The Economist announces the apotheosis of Sir Chris, a comment by Philosophical Apprentice

‘… Sir Chris campaigned for a change in the law on doctor-assisted dying, but not without identifying another brand of elbow-patched lefty he did not like:…’

Those ‘leftys’ haunt the lives and plans of all good Conservatives, from the time of Edmund Burke till the present.
Sir Chris became the front man/spokesmen/advocate for Cognita. His picture appears on it’s web site:
Is Cognita a Charter School? What can the profit motive allied to the education of children produce? Perhaps we in America have some things to share with our British friends:

Special Report: Feds Spent $3.3 Billion Fueling Charter Schools but No One Knows What It’s Really Bought
If that source is too ‘left’ for your readers how about this?


How will charter schools deal with their corruption scandals?

Or Diane Ravitch, a former proponent of Charter Schools:

Headline: What Happens When Charter Teachers Join a Union?

‘Presently, nearly 90% of charter schools are non-union. Less than 10% of charter tea hers belong to a union. This is not by chance or happenstance. Although the late Albert Shanker was a pioneer of the charter idea in 1988 (and turned against charters in 1993 because they had been taken o ER by privatizers), the charter movement today is firmly anti-union. Many of its major funders–like the Walton Family Foundation–are antagonistic to unions. Many of its strongest advocates believe that management must be free to hire and fire teachers at will and set compensation at will.’

The political/ethical rise of neoliberal rationalism, the notion that the ‘Free Market’ sets the standard for the whole of human endeavors, is in eclipse, if not precipitous decline. Yet the apologists for this civic nihilism, at The Economist, celebrate this pitchman as an exemplar of ‘Education Reform’ rather than just another example of a pernicious Corporatism.

Philosophical Apprentice

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.