If you are not yet totally bored by reading about a billionaire’s vision for redesigning the high schools of America, you will enjoy reading veteran teacher Stephen Singer’s take on the vacuous production. Mrs. Jobs must have spent millions to buy an hour on four networks. What could your school have done with that money? Arts classes? Instruments for the school band? A school nurse? Free meals? Reopened the library and hired a librarian?

Instead she produced a vanity show.

Singer decided it was an exercise in desperation. The Reform brand is now owned by Trump and DeVos. Jobs had to find a way to claim that HER reform is different from THEIR reform, although it is not.

“So now that it’s over, what have we learned?

“1) Corporate education reformers are THAT desperate to distance themselves from Donald Trump.

“His wholehearted endorsement of their agenda has done them serious life threatening damage. He has exposed their racist, privileged, corporatist policies for exactly what they are. No amount of celebrities will replace that in the public consciousness.

“2) Rich people cannot set education policy.

“Steve Jobs widow may be a very nice lady. But she has no freaking clue about public education. Nor is she honest enough to engage actual classroom teachers in the discussion to find out.

“Instead of relying on the billionaires of the world, we should tax them. Then we can afford to fully fund our schools and let the people actually in the classroom decide what’s best for the students in their care. Let parents decide. Let school boards decide. Not a privileged tech philanthrocapitalist.

“3) Celebrities will do anything for money.

“The things these Hollywood elite prostitutes did last night to sell snake oil would make porn stars blush. I will never look at any of these people the same. Some of them I knew were true believers because of other projects. Heck! As much as I love Common’s new album, he does rap about Corey Booker – so warning there. Viola Davis is an amazing actress but she was in the parent trigger propaganda film “Won’t Back Down.”

“Being famous doesn’t mean you know a damn thing. We recognize their faces. We associate them with past roles and characters we loved. We think their political stands are authentic when they are often just a pose. We’ve got to stop respecting these people just because they’re celebrities.

“What will the long-term effect of last night’s propaganda be?

“I don’t know.

“I seriously doubt anyone really bought that. But you know what they say – no one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the public.

“And that’s what this was – a high stakes wager on American gullibility.”

Jonathan Chait is a long-time charter supporter. He is unhappy that charters are “losing the narrative,” because he is certain that they are a great success.

By “losing the narrative,” I assume he means that the NAACP called for accountability for all charters, and that the pro-choice EdNext poll showed that public support for charters has slipped sharply in only one year, from 51% to 39%.

How could this be if they are a great success? He doesn’t explain.

He is especially upset that the New York Times featured a story about Michigan claiming that Michigan’s charters have been a big disappointment. This followed upon a front-page story in the New York Times describing the chaos of charters in Michigan, where students have many choices but education results (test scores) are down. He calls the Michigan story an example of “anecdotes” lacking factual data.

Michigan seems to be a good place to look at charters because it is Betsy DeVos’s state, the one that has gone overboard for charters and choice, one that has had a quarter-century of charters. She is Secretary of Education and it seems reasonable to assume that she would like to do to the nation what she has done to Michigan, where her money directs education policy.

Well, the most recent Times story points out that charters began in 1994 in Michigan. Michigan was hell-bent on competition and choice as the remedy for inequality. But Michigan schools today are underfunded, and the results have been dismal. In fact, as a report in 2016 by the charter-friendly Education Trust-West showed, the state’s scores on national tests have plummeted:

Michigan’s K-12 system is among the weakest in the country and getting worse. In little more than a decade, Michigan has gone from being a fairly average state in elementary reading and math achievement to the bottom 10 states. It’s a devastating fall. Indeed, new national assessment data suggest Michigan is witnessing systemic decline across the K-12 spectrum. White, black, brown, higher-income, low-income — it doesn’t matter who they are or where they live. …

That seems factual enough.

An article about charters in Arizona would show massive conflicts of interest, nepotism, and self-dealing. An article about Ohio would show pay-for-play charters where the owners give big contributions to Republican officials and get lucrative charter contracts. An article about Florida would show that charter operators are members of the legislature and pad their pockets by passing legislation that takes money from public schools and gives it to their charters. An article about Nevada would show that charters dominate the list of the state’s lowest performing schools. An article about California charters would have to include the state’s long history of scandals and frauds.

There are charter schools that get good test scores. But most of them are known for high attrition rates and excluding students with disabilities, students who don’t speak English, and students who don’t conform.

The issue that Chait never considers is whether it makes sense long term to fund two separate school systems: one that is free to accept the students it wants and free to exclude the ones it doesn’t want, and the other required to accept all students.

We went through a long history of having two separate-and-unequal school systems.

That is what DeVos and Trump want. That is what ALEC wants. That is what every red-state governor wants. That is what many blue-state governors, reliant on campaign contributions from charter-loving financiers, want. That is what the Koch brothers want.

Suppose that the data show that test scores are higher in a racially segregated system. Suppose the data show that test scores are higher when you exclude kids with disabilities, kids who don’t speak English, and students who are slow learners. Suppose the data show that test scores go up when you kick out the kids with low scores or never admit them.

Is that a model for public education. I say it is not. Where will the excluded children go?

It would be wrong for our society no matter what the test scores are. It would be wrong for our nation and for our children.

Sometimes principles matter more than data. And the public is catching on.