The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed last Sunday in which it extolled Los Angeles voters for elected a majority to the Los Angeles Unified School District school board that openly favored charter schools and the independence of those charters.  The WSJ also described the hysteria with which the teachers unions and the ousted school board vilified these folks who so favored actually educating the city’s children over being a jobs factory for disinterested teachers and piggy bank for union coffers.

Last month the [now ousted] board voted to support three bills before the state legislature in Sacramento that aim to limit autonomy for charter schools. One would prevent charters from appealing rejections by local school boards to county and state boards. The appeals process is one reason charters in Los Angeles have been able to expand despite school-board resistance.

And

Unions tried to vilify pro-charter candidates Nick Melvoin and Kelly Gonez by portraying them as tools of Donald Trump, though both were endorsed by President Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the state’s progressive former Senator Barbara Boxer.

The approbation of the one and the opprobrium of the other are well deserved.  However, the paper’s editors exhibited one misapprehension in the last sentence of their piece.

There’s nothing progressive about failing low-income minority kids.

On the contrary, this is completely progressive: it feeds the Progressive-Democratic Party position of nearly 100 years that the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

It is through their form of education that the Progressive-Democratic Party seeks to produce Americans who are so deficient.