redefinED
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Content
    • Analysis
    • Commentary and Opinion
    • News
    • Spotlights
    • Voices for Education Choice
    • factcheckED
  • Topics
    • Achievement Gap
    • Charter Schools
    • Customization
    • Education Equity
    • Education Politics
    • Education Research
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Education Spending
    • Faith-based Education
    • Florida Schools Roundup
    • Homeschooling
    • Microschools
    • Parent Empowerment
    • Private Schools
    • Special Education
    • Testing and Accountability
    • Virtual Education
    • Vouchers
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • Guest Bloggers
    • Ashley Berner
    • Jonathan Butcher
    • Jack Coons
    • Dan Lips
    • Chris Stewart
    • Patrick J. Wolf
  • Education Facts
    • Research and Reports
    • Gardiner Scholarship Basic Program Facts
    • Hope Scholarship Program Facts
    • Reading Scholarship Program Facts
    • FES Basic Facts
  • Search
redefinED
 
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Content
    • Analysis
    • Commentary and Opinion
    • News
    • Spotlights
    • Voices for Education Choice
    • factcheckED
  • Topics
    • Achievement Gap
    • Charter Schools
    • Customization
    • Education Equity
    • Education Politics
    • Education Research
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Education Spending
    • Faith-based Education
    • Florida Schools Roundup
    • Homeschooling
    • Microschools
    • Parent Empowerment
    • Private Schools
    • Special Education
    • Testing and Accountability
    • Virtual Education
    • Vouchers
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • Guest Bloggers
    • Ashley Berner
    • Jonathan Butcher
    • Jack Coons
    • Dan Lips
    • Chris Stewart
    • Patrick J. Wolf
  • Education Facts
    • Research and Reports
    • Gardiner Scholarship Basic Program Facts
    • Hope Scholarship Program Facts
    • Reading Scholarship Program Facts
    • FES Basic Facts
  • Search
Author

John E. Coons

John E. Coons
John E. Coons

John E. Coons is a professor of law, emeritus, University of California at Berkeley, and author with Stephen D. Sugarman of "Private Wealth and Public Education" and "Education by Choice."

Blog GuestCommentary and OpinionEducation ChoiceEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParent EmpowermentSchool Choice

E pluribus bonum

John E. Coons February 12, 2021
John E. Coons

“That which purifies us is trial, and

trial is by what is contrary.”

John Milton, Areopagitica

My thanks to those eminent school choice advocates Larry Sand of California and collaborators Robert Enlow and Jason Bedrick of EdChoice in Indiana. I recommend reading their recent critiques here and here of the design of those half-dozen model statutes for choice that Stephen Sugarman and I pumped out from the 1960s until the 21st century.

These critics worry that our models are too complex, hence, self-defeating at the polls or in the legislature; and they fret even more that we are focused principally upon lower-income parents.

For them, the structure must be simple, as Milton Friedman imagined it, with equal subsidy for every child of every family in the same grade and with little or no regulation of private school admission policy or recruitment strategies.

Sugarman and I make them unhappy, because we would have participating schools set aside their unchosen applications for a final random selection of a fraction of its entries, giving the unchosen child of the poor a chance at subsidized admission. We would also require the school to make itself known in the open market, trying thereby to assure that lower-income parents have the chance to learn what their new responsibility requires in the way of sophistication about their options.

Our critics recognize the suffering of the lower-income family under the status quo, but they insist that this problem is best addressed by a Friedman-blessed system of subsidy that includes all parents, even those who least need it. It is this alone, they believe, that will bring the civic liberation of the poor.

They are best, also we hear, because this pure system which they favor is politically the most saleable; any focus upon the poor is unpopular.

I must have overlooked some such rousing success of the pure market approach in capturing the voting hearts of our 50 state electorates. For many years, the Friedman folks in many states have been running ballot initiatives for universal vouchers. Their level of success is unimpressive.

Still, this issue of the universality of any system of subsidized choice seems to me the lesser of two central questions.

So, let us try another plebiscite offering vouchers to the rich and poor alike. The core dispute will then be the nature and extent of state government regulation of participating schools.

Sugarman and I have long felt concern over such matters as admission policy advertising (targeted or universal), procedural rules for expulsion and so on. At least in the short run, parents who have never chosen will need to acquire some of the sophistications of the middle class.

I can understand how pure market minds could continue to draw the line at certain forms and degree of regulation; so would I. But, just maybe, they could help to make it “efficient” in the way least intrusive of the participating private school. What puzzles me is their reluctance even to consider how the untutored parental mind needs help to become a wise consumer and how the seller must rescue such mothers and fathers with simple information about just who and what this particular school is.

Most important, if a school participates, it should be ready at the end of the admission process to take a few children – say 15% – at random, children whom they had not already picked from among their applicant pool. In short, it has seemed fair and rational to ask the seller to undertake a wee bit of “social integration.”

Finally, and most important, we should ask these pure market folks ever to keep in mind that decisions about design will be made by 50 individual state governments. Might it not be to our civic good as a nation to watch and learn from the experience of those states with a variety of statutory models just what is popular and what works?

February 12, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCommentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParent EmpowermentParental Choice

This is liberal ‘equality’?

John E. Coons January 8, 2021
John E. Coons

The men of culture are the true apostles of equality.

Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy

Our national constitution recognizes the right of all parents to decide where, and by whom, their child will be schooled; this equal prerogative is assured not merely by the First Amendment, but by the rule of equal treatment that is assured by the 14th Amendment.

In the current media focus upon something called “equality for all,” it would seem that the good “cultured” liberal minds would lead in the national effort to empower the poor family to exercise this fundamental responsibility.

Tragically, Arnold was wrong.

The world of the elite liberal decided 150 years ago to treat the poor parent as serf to the new “public” school system that respects the power of the comfortable family to choose but delivers the child of the poor to the state and its highly organized agents. The principles of equal treatment and of honoring the right of both parent and child are flouted in the name of what?

The 19th Century design of the “public” school systems was intended to secure the position of Protestantism and to “Americanize” the poor immigrants and their children who were mostly Catholics and Jews.

Over the next century, that religious purpose wore thin and was gradually replaced by secular theories of schooling, but the structure that disempowered the poor has remained ever in place, eventually becoming dominated by the government unions whose leaders’ interest in the poor was, and remains, to insure their presence in unchosen, mostly urban, public schools.

Yet most of my “liberal” colleagues and friends continue to imagine that these institutions serve as primary hope for a truly civil society. The anti-liberal essence of our inner-city schools simply eludes their eyes.

If equal treatment of all our people is truly a vison of the self-styled liberal, let us pray that he or she awakens to this contradiction that has for so long eluded the liberal eye.

January 8, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCommentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParental ChoiceSchool Choice

Would Milton mind?

John E. Coons December 11, 2020
John E. Coons

American economist Milton Friedman received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. His vision was to give parents, not government, control of their child’s education.

In the 1960s, Milton Friedman was my repeated guest on “Problems of the City” on Chicago radio KQED-KFMF, and later, I was a guest on his TV show to debate United Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker. We – Friedman and I, not Shanker – shared the hope for a free market in schooling but differed regarding both its justification and appropriate design.

He favored a subsidy of equal value for the child of every parent, then would let the market rip! It was to him an economic sin to favor lower-income families in either the amount of the subsidy or the design of regulation for participating schools. The focus for him was not on the role of the parent, but rather the achievement of simplicity and laisse-faire in the economy.

Friedman was never to change his mind; in fact, he took the opportunity along the way to promote just such an unregulated voucher as a popular initiative in California in 1978, designed so as to compete with a prior and more lower-income-oriented initiative written and promoted by Steve Sugarman and myself. So divided, neither proposal made it to the ballot.

He did, however, succeed at inspiring a covey of monied and dedicated marketeers who have to this day remained willing to support a let-her-rip approach to choice. Their generous enthusiasm has given birth to a covey of pure-market non-profit organizations, today’s most plangent cheerleaders for choice – that is, for equal subsidy for both the poor and for the already comfortable family, and with nearly zero regulation of the chosen providers. These well-intending market folk have succeeded largely in giving subsidized parental choice the image of Friedman himself.

This picture may have held very little glamour for voters, but paradoxically has been much appreciated by the captains of the public school unions; it allows them to picture subsidized choice as another deceit of the rich and powerful (other than themselves).

When Sugarman and I began designing model choice statutes in the ’60s, our first invention was a complicated device intended to arm the lower-income parent with an array of choices, including the level of the subsidy in both public and private sectors. Over time, our published inventions have become more simplified but ever with the central aim of empowering the lower-income parent to act as responsibly as does the comfortable suburbanite.

After this half-century of division between Miltonites and “voucher left” (their pet name for people like us), could it be that the time has come to consider what sort of compromise might give political life to our shared democratic hope? Could we learn a bit from Ohio, Florida and Washington, D.C.? Could it be both “fair and free market” for us lefties to concede at least a trophy amount to the well-off in recognition of their civic role as parent, while awarding the poor the full economic reality of that same parental responsibility and authority?

The success of any choice system in empowering the poor would, of course, require some commitments from the (freely) participating school – private or (at last) “public.” For example, the participating school could retain complete liberty to select two-thirds of its admissions, but then to select the rest at random from among its unchosen applicants.

In designing such statutory proposals, a half-dozen other forms of commitment by the participating schools would be considered to ensure fairness. Each of these compromises in design could be bargained by the “voucher left” and the Miltonites. These variations were examined in some detail and modeled in our 1978 book, “Education by Choice: The Case for Family Control” – and in our later published models.

It will not necessarily be politically hurtful to the cause of choice that Betsy DeVos will be gone, and that the president-elect appear as mendicant of the union elites. The individual state will still decide whether and in what precise form those who need choice should receive it. And, at some point, in another paradox, SCOTUS may well take occasion to lend its voice to the rescue of the penniless under the Constitution. This could well be the time for voucher folk, “left” and right, and in every state, to become happy co-conspirators.

December 11, 2020 1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCommentary and OpinionEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParental ChoiceSchool Choice

Democracy in action

John E. Coons December 4, 2020
John E. Coons

“I’m Sally Common. My spouse, Bill, and I began married life in a cozy apartment on the east side of Chicapoulus. When the kids came along, we counted our beans and headed north to suburban Refugia. Its worked out fine. We feel more at home here in our not-so-fancy-but-okay house. The neighbors are cool and seem to care about basic things. The teenagers have fun without hurting anybody, even as they wait for the present school mess to get straightened out.

We’ve helped organize a first grade “pod” for little Louie. Of course, it’s all temporary; the public school here was, and will be, fine again. We hear a lot of stuff about school choice, but we’ve already made ours. Of course, we’re Democrats and support the public schools for everybody, and especially the poor.”

Sally and Bill are Democrats, just like me, and that explains their rejecting school choice for the common folk. Really? You say we are the party of the poor; hence, we hold that they must go to public school. Is this a sequitur? Is there something peculiar here?

I suppose it all depends. Maybe the children of struggling parents are better off if we just keep mom and dad completely out of the process. Is that our idea? Is the decision about young Mary Lou more wisely left in the hands of professional state officials instead of her indigent parents?

That could be plausible to some minds if every child and parent were to be examined by experts to determine whether the decision could safely be left in their hands. It would be plausible but hideous. Happily, that system is too expensive to become real.

Instead, the child – stranger to this new world – will show up at her anointed school, say a fretful farewell to her parents, then experience … whatever. This fateful decision about a vulnerable child will have been made by whom? Nobody.

I suppose one could say this child’s fate was already determined by those 19th century designers of this seizure of the child by a force majeure. They lived in fear of those immigrant families, mostly poor, with their un-American ideas of religion and the good life.

These elites decided that unless you can afford to buy your child’s way out, here is where he or she goes to school. Period!

Of course, we can hardly blame the origin and staying power of these inner-city “public” schools on us Democrats alone. A variety of changing political and social realities were to inspire our nation’s invitation to the comfortable parent to separate their child from the struggling mob. I suppose it was inevitable that the teacher union brass eventually would lend its hand to this educational conscription of our poor, and with it, their physical and political separation from the middle class.

Is there hope that my political party will ever begin to represent and honor the poor family by subsidizing its choice of school? The current educational turmoil could imaginably work to deliver the lower-income parent. How will we Democrats react a decade hence when the Supreme Court decides that the “Blaine” amendments in the constitutions of half our states violate the first and fourteenth amendments?

Such a decision will empower and invite state legislators to subsidize the choice of private schools by lower-income parents. We can guess the reaction of the union bosses. But just how will my political party respond?

December 4, 2020 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCharter SchoolsCommentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParent EmpowermentParental ChoicePrivate SchoolsSchool ChoiceTesting and Accountability

Test scores plus responsibility

John E. Coons November 13, 2020
John E. Coons

“Liberty means responsibility.”

George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

The school choice movement continues to plead its case by focusing on “results.” That is, the experts compare the test scores of low-income students whose parents have transferred them to a “charter” school against those of age-mates who remain in the public school to which they were assigned according to their residence.

This fixation on numbers is understandable; the media need to keep the tale as simple as possible, and scores do exactly that.

Up to now, the outcomes so measured favor the performance of charters to a fair degree; in the world of numbers, choice appears to work. Of course, in the hands of anti-choice professionals, these reports can be and are portrayed as the effect of greater sophistication of those parents who made the choice of charters and of their children who have already profited by living with them in such a home.

In any case, the public who consume such conflicting news can, and too often do, conclude that choice would be okay – but it’s no big deal.

But it is. The comparison of scores is, of course, relevant to the wisdom of subsidizing choice for the poor. If, instead of this positive picture, there were a gulf in favor of those students whose families who decided their child should stay put, we might worry about aiding parents to make the escape.

But, in fact, choice of charters and private schools seems not merely to do no harm, but rather to raise scores and make subsidized choice possible. Society can now turn to address the more profound social problems it has created by its disabling of the parent.

The core argument for empowering the poor lies not in statistics but rather in the centrality of parental responsibility in creating and maintaining a stable home and, in so doing, increases our hope for the good society.

Here is a reality not so easily tested; there is no standard mathematics to report the spirit and functioning of parents and its link to the maturing of the heart and mind of their child. There is only our human experience of families.

I fear that, in the eyes of the child, by deposing the parent we have rendered fathers and mothers figures of impotence. They may ask their child at dinner how the school is shaping up, but, when given a negative response, they are helpless to aid their own.

And to the child, the overall message is clear: For 180 days of the year, the raising of a family is out of the parents’ jurisdiction. They may be loving people, but they remain powerless subjects of the public school. The design and pursuit of the good life are in government hands.

One must ask: Just what is the point of this peculiar subordination of fellow citizens according to their bank account? And just what is its effect upon the child’s respect for the very idea of family, and upon the parents’ respect for themselves?

And finally, what will be the contribution of each to the civil order?

November 13, 2020 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCommentary and OpinionCoronavirus / COVID-19Education ChoiceFeaturedHomeschoolingJack CoonsMicroschoolsParental ChoiceSchool Choice

The pod: problem or opportunity?

John E. Coons November 6, 2020
John E. Coons

Were we still school-parenting, I’m confident that Marylyn and I would be “podding” our five kids – some here at home, the others in age-appropriate pods around the neighborhood.

Berkeley, at least in its overeducated neighborhoods, is fertile ground for the fashion. Of course, down the slope near the bay, there live parents who are not so ready to deliver the good of schooling at home; of that, more in a moment.

First: Podding has proved popular among us well-off parents, and Berkeley is no peculiar island of this phenomenon. Across the country, parents and kids alike enjoy this very social but controlled environment for the delivery of knowledge to their young. Whether the basic goods of the mind are effectively transmitted remains to be seen; I assume that we will soon and for years to come be buried in reports on the blogs from the statisticians.

There are plenty of homeschoolers whose work appears to have paid off for the child, but the present absence of trustworthy statistics with which to gauge the worth of these accounts has made most of the optimistic reports of today vulnerable. And, even going toward fears that the commonly valued information will never come easily.

In any case, given their apparent popularity, pods could occasion a substantial and permanent departure of middle-class families from the traditional modes of schooling. The obvious civic problem that this creates is that the skills necessary to the creation and operation of a pod are not universal. The unreadiness of many lower-income parents to assemble an efficient learning club is plain fact.

But so what?

These people will be no worse off than now. They are today systematically drafted for the local last-resort public school, and so shall they remain when the podding begins among the better-off.

Paradoxically, a principal effect of the odd exodus will be felt by those low-income families that are scattered within comfortable suburban districts but unable to move to a pod along with their neighbors. The whole of it betrays the essentially private character of the existing system for those who can pay. The teachers union will retain its essential monopoly of the poor.

It is, I hope, quite possible that this plain and simple confirmation of America’s essential serfdom of the poor family in order to maintain the comfort of their schoolhouse warders will stir some among us at last to cry foul. No doubt there will be a division among these critics. Some will arise from the never-silent stockpile of envy, to demand the subordination of all parents and children to the state in the name of “equality” – no pods allowed!

But there will be others who will invoke the flag of equality in quite a different way. Instead of forcing all of us back into the old system by eliminating pods for the rich, they will insist that the non-rich be empowered, with vouchers or other devices, to choose a non-public school that waits to prove its special teaching genius.

The wisdom of such liberation has been attested by a host of reports from neutral-minded social scientists, at least in regard to its effect upon test scores.

Are we ready to trust the poor with that constitutional liberty we so value for ourselves? The advent of a true system of choice for all will not come without a period of confusion.

The more adventurous states among the 50 will accept the challenge and discover for all of us the pitfalls that await – and how to avoid them. Others will learn and follow. No doubt the occasional self-appointed “spokesperson” for the poor will do his best to turn the project to his self-interest.

In the end, given the opportunity, the poor will have to liberate themselves; but this will first require their deliverance from the peculiar shackles so long reserved for them. And that awaits the collaboration of us comfortable folk.

Are we ready?

November 6, 2020 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCommentary and OpinionCommon GroundEducation ChoiceEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParent EmpowermentParental ChoiceSchool ChoiceUnionism

Against choice for the poor

John E. Coons October 23, 2020
John E. Coons

For more than half a century, I have listened to diatribes against empowering lower-income parents to choose a school for their own child. Even today, these reasons remain unclear to me.

 This brief essay will be an effort to clarify what is at stake in America’s battles over the role of the poor parent versus those public school professionals who have a stake in the survival of the established system. How do these folks defend their intact but quivering castle?

Here are a few overlapping but essentially distinct arguments against choice that thrive in the media and in private conversations. I will comment briefly on each.

·       Society needs to maintain control over the curriculum and pedagogy for children of unmonied families because these parents are typically poor choosers. They are unready for that important mission and would make serious mistakes to the permanent injury of the child and society.

·       The state governments know best how to prepare these children to be good citizens and humans. Their curricula and methods of instruction are superior to those of any private school that the parent is likely to choose.

·       Choice would foster disunity among our citizens. Poor parents, if allowed, would choose schools that disagree about the nature of the good life, thereby fostering disunity among our already diverse peoples. This is especially true of choices that would divide us by religion.

·       Choice will be too expensive for the taxpayer.

·       Choice will be destructive to the authority and political power of teacher union leaders who know and pursue what is best for these children; hence, the effect would be negative.

These five propositions inform daily conversations among citizens of varying persuasion. I suppose the favorite defense of the status quo is the first point – the unreadiness of the parent for responsible decision making because of his or her poverty.

This strikes me as the very eclipse of reason.

We disqualify those persons who know and love the child in order to have the decision about her made by whom? Nobody! No human mind decides that it is best for this child to go here: “Dear child, you live here. Your parents are poor, so you enroll in that school over there. You will be better off; trust us. But, if you don’t, you go here anyway.”

Justification No. 2 assumes that the learning experience in the assigned school will be superior to that offered in any school the parent would have picked. No doubt, in some cases that would be true. The problem is that the statistics show, overall, exactly the opposite; charters and subsidized choice of private school show modest but distinct improvement in test scores.

To my mind, much more important than scores is the reality that the parent who is armed with choice and is disappointed with one school is not stuck there. She can try another, and in the process, join the world of parental authority and responsibility. The experience of making important choices is the doorway to a complete life.

The third argument is the fear that trusting the poor will further divide us as a society. It is a direct descendant of the elitist 19th century conviction that choice by immigrants, especially Jews and Catholics, would encourage private schools, thus spreading a message of disunity.

Of course, both of these despised groups somehow managed to create schools of their own whose graduates not only learned their lessons in civics but grew up to be patriots and even presidents.

Objection No. 4 – the cost of choice – would be relevant in the first years of reform, as an unpredictable number of parents choose to depart the public system. Cost, of course would be minimized by introducing the new order a bit at a time, perhaps beginning with kindergarten and first grade, plus ninth grade, then, year by year, adding another grade at each level.

Presumably, the subsidy for choice would be worth a bit less than the per-pupil cost of the public school and would be progressively less in amount for families of greater resource and income per child. The plain reality is that the state could decide either to increase or to diminish the cost to the taxpayer as it saw fit.

Objection No. 5, protecting the comfort of the union bosses, is a bit sarcastic on my part, but it is politically oh so real. Choice would, indeed, end their institutionalized reign over the poor.

They – the bosses – of course claim to be serious educators. And, who knows, in the new order, they just might pull up their socks and compete for the parents’ favor in the now free market.

My guess is that the lingering image of a state school that is, at long last, truly “public,” would, properly framed, lure many a mother and father who are free at last.

October 23, 2020 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog GuestCharter SchoolsCommentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation EquityFeaturedJack CoonsParent EmpowermentSchool ChoiceUnionismVouchers

Truth, freedom, choice

John E. Coons October 16, 2020
John E. Coons

See! A disenchanted nation

Spring like day from desolation;

To Truth its state is dedicate,

And Freedom leads it forth, her mate;

— Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Prometheus Unbound”

Shelley got it right; truth and freedom are inseparable. And, when it comes to schooling, the two join in the long-established freedom of parents to decide the specific medium of truth for their own child.

And yet, it is the national reality that we have imposed the unchosen medium – the specific “public” school – upon the lower-income family; such parents have no voice in the matter. Billy’s school will be assigned to him by a completely impersonal system, one that lacks any plausible, or even intelligible, justification beside the welfare and power of the union chiefs who profit from it.

Will the empowerment of non-rich parents ever become a reality? Will these mothers and fathers one day be offered the dignity of making that fateful decision for their own child – that power and freedom that the rest of us so cherish?

Given his very specific and humbled submission to the teachers union by our most plausible next president, the federal government seems an unlikely champion of the poor for the near future. Yet, today, in a number of states, we watch politicians adjusting to signs of an awakening civic conscience; of course, it helps that the polls show a mounting preference for choice among all parents, the comfortable as well as the poor. The subsidized mother and father have become a spreading vision among our people.

When and if choice comes to be in a sustainable way, it will most likely do so in a variety of legal and economic forms from state to state. Vouchers that would subsidize and empower lower-income parents to exercise their legal right by paying tuition are merely the most simple and obvious remedy.

And, of course, we have already created the harbinger of parental empowerment in our well-functioning and very popular charters. Aside from their superior test scores, we can be confident that they work simply by watching the frantic (and too often successful) effort of union chiefs to minimize their numbers and/or to shrink the operating liberty of these precious quasi-public latecomers in our history.

Tuition vouchers for ordinary and poor families will be the simplest form for the subsidizing of choice. Imagine the real freedom for families that need financial help to decide for themselves if both vouchers and charters were to become available to them.

That will depend entirely upon the prudence and resilience of their current union overseers to transform themselves and, for the first time, rise to meet the competition in a free market.

In short, they would have to become worth choosing. Is that too much to ask?

October 16, 2020 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 13
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS

© 2020 redefinED. All Rights Reserved.


Back To Top