Before she was a stooge.

She's the same person now, for the most part, that she was then. Before she interpreted the data she had in the best way there was. Now there are more data, and that's caused the interpretion to change. Hypothesis, experiment, data, old hypothesis falsified. That's where she is. It's an honest position, as was her old position for which she was vilified.

The only thing that's changed in evaluating her is the extent to which she agrees with us.

Even then, she doesn't actually agree with us, except in part. She actually has her own new hypothesis, based on new data--a hypothesis which many of us would find unpalatable--of how public schools should be run. For now, though, she's a zealot seeking to undo what she did in the first place.

Think of most of the agreement consisting in seeing a need to clear the lab bench of the experiment that's growing and taking over the lab. The goal is to try something else. At that point it's likely we'll part ways again, and she'll again be vilified for not agreeing with us.