] propaganda on how charters [coupled w/’accountability schemes for pubschs] would help poorest kids — plus — failure to fact-check via charter-results studies of recent few years — plus — failure to investigate why NAACP [& a consortium of minority groups, months prior] called for a moratorium on charters.
LCT,
What matters is what they do. Ralph Northam is not allowing ed reformers to run Virginia public schools. He is more conservative than I like on other issues, but Northam is good on public schools.
The candidate Bernie Sanders endorsed against Northam in the primary, Tom Perriello was getting money from ed reformers. And as a congressman he had proven himself to be enough of an ed reformer to be named reformer of the month. I preferred Northam because public education was most important to me.
Perriello was EXCELLENT on many issues and I preferred his position on those issues. However, Northam was better on public education. It does no good for you not to be honest about this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a progressive endorsing Perriello because the other issues on which Perriello had the right position are more important to him. Had Perriello won the primary I would have supported him against the Trump-supporting right wing Republican, not whined that he was a corrupt sell-out on public education and helped the Republican win by trying to undermine his candidacy.
There is a difference in stating the facts — that Ralph Northam is much better on public education than Tom Perriello but is more conservative on most issues — and demonizing Perriello because of one position.
I like Ocasio-Cortez a lot, but we likely don’t agree on all positions. I won’t demonize her because we don’t agree on a position. She is allowed to have a different position than I do without it meaning that someone paid her to have it.
I just ask progressives to give the same consideration to moderates. Democrats are allowed to have different opinions. You should fight to have the Democrat whose positions on the issues that are most important to you in the primary. And you should recognize that in the general election, you vote for the Democrat who will defeat the right wing Republicans.
The choices we make as to who to support in the primary will depend on what issues are most important to us. The choices we make as to who to support in the general will depend on what issues are most important to us. If stopping Trump is just not important to someone, that is on that person alone. Not anyone else. Regardless of whether the winning primary candidate has a difference of opinion on some issues, if you don’t vote for a Democrat who can stop more Supreme Court appointments or right wing legislation, that is a decision that you don’t care at all whether those things happen. It is on you.
I refused to vote for Jimmy Carter and I helped elect Ronald Reagan and all he stood for. My blaming someone else (“Jimmy Carter’s fault because he wasn’t good enough”) for my own folly would be ridiculous and self-serving. I could have made a better choice and I should have made a better choice, and I didn’t forget that lesson. I hope the non-Clinton voters in 2018 and 2020 have also learned theirs.
It shocks me that ed reformer apologists like David Leonhardt get away with ignoring the glaring red flags in the system they shill for.
You can’t have “choice” in which one party offers services under different regulations and oversight than the second party unless your goal is to financially reward one party over another.
I suspect Leonhardt understands this about healthcare. I doubt if Leonhardt would shill for more private health insurance companies working under different regulations with the freedom to dump patients when they got sick. No doubt Leonhardt would criticize the very cheap faux health insurance policies that were offered before Obamacare that only worked if your family stayed healthy, and Leonhardt would not say “but look at the people who love it and see how much healthier they are than the people who are on that other insurance that isn’t allowed to dump sick patients.”
But that is exactly what Leonhardt does with charters. “Look at all the people who love them and how much better the students are than in that other public school that can’t dump students.”
And as long as you are like Leonhardt, and don’t really care at all about the the students who are the hardest to teach — often because they have started out with the most disadvantages — you will look the other way. Leonhardt is no different than the promoters of health insurance are willing to look the other way if the sickest children are the ones who suffer most. When I see charter shills like Leonhardt promoting a system that treats the most vulnerable children as worthless — even if they are 5 years old — I know they have lost their humanity in service to pleasing the very rich billionaires.
Leonhardt knows that the hedge funders and tech tyrants have money. The NYT is a business that requires money. And, like the corporate-funded CAP, the staff of both want to pick up paychecks.
Leonhardt, if he did “research” for his shilling, must have had to studiously avoid the billion dollar charter school debacle in Ohio.
Leonhardt attended the 2nd most expensive school in NYC. He’s the typical elite masquerading as a progressive while undermining the common good. He and his fellow DINOS have been responsible for the loss of 1000 Democratic seats in 8 years, for the decimation of the middle class and for the build up of the US oligarchy.
Machiavellian.
“He’s the typical elite masquerading as a progressive while undermining the common good.” The saddest truth is that so many of our current/recent “progressive” leaders are not even masquerading as they invade and destabilize the school system — many truly believe they are “helping children” from inside their hands-off wealthy enclaves.
The kindest interpretation of Leonardt- he is like Trump. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know ( a conditioning of expensive private schooling?). Instead of seeking information, he tells you what he wants to be true.
In June NYT drivel, posted by Leonhardt, he agrees with CAP about the importance of accountability in higher education. Surprise. Surprise that he agrees with the wealthiest 0.1%. Surprise. Surprise that neither Leonhardt nor CAP have recommendations for Wall Street to stop them from bleeding 2% from GDP.
Here’s a thought- CAP could be a model for accountability and fire those who led Hillary to a spectacular defeat, despite Michael Moore giving them the blueprint in how to avoid the loss.
Thanks Diane!
I so appreciate this post and the comments.
QuickLink:
https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Hey-Davi-Leonhardt-Here-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Disinformation_Reform_Reform_Scandals-180728-515.html#comment709001E RAVICH on JEFF BRYANT. | OpEdNews
my comment
Folks, fans and friends who read this or follow me and trust my voice, we are in a transformational era — The Era of Information Technology . We cannot know what the inadvertent consequences will do to our society, but those of us who watch and listen– like for example, sociologists, psychologists, historians and educators who are responsible for informing kids with the TRUTH of what is afoot on the state that will be THEIRS — know that the lying is what Orwell knew was REQUIRED.
“The destruction of the distinction between truth and falsehood is the foundation of dictatorship.
It is time that we do more than call out the lies, which rain like poison from cyber-space so that most people stop listening!!!
Theirs is a secret weapon in plain site… and it works!
We need to show the IMPACT of each lie, as we are doing with the lie that those immigrants came here with their children to hurt us.
THUS, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, I am writing about this very ‘weaponization’ of disinformation— even as the US President cries: “Fake News,” and tweets exactly THAT every day… an exquisite irony.
Yes, Folks, fans and dear friends ‘Disinformation’ has been weaponized, and it IS MEDDLING!
It meddles 24/7 in what the people must know… and thus, this most effective weapon is forever changing WHAT OUR CITIZENS KNOW TO BE TRUE!
No society has ever thrived WHEN DECISIONS were made BASED ON LIES AND DISTORTIONS.
It is time that we do more than call out the lies, which rain like poison from cyber-space, so that most people stop listening.
We need to show the IMPACT of each lie, Their secret weapon is in plain site… and it works!
Until we, the people say; Enough! and VOTE THEM OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!
While there are benefits from the internet, there are also dangers as we are discovering to our chagrin.
Linking up in the “Era of Information Technology” through instantaneous global internet communication, except where governments have implemented filters to control the flow of information that will threaten their culture’s alleged harmony (I’m thinking of countries like China and North Korea), allows dysfunctional individuals to form virtual alliances that would have never been able to form before.
Those dysfunctional and often deplorable destabilizing forces that did not have opportunities to form into groups before the internet — since local communities where the people knew these individuals were insane and dangerous so they were often ignored and/or carefully watched — now threaten the fabric of civilization, the global climate, and the very survival of the human species.
While many are against censoring the internet, we might not have any choice if we want to silence idiots like Bannon and Trump.
“To censor the internet, 10 countries use Canadian filtering technology, researchers say”
It might surprise you to discover that India, an alleged democracy, is one of those countries.
“Filtering technology is frequently used by schools, libraries and businesses around the world to restrict access to a wide range of content, including pornography, pirated content, phishing schemes, or hate speech.
“But some governments have also required internet service providers to use the technology in an effort to curb access to what countries like Pakistan call “undesirable websites” — usually content critical of the government in power, or in opposition to prevailing religious or cultural sensibilities.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/citizen-lab-netsweeper-internet-filtering-tech-censorship-1.4631243
I wonder if President RayGun and the 1st Bush would have eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the United States if they had known about the unbridled, terminal cancerous insanity that has also pervaded the internet if it isn’t stopped.
To survive, we might have to accept some form of censorship, but who will be the censors?
“Those dysfunctional and often deplorable destabilizing forces that did not have opportunities to form into groups before the internet — since local communities where the people knew these individuals were insane”
A lot of food for thought there. Thanks, Lloyd. It makes me think of medieval witch hunts and programs against the Jewish Ghettos. It makes me think of the rise of Father Coughlin on the radio in the depression. It reminds me of the shrill cries of Jean Paul Marat during the French Revolution, who called for heads at any sign of leaning away from Jacobin thought.
The question, I think, is whether the new computer-based media have outdone the past in ways that we can never stuff back into Pandora’s box. I think I will consider that a bit. Maybe I will pose that as a big question to my world history class.
Before the internet, mob insanity and witch trials/hunts were often localized or limited to one country. Even during the Catholic Inquisitions, not every country in Europe went insane. There were still safe and sane places to live — that had to keep a well-armed military to protect themselves from the insanity boiling out of Spain and other inquisition countries.
While one local area would be falling apart, on the other side of the world there was often stability and peace. During Europes Dark Ages, the Middle East was going through a scientific and art driven renaissance.
But today that insanity has gone regional and global threatening everyone and every country. I think lying trolls and demigods like Trump and Putin are attempting to Balkanize the world until all the fractured groups will be tearing at each other’s throats.
AND FROM THE NY TIMES maybe as an attempt to tell us teachers that they get what Leonhardt was doing… Truth needs to become part of the conversation, and here, https://twitter.com/sprawlcalgary/status/990766759987703808
Good lord. If I hadn’t read this post & comments, I would never have guessed from his NYT Opinion columns that Leonhardt was a Dem (much less a Dem pretending to be a progressive). What do we have to do to expel this free-market trash from the Party?!
Since this has turned into a conversation about free market economies in general, I would like to add some ideas about what a free market is. We do not have such an economy in he United States, and it is not because of an invasive federal government.
We have an economy that is dominated by various large industrial giants functioning as governmental entities without voter accountability except for a stockholder voting. Companies that control money larger than the GDP of many small countries are functioning as governments. They do everything that a nation does except run elections in the general public. These are competing entities, not just competing with each other, but also competing with the federal government and with state and local governments as well.
A case in point is being played out in a nearby town. A Japanese-owned parts supplier for the auto industry is negotiating a large tax break, threatening to take its business elsewhere. I suspect this is not out of the mainstream for small towns or big cities. Someone tell me why this is not seen as essentially a hostile function of an alternative government. In this case it is Japanese, but that is not the point. This is not a function of a free market economy. It is a functioning, unelected, alternative government. It provides services to its employees, just as the city government picks up the garbage.
If the government of France tried to make a deal to provide services for some local body of people, we would scream loudly, for competing governments are seen as invaders. Why will we not see industrial giants as competing governments?
The original progressives saw this was the case. They understood the difference between Joe Bleaux’s Cajun restaurant and a franchise name like Bogangles. During the administrations of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, the federal government was seen as a referee between business entities too powerful that had to be met with the only thing that could compete, a national government.
Today those who argue for laissez-faire economics know better. Businesses, like other countries who have to please their citizens, have their stockholders to please. They are competing governments once they are big enough to be on the stock exchange and should be treated as such. We now have a Supreme Court that cynically suggests that companies are citizens. Surely they know better.
Well said!! Kudos!! And I expect some historian onboard can quote me as to how the potential for this outcome niggled at & worried founders/ early constitutional designers.
Thanks, BT5. I am history oriented, but I have never heard an economic or political student ever suggest what I have been thinking about. It is usually presented as the wealthy being capable of buying influence (as in the Guilded Age ). I see any economic force large enough to make specific provisions for a population of people due to its size (I am thinking of the British East India Company in India) should be thought of as a competing, foreign government.
If Leonhardt takes his talking points from the TFA’ers at Center for American Progress, count him among the lazy rich. What if CAP, like Republicans, exists to enact the education policies of the richest 0.1%?
Are Randi Weingartner’s ties to CAP, close? If so, there are two follow-up questions. (1) Why isn’t she able to change CAP’s promotion of privatized public schools? Or, (2) Is the teachers’ union led by a privatizer?