this show and kept stressing was that people, the media, political world were generally underappreciating the scope of possible conflicts of interest should donald trump actually become president and allow his children to run his real estate empire as he claimed he would. i have ivanka and eric and don sitting there. run the company, kids, have a good time. i m going to do it for america. i would be willing to so you ll put your assets in a blind trust? i would put it in a blind trust. well, i don t know if it s a blind trust if ivanka and don and eric run it. is that a blind trust? i don t know. again, no, that is not a blind trust. trump indicated his business was peanuts compared to the big league importance of running the country. this is big league stuff. this is our country. our country is going bad. we re going to save our country. i don t care about hotel occupancy. it s peanuts compared to what we re doing. but now here in an interview with the new york times h
schools than they did before the recession and these cities, this drains money and it doesn t help kids. in an era in which arne duncan where think tanks have gotten behind charter schools, is the ideological difference between what she represents and what arne duncan represented that large? yes. because there s a difference between having charters look, i don t like what arne did about testing. yes, you guys are very critical. trying to make as you heard me say common core, make it about testing as opposed to about teaching. there s a lot of excesses that were reined in in the new federal aid policy. i gave the president a lot of credit because he saw the excesses and he worked at it. this is the difference. arne duncan never wanted to destabilize schools and use vouchers and charters that way. i run a charter in the south
seemed to show results that were eh. i think that this week head start studies have been maligned, unfairly. i think our best research on head start seems to show that there are long-term positive outcomes. we see from the head start results, you know, increase and likelihood you graduate from high school and increased college going. one study from the 1960s from head start that happened in 1960s that finds kids are less likely to die of consequences causes that mate have something to do with poverty. you think the line head start actually is not what it is sold as or actually doesn t help kids. it is just wrong. data does not bear this out. that s correct. we have tons and tons of research on this. i think we can do better than head start. i think head start has been falsely maligned this week. what s your feeling about this? i guess the question is a, do you think this is the right direction to go policywise? b, do you have skepticism about the implementation?