Betsy DeVos Prefers Education Choice Over Crappy Government Schools? I'm In.

Trump's pick for Education Secretary is an encouraging break from failed authoritarian policies toward children.


There's a lot to worry about in the coming presidency of Donald Trump, but a few bright spots appear for those of us who want to run our own lives with minimal government interference. In particular, the naming of Betsy DeVos as the president-elect's pick for Secretary of Education holds a lot of promise for parents who want to move past decades of crappy politician-directed schooling to gain more say in how their children learn.

To go by her enemies, DeVos offers promise, indeed.

DeVos is "best known for her anti-public education campaigns" the National Education Association fulminates in its official response to her nomination. The NEA goes on to take her to task for supporting "vouchers—which take away funding and local control from our public schools—to fund private schools at taxpayers' expense."

Oh, horrors.

"It is clear that DeVos, like the President-elect who has chosen her, is comfortable applying the logic of the marketplace to schoolyard precincts," complains Rebecca Mead at The New Yorker. Encapsulating the nominee's sinister vision for America, Mead draws a quote from an interview DeVos gave to Philanthropy in 2013 summing up her educational dream: "That all parents, regardless of their zip code, have had the opportunity to choose the best educational setting for their children. And that all students have had the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential."

Can't you just taste the evil?

Well, if supporting vouchers and other means to choose the best educational settings for children constitutes the oncoming headlights of America's educational doom, I say we throw ourselves right into 'em.

Actually, when it comes to real doom, public schools are already doing a hell of a good job.

"The performance of 17-year-olds has been essentially stagnant across all subjects since the federal government began collecting trend data around 1970, despite a near tripling of the inflation-adjusted cost of putting a child through the K–12 system," a 2014 Cato Institute study found. Not only did spending triple in that time, but public school employment soared, so more money and personnel were available over those decades to achieve absolutely zip--no improvement in education outcomes.

Likewise, "U.S. students are stagnating in reading and science proficiency while their math performance declined slightly," The Atlantic's Emily Richmond noted just weeks ago of the results from the latest Program for International School Assessment (PISA), which compares students from around the world. The U.S. hovers near the middle of the pack in reading and science, and toward the bottom in math.

"Stagnant" is also a good term for Americans' take on this situation, with Gallup consistently reporting since 1999 that more than half of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of education their kids receive. The polling company notes that the lowest level of regard is reserved for public schools, with only 37 percent of Americans saying government institutions provide "good" or "excellent" education—lower scores than reported for private schools, religious schools, charter schools, or homeschooling.

Which is where Betsy DeVos comes in. She and her husband have personally funded scholarships allowing low-income children to attend private schools. She chairs the American Federation for Children, "promoting school choice, with a specific focus on advocating for school vouchers, scholarship tax credit programs and Education Savings Accounts." She was instrumental in enacting Michigan's and Detroit's charter school program.

That last achievement has proven a bit controversial, with Tulane University's Douglas N. Harris insisting in the pages of the New York Times (after DeVos's nomination) that Detroit represents "the biggest school reform disaster in the country." But "the 'well-regarded study' Harris cites actually finds that Detroit charter schools are producing significantly greater gains than traditional public school alternatives," the University of Arkansas's Jay P. Greene responded. Stopping just short of accusing Harris of making things up, Greene went on to suggest that criticism of Detroit's charter school efforts may be motivated more by ideological opposition to choice, and DeVos, than by evidence.

Arguing with people who manufacture their arguments out of whole cloth is an all-too-familiar experience for homeschooling parents like myself. So it was especially encouraging when Betsy DeVos told Philanthropy, "Homeschooling represents another perfectly valid educational option…To the extent that homeschooling puts parents back in charge of their kids' education, more power to them."

If DeVos sees those of us teaching our own kids not as enemies, but as parents doing our best for children, that puts her head and shoulders above most government bureaucrats who tinker with education policy.

And our choices are "valid," even by bureaucratic standards. Homeschooled students "score, on average, at the 84th to 89th percentile" on tests according to Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute.

Likewise, research finds that, while not a panacea, "the charter school sector is getting better on average and that charter schools are benefiting low-income, disadvantaged, and special education students," as Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of Stanford University's Center on Research on Education Outcomes, puts it.

School voucher programs in cities including Washington, D.C., and New York also seem, in many cases, to improve education outcomes, including graduation rates. "Our analyses revealed positive effects on math scores for children who applied to the program from certain types of schools—those with average test scores below the citywide median," researchers reported of New York City's efforts.

Just as important, families who choose the means by which their children are educated are generally more satisfied than those whose kids go to assigned schools—probably because their choices correspond with their values and preferences. No wonder, then, that the ranks of the homeschooled have grown from 1.1 million kids in 2003 to 1.8 million in 2012—and an estimated 2.3 million this year. And we've seen high-profile growth in the number of children attending privately-managed, publicly-funded charter schools, from 800,000 kids in 2003-2004 to 2.5 million in 2013-2014.

People want to be able to guide their children's education. They generally achieve better results than government schools when their right to do so is respected. And they're happier when allowed to make such choices.

So, is there a potential downside with Betsy DeVos? Sure enough. As Cato's Neal McCluskey writes, there's a risk "that President-elect Trump will see Ms. DeVos—or that she will see herself—not just as the education department head, but rather as the national education boss." That's the overall danger with the Trump administration. If it goes full authoritarian, that top-down approach will taint everything it touches.

But we've had a top-down approach in education for a very long time in this country. It's bossed families around and turned the process of teaching children into a one-size-fits-few boondoggle that leaves not too damned many people happy—or well-educated.

If Betsy DeVos can break with that lousy tradition by expanding options for parents and children, she'll be a bright spot not just in the Trump administration, but in the U.S. government's overall treatment of education.

NEXT: Campaign 2016 Comes to a Suitably Strange End As Ron Paul, Faith Spotted Eagle, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, and Colin Powell Pick Up Votes in the Electoral College

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Or, you know, Trump could just try to abolish the Dept of Education.

    1. And energy,Ag,homeland,commerce ,EPA and on and on.

      1. Why do you hate education, energy, commerce, the environment and the homeland?

    2. Bless your heart.

      1. I stuck "try" in that sentence because I'm old enough to remember Reagan.

        1. Bureaucracies take on an unlife of their own--stumbling, shambling, grasping, consuming--they almost can fool you into thinking they are alive, so no one takes the headshot.

          1. These euphemisms are simply gravely morbid these days.

            1. Zombie porn idea... you can only kill them with a moneyshot.

              1. Not bad...

                Problem: How exactly does a Zombie Babe give head, since she's more likely to take yours and eat it? How can one safely eat her out? And this lethal moneyshot - is this internal or will simple external exposure do the trick? Do we need to consult Camille Paglia for this?

                1. Moneyshots are not internal, by definition, so creampies aren't going to cut it. And a speculum keeps them from biting. As for going down on a zombie... I would imagine that would be worse than Winston's mom, so I don't advise it.

                  1. *turns green, staggers away from computer*

                2. He jaw would probably fall of anyway.

              2. Dead-eye Dick.

          2. It's all fun and games

            'til they come for your brains.

        2. Hate to burst your bubble - but Reagan is why the Dept of Education ramped up to a fast growth pace. Because he eliminated the interstate compact that had previously dealt with coordination of education issues among the states (eg what grade do you put a student into who just moved to the state from somewhere else). All because he wanted to privatize and nationalize 'student testing' - and that required mandating powers that an interstate compact can't legally have. So the functions were centralized.

          And the ideological notion that vouchers are the solution everywhere is just more of the same bullshit. A libertarian version of authoritarian control that's OK because the correct TOP MEN are in control.

    3. I'll take what I can get at this point. Better than whoever Hillary, who probably would've appointed someone like Karen Lewis.

      1. "Probably Not As Bad As Hillary: Trump 2020"

        1. It's a low, low bar.

        2. I'm so excited for 4 years of:
          He just trollin'

          1. Yeah, the go-to excuses seem locked in. Like BOOSH and racism for the last clown.

            1. However true that is, Saccharin Man, the problem with baked-in excuses is that, like stereotypes, there is always a grain of truth in them, which is why they are so durable and resistant to outright dismissal.

              For example: BOOOSH The Elder and Shrub made some spectacular blunders, but only the Shrub had baked-in excuses of the Clinton XY's demonstrable foreign policy mistakes (among others); Clinton had The Elder's tax faux pas baked-in, Clinton XY simply couldn't, almost literally, help steppng on his own dick; Shrub, for all his faults, was much more dignified than Clinton XY, and had 9/11 to fall back on; Obumbles, yeah, well you already covered that one.

              Shrill-Bot's baked-in excuses would have been: GLASS CEILING! Sexism! Obstructionist Repubes! (Even if she got her budgetary way, like Obumbles did the last two years of his Pestilency.)

          2. Yup. Shills are gonna shill.

            1. Irony...

    4. Yup. Burn the EPA down, since it is demonstrably not about educating.

      Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

      First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

      Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

      The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

  2. My wife and I are excited for the new Secretary of Education. Less government, more freedom. The teachers unions are going to riot. Let them eat cake.

    1. No cake at schools! Michelle says so.
      Oh, wait . . . . . .

      1. Yeeess, we gets our cakes back.

  3. Attention junkies


    1. We mustn't trigger the shoplifting junkies. The Kwik-e-Mart should be a safe space.

      1. Apu is all in favor of the junkies.

        Marge: You're a life saver, Apu. All the other stores are closed!
        Apu: [gasp] At 11:30? But this is the peak hour for stoned teenagers buying shiny things!
        Jimbo: [elsewhere in the store, observing a roll of tin foil] Whoa, it's a living mirror ... cool hat!

        1. And he was willing to make an all-syrup Super-Squishy if the price was right.

  4. NEA? National Employment Association?
    If union teachers were able to understand the phrase "subtle but distinct difference", I would point out that there is a subtle but distinct difference between publicly funded education, and education by public employees.

    1. Yes, the difference between education welfare and socialist education.

  5. Not only did spending triple in that time, but public school employment soared, so more money and personnel were available over those decades to achieve absolutely zip--no improvement in education outcomes.

    But, J.D., think of the JOBS!

    1. Right. Paying more people to do the same thing is a feature, not a bug to these hacks.

    2. You didn't build that.

  6. Like most topics, the people on each side of this issue are very prone to talk past each other. Like most topics, that's because each side has an implicit criteria of success, or importance, and it becomes an apples and oranges discussion.

    People in favor of charters and school choice like it because of the "choice" piece, and that often means "religious choice." Religiously-minded parents want to send their kids to a school that is less constrained by separation of church and state.

    People who are against charter schools and diverting funds away from public schools typically frame the discussion in terms of test results. There's really nothing to suggest that a charter school offers a better education than public schools, and in some high-profile instances charter schools underperformed compared to public.

    Trump's plan for education has the potential to really shake up education in America, but not in a very good way. Charter schools are NOT some panacea to a better-educated society, despite what Betsy DeVos says.

    1. Actually a recent study which controlled for poverty (70% of Detroit charter school students lived in poverty compared to the 43% of students living in poverty in the Detroit public school system) found that charter schools outperformed the public schools.

      Taking poverty into account, the CREDO data show that 50 percent of charter schools are equal in performance to traditional public schools. Only a handful of charters were underperforming compared to traditional public schools. For example, only 1 percent of charter students underperform DPS in reading scores. In fact, Detroit charters are among the top performers compared to traditional public schools in the CREDO study.

      A New York Times article on June 28, 2016, claimed that students in "half the charters perform only as well, or worse than, Detroit's traditional public schools." But the Times claim relies on limited data that fails to account for some of the most important factors in educational performance. A more robust study concluded that students enrolled in Detroit charters had higher average learning gains than students elsewhere, even when they were poorer. That is demonstrated in part by the fact that "charter students in Detroit gain over three months per year more than their counterparts at traditional public schools."

      1. Parents of children in charter schools are also way more satisfied with their child's school.

        1. Absolutely. It's a shame those on the left won't frame this debate in an honest way. Re: my example above, the Detroit charter school system is used specifically to provide better options for very low income students in the failing Detroit public school system. Anyone with any level of statistical knowledge knows that not including poverty levels isn't robust and will lead to autocorrelation.

          When correctly controlled, the Detroit charter school systems demonstrably provides a better education for those lower income students, and their parents are happier as well. Leftists don't really care for the poor though. It's all about state control.

          1. It's not a matter of framing it honestly, it's a matter of the two sides having a different framework entirely, and different criteria for success.

            There are some charter school success stories - there's also some major failures. On the whole, there's nothing to suggest that charter schools unequivocally get better results than public schools.

            As far as Trump's plan goes, people in the very low and very highest income brackets will love it. It'll provide large subsidies for the poorest to go to a school of their choice, and it would reduce the tax burden on the highest income houses (who already don't go to public school). But the families in the middle are going to get hosed. Anyone who earns too much to get subsidies (which will be basically everyone except the very poor) but doesn't earn enough to go to a private school will be stuck in public schools that had the budgeting carpet pulled out of from under them.

            Public schools are going to be made worse for the benefit of the very poor and the very rich.

            1. But the families in the middle are going to get hosed. Anyone who earns too much to get subsidies (which will be basically everyone except the very poor) but doesn't earn enough to go to a private school will be stuck in public schools that had the budgeting carpet pulled out of from under them.

              I don't think that's necessarily true. Generally the schools that are inarguably going to be worse off are the failing schools in lower income districts whose students will now be attending charter schools. Schools in middle class areas will most likely have relatively stable attendance and I don't see any reason why charter schools would force funds to be diverted away from those public schools. Regardless, there is zero correlation between government spending on education and test results.

              Generally, I don't have a problem with allowing parents to have a say where their children go with their tax dollars.

              1. I agree; in the general sense I think school choice is a good thing. But there's a lot of nuance that makes me very skeptical to get behind the "school choice!" political rallying cry.

                RE: Regardless, there is zero correlation between government spending on education and test results.

                That's sort of true. It's true to the point that test results don't continue to increase linearly with funding, but funding does help put a bit of a lower bound on school quality. In the worst of schools where basic supply needs aren't met, class sizes are too big, and extra curricular activities are limited, a direct cash infusion will absolutely help. The benefit of cash does drop off beyond that.

                RE: middle-class areas

                I'm definitely not saying the sky is falling on this point, but it is a plausible concern. If the very poor kids get subsidies and go elsewhere, and the rich no longer have to pay local taxes to fund the public school they don't attend, there's a clear way in which public schools get a little bit worse. More than anything, I see this being a point that just rubs people the wrong way: the very poor get large subsidies to attend decent private or charter schools, while the middle class gets stuck in slightly worse than they were before public schools.

    2. I would not mind privatization. Don't collect the taxes that go towards education, and let people choose to send their kids wherever they want.

      If you are not going to support public schools, don't take that money and have gubmint bureaucrats give it to private businesses.

      Ultimate choice. Let schools compete for the kids. Minimum wage teachers, no unions, cost-cutting CEOs...what can go wrong?

      1. Agreed, for the most part. We had a highly literate population (in some way even higher than how) before public education.

        But I don't know of any private school whose teachers only get minimum wage. Nor do I see a problem with principals cutting non-education related costs. Unions are up to the teachers if some school is screwing them over so badly that they all or almost all choose to join a union in that school. I expect a school that bad wouldn't have many parents willing to send their kids to that school anyway so it would be gone no matter which way you look at it.

    3. You certainly proved your own point.

      1. I'm trying to explain the two sides, and that charter schools aren't a perfect answer - far from it.

        What is considered a "successful" school? If you think the point of school is to get a good education that readies you for college/work place, than charter schools are not very impressive at all. If you are more invested in personal choice and having the school tailored to your own personal world views, than charter schools are great.

        The free market is excellent at giving people what they want. That's not always what they need.

        1. ^ The crux of statism. "People can't decide what they NEED. They need elites to decide that for them - elites elected by... people who don't know what they need."

          1. You're making an argument that just ignores the extremely checkered scholastic outcomes of charter schools. Since most criticisms of public school revolve around the poor outcomes, it is reasonable to expect anything that replaces public schools to have better outcomes.

            6/10 Straw Man. Excellent and clear example of the tactic, but the lack of depth lost some points.

            1. Evidence has been given that charter schools outperform public schools. You choose to ignore that evidence and keep saying 'but they're not perfect.' So what? They don't have to be perfect; they just have to be better than the status quo to justify substituting them for the status quo.

              And you're entire argument is based on a straw man. No one is arguing that charter schools are a 'panacea' and more over, them not being a panacea is a good argument against them. School choice means any schools, charter, private, or public, can be selected by parents, and will be funded accordingly.

              If the only argument you can come up with is 'but it's not perfect' then you have lost the argument. Complain about parents making choices all you want, it's better than education unions and bureaucrats making choices according to the status quo.

              See, this is a major fallacy of people arguing for a centrally planned (education, in this case) market: you assume that the (in this case status quo) planning is being done by an omnipotent, beneficent cadre of philosopher-kings who know better than the peasants what is best for them. The reality is the central planning is done by self-interested unions, bureaucrats, companies on the public dole, and other institutions that would gladly throw children and taxpayers under the same bus to save their jobs and increase their salaries.

              1. evidence


                My argument is NOT that charter schools are not perfect; my argument is that a school system that opens the door to charter schools will help some students, but hurt others, and have no helpful impact in the aggregate (scholastically. Choice is a different matter). I think we can do better than that.

                You have essentially accused me of making all the arguments that I explicitly didn't make. Charter schools address a certain aspect of people's complaints about public schools, but largely don't address what I think is the main reason for having schools at all: educating the next generation and preparing them for a successful life.

    4. Actually, religion has little to do with it. It's because 'choice' give schools an incentive to perform, or if they fail to perform they won't get enough parents to *choose* their school and they will cease to exist, unlike with public schools, which not only persist but grow fiscally in perpetuity no matter how poorly they perform.

      And the complaining about test scores is a shallow objection. Parents have to judge schools somehow, many do so using test scores. Test scores are imperfect, critics are correct about that. But they're better than nothing (that is, they're a better metric than children being sent to schools based on where they happen to be born). In other words, pointing out that a metric for assessing schools or teachers is imperfect is not a sound refutation of the fact they're better than no metric at all.

  7. ..and public schools over crappy charter schools too. Cool. Maybe healthcare should be that way too. Choice of either a public option or the private sector insurance.

    Except that is basically taxing widely, and distributing to hand-picked political donors whose corps. own the charter schools. Charter schools criteria regulated by the government. Right?

    True choice would be to abolish the DoE and let people choose to send their kids to whichever school or church they want. With their own money. Or not. Cut out the portion of the taxes that go towards education, and let everyone fend for themselves.

    "Free mind and free markets." LOL

    1. All of the things you are trying to frame as bad, are actually good.

  8. What she can do is wean states away from the government teat with regard to education. Progressives will want to reinstate authoritarian top-down planning for education with the usual disastrous results. Hopefully, something can be done to make this much more difficult.

    1. kids should be taught to question their government,hell, question everything. there should be a class on how to run for public office, so every kid has a chance and not just the silver spoon babies that got left everything because the estate tax is to low

  9. The left always amuses me. "Our schools fail our children. So lets protect it at all costs and keep it going."

    1. no one wants working parents to unionize and demand paid time off to teach kids at home

  10. Betsy DeVos - A Disaster For Homeschoolers..
    Change Agents are someone who are assigned or directed to intentionally change social attitudes, cultural values, thoughts, attitudes and morals of school children. TARGET: To change parental and church inspired morals, values and attitudes regarding life in general that is taught at home to destroy all PARENTAL INFLUENCE. Some teachers are change agents ? trained to be change agents.
    There have not been any campaign records presented that show the DeVos' contributed to the Trump campaign of which I am not surprised as they were strong Rubio contributors.

  11. If education is important enough that the government should mandate it, then continuing to fund it through taxes (property or other) is probably a given. Let each state decide what it costs to educate one child and cut the voucher. Doing so would allow parents to see their child educated to their satisfaction. It would also unleash the capital market that would seek to earn the voucher, which would not be a small part of the equation. If you don't think corporations and colleges would covet that $7 - $10K per pupil you know nothing about capitalism. Money could be made, taxes paid, and children educated, all sans government.

    1. What I don't like about private schools is their lack of accountability. Another conflict is that public tax money should not be going to religous schools. There really should be a strong seperation of church and state.

      1. They are accountable to parents. Unlike public schools which are only accountable to education bureaucrats, politicians and the unions that fund them. If Private schools are so bad why do the rich send their children to them? Why shouldn't funds go to a "religious" school? Religious schools still have to meet government guidelines for graduation. Catholic schools have been a godsend(pun intended) for minority families many of whom are not Catholic.

      2. Amen, this is an attempt to get religious cults to corrupt the youth

      3. As Hunthjof pointed out, private schools are accountable to parents. That's more accountability than public schools face. Who are they accountable to? To elected officials whose campaigns are funded by teachers unions' money? IOW, the people they bribe not to hold them accountable?

        Your second argument about religious schools is ludicrous. It's like arguing religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold public office because it's a violation of separation of church and state.

        The only requirement to uphold the separation is that schools not be discriminated (against or in favor) based on their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Which means, in fact, refusing to fund schools with religious affiliation would be a violation of separation of church and state, as it would constitute state discrimination on the basis of religion.

      4. Considering that the "public" tax money you refer to was taken from private citizens, I don't think that dog hunts.

  12. I use to substitute teach in a few different public schools. All of them were very good schools.


    Public School Advantages

    At a public school, students often have more diverse course options and wider access to sports, arts and music programs. Many parents and students in public schools feel like they have closer relations to the local community. Teachers are required to be certified educational instructors. Public schools are also low cost.

    Public School Disadvantages

    Class sizes are often much larger, resulting in less individualized attention. Classes are geared toward a mid-learning level, which may cause more advanced students to lose interest. Access to learning materials and classroom technology is limited, and textbooks are often outdated and worn. Public schools also have more days off, which may challenge busy parents.

    1. In my substitute teaching experience, I ran into a young downs boy in junior high in public school whose sister went to a private school. Each has an advantage and strength.


      Private School Advantages

      Private high school and private middle school curricula are usually more focused on specialized topics (like the creative arts) that prepare students for careers and higher education in a chosen field. Class sizes are smaller, the student-to-teacher ratio is lower, and coursework is more challenging. Most private schools have access to better books, supplies and classroom technology. Private school students generally have higher graduation and college acceptance rates, and earn higher degrees by their mid-20s.

      Private School Disadvantages

      The cost of attending a private high school or middle school is higher than attending a public one. Since courses are specialized, students may have a smaller range of subjects they can pursue. Students usually have to pass an entry exam to be admitted. Private schools are also less regulated by the state, which means that teachers aren't required to hold teaching degrees and special education programs may be lacking. However, private school teachers are more likely than their public school counterparts to report being satisfied with their school and its educational climate.

  13. just a way to force kids into more religious school, soon we will be a christian version of saudi arabia, If they really care about the people they would give paid vacation to teach your kids at home.

    1. I can't tell if this is supposed to be serious.

  14. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  15. happy christmas

    Peyton . you think Connie `s blog is cool, I just purchased BMW M3 from having made $4287 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe ten-k last month . it's by-far my favourite-work I've ever had . I began this 8-months ago and straight away startad earning more than $72, per-hr . visit the website

    ==============================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  16. my friend's sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours...

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  17. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  18. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this...You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer...I'm Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  19. Actually i have found it to easily to see these two website to make screen record and movie maker for windows 10 that i was looking for. http://screenrecorderwindows10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.