Citizen Tom

This is the last of a six-part essay.  Here are the six parts.

• Why Did I Write This Series?
• Capitalism Versus Socialism And The Culture War?
• What Does The Bible Say About Private Property?
• What Is The Problem With Collectives?
• When Is Socialism the Best Moral Choice?
• When Is Capitalism The Best Moral Choice?

When Is Capitalism The Best Moral Choice?

The Definition of Capitalism

Consider the definition below.

capitalism
n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital
[syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]

Many regard capitalism as an economic system based on greed.  However, greed does not define capitalism.  What defines capitalism is the private ownership of capital.  Under capitalism, you, me, or anyone else can own property.  Capitalism is an economic system based on the right to own property and the fruits of our own labor. Where capitalism is implemented, government exists to prevent the greedy and powerful from taking everyone else’s property by the right of might.

Historically, capitalism is a relatively new and novel concept.  In times past when monarchs ruled, military might determined the ownership of property.  Hence, anyone who owned property either had military forces or relied on the protection of a patron with military power.

What is Government’s Role in Capitalism?

Because capitalists recognize the need to protect private property, capitalism is not a system that exists in direct opposition to government.   Not even those who support the laissez faire economic doctrine define themselves so extremely.  What capitalists insist upon is that government should protect the People’s right to own private property.  Capitalists insist upon their right to exercise legitimate control over the fruit of their labors.   Capitalists believe that when individuals pursue their own private interests without intruding upon the rights of others, everyone benefits more than they do when government runs everything.

Private property rights are fundamentally a religious issue.  Western Civilization exists as it does because of Christianity.  When the average citizen began to read and understand the Bible, people began to understand that God wanted them to love their neighbor.  The also realized that God defined everyone as everyone else’s neighbor.  At the same time we are each imbued with a moral law.  We know instinctively that it is wrong to steal from each other.  We understand that we each have the right to the rewards of our labors.

That realization reshaped the way our forebears regarded government.  Over time the People began to realize that the Bible does not support the divine right of Kings or the superiority of any class.  What God demands is that we treat each other justly.  Hence, the People began to assert control over their government and demand justice for their fellow citizens. 

What is the Advantage of Capitalism?

What we make of capitalism depends on each of us.  Yes, it is true that capitalism is an opportunity for the greedy and acquisitive to be the greedy and acquisitive.   Nonetheless, capitalism is also the best economic system for furthering the cause of freedom.

Good behavior generally has practical benefits.   When people engage in honest commerce, we have the opportunity to get what we pay for and then some.  When private citizens run business enterprises, their customers have a choice.  As a result of capitalism, those businesses that work hardest to satisfy their customers tend to be the most profitable.  That encourages innovation, productivity, and people who enjoy their work.

Capitalism is not just about business.  Because they are privately owned, nonprofits are also competitive capitalist enterprises.  Just like commercial enterprises, nonprofits allow those who donate to choose how to put their earnings to best use.

So When Is Capitalism The Best Moral Choice?

For the most part government should have relatively little to do (See the previous article here.).  In a society where ideas are allowed to compete freely and where people are allowed to suffer the consequences of bad choices, foolish choices tend to become self-evident.  Unfortunately, we do not have such a society. We have fouled up where it is most important to get it right.  We educate our children in government-run, socialist institutions.  That has wide-ranging implications and has to stop.

Socialist, government-run schools are by their very nature political institutions and arms of the state.  Because government-run educational institutions allow politicians the power to exercise control over what children and even adults learn, there must inevitably be politicians who will abuse that authority.

Unfortunately, with increasing state and federal government involvement, politicians have achieved ever more influence in our schools.  More and more each year, children learn the knowledge and teachings that politicians want to them to learn.   Instead of learning in competing institutions about the culture and the hard-earned wisdom our forebears left us, children learn the importance of conforming to shallow thoughts dictated by the dominant political party.

Instead of having schools where we are comfortable with competing ideas and beliefs, we have the facade of tolerance.   Instead of learning to forebear with real differences of opinion, we define hollow isms; such things secularism, multiculturalism, and scientism; as tolerance.   In each instance, our children learn we must have a single bland answer and that government decides.  What we end up with is an answer designed to satisfy everyone that satisfies no one.

Conclusion

Because capitalism best allows parents to pass their beliefs onto their children, all religious communities should unite in opposing government-run socialist educational institutions.

We send children to school to learn how to think.  School is the primary place outside the home where children learn what information is important and how to process it.  Because children spend hours every day in school, school is where they learn many of their values and how to implement those values.

How we each perceive and deal the world around us depends to a large degree upon how we are taught to perceive it and deal with it.  Because the public school system is a socialist institution, children taught in the public school system are ill prepared to survive in our capitalist system.  Socialism does not build up individuals in their religious faith; it teaches conformity to the world.  Hence education is the most important place that we begin to implement capitalism.

An Aside

Decades ago C. S. Lewis wrote the Screwtape Letters.   In this short book Lewis describes how devils might tempt each of us, even warping the character our society, without our ever knowing.   Though the story ends happily, because Lewis succeeds in making the devil he writes about seem so real, the reading is fascinating but grim.

Years latter, Lewis wrote a short sequel, Screwtape Proposes a Toast ( <- text available).  Imagine, if you will, a graduation ceremony for new tempters.  What would that eminent and hellish administrator, Screwtape, have to say to encourage fiends in their new endeavors?   Would it have anything to do with how we are preparing our children for the world and its temptations?

Other Views

Here we have a view of Capitalism as presented by some socialist “independent” Catholics.

Here we have an essay that focuses on the greed of capitalists.   Instead of focusing on the right to own property, this essayist focuses on our acquisitive nature.

Here and here we have discussions of the contribution of Christianity and the rise of the West and Capitalism.

This is the third part in a three-part series on how the Prince William County School Board dealt with Math Investigations at its January 21 meeting.   Part 1 summarized the arguments made by citizens during Citizen Comment time.  Part 2 summarized the statements made by various School Board members with respect Math Investigations.   This post considers what the news media has said about the issue and provides the author’s personal observations.

What Does the News Media Have To Say About Math Investigations?

The conflict over how to teach mathematics in Prince William County Schools (PWCS) has reached a new threshold.  So the news media has taken renewed notice. What is the news media?   I think most would apply the term to “newspapers and magazines collectively” or to journalism and fourth estate (see here).   In an era where most of us receive our news from so many other sources, that usage of the term has becoming too narrow.  Today blogs have replaced the pamphleteers of yesteryear.   Local newspapers have become regional corporations, and most of us get our news from cable and network television.

The Blogs

PWCS itself, of course, uses the Internet.  In fact, the PWCS curriculum staff promotes Math Investigations on their webpage for Elementary Mathematics Programs.

PWCS’ opponents also use the Internet. Once they began to realize they were in a fight, the parents opposing Math Investigations and advocating Traditional Mathematics set up their own website, PWC Teach Math Right.  With their own single-minded focus, these parents have disseminated the facts and the news that support their cause.

Some regard the Internet as new way to fight the school bureaucracy.

For a new generation of well-wired activists in the Washington region, it’s not enough to speak at Parent-Teacher Association or late-night school board meetings. They are going head-to-head with superintendents through e-mail blitzes, social networking Web sites, online petitions, partnerships with business and student groups, and research that mines a mountain of electronic data on school performance.  (from here)

For example, on January 30th, the front page of PWC Teach Math Right included these factoids:

• The proposed minutes of the School Boards meeting on January 21st were blatantly one-sided (see here).  This version of minutes will be considered for approval at the meeting on February 4th.  This version recorded only those comments from the members of the School Board that favor the cause of Math Investigations.
• At the February 4th meeting, the Chairman of the School Board, Milt Johns, will offer a motion suspending the implementation Math Investigations in the fifth grade.  Note that Johns proposal is buried in the proposed agenda.  Check out the next to last entry in item 5 of the February 4th meeting at the Electronic School Board.

Several blogs besides this one have begun to pick up interest in the story.

• ANTI-BVBL provided video clips from the January 21st meeting (here).  Here another ANTI-BVBL writer explains why she finds Math Investigations ineffective.
• Greg L., who apparently has at least one child taking Math Investigations is not happy with the program.  He spoke during Citizen Comment time on the 21st and has taken up investigating Math Investigations as a cause.  Originally, Greg L. focused on PWCS principally with respect to taxes.  Now, however, he has a series of posts on  school Math Investigations going back to at least October 2008  (here, here, and here).  His latest post, here, attacks school staff for using the email system to organize their support for Math Investigations.  Most likely some of the School Staff did abuse their positions to organize opposition to the Opt In Option for Traditional Math.  That would include using school email to pressure colleagues, and encouraging children to propagandize their parents.  However, this is stupid behavior, not criminal behavior.  What is just as bad that in the midst of his investigations, Greg L. encourages his readers to think and speak angrily.  In particular, Greg L. uses his blog to abuse School Board member Don Richardson.  The insults are not helpful.
• On the other hand,Virginia Virtucon has a post that reviews the January 21st School Board meeting and offers a considered opinion (see here).
• PWC Education Reform Blog is a relatively new venture.  Like PWC Teach Math Right, it appears to be devoted to getting the word out about the problems some parents perceive with Math Investigations.
• Note also that the School Board meeting on the 21st earned some blog coverage outside our area (see here).

The Newspapers

Newspaper coverage of Math Investigations is event driven and mixed with “expert” sounding pundit opinions.  Since the School Board meeting on January 21st was an event, there was coverage and opinions.

• Inside NOVA provides a relatively objective account here.  Of course, as usual the newspaper plays up the issues involved as monumental crisis.  In an editorial, we are told to trust the objectivity of teachers (see here).
• In series of short articles, Examiner.com (see here, here, and here ) lays out the issues over Math Investigations as emotional conflict between protesting parents and school officials.

What I found surprising is how little news media coverage there was on the Math Investigations controversy.  Admittedly, I don’t watch television.  Nonetheless, I would have expected other newspapers to pick up on the School Board’s controversial January 21st meeting.  Perhaps the School Board’s next session will receive more media attention.

Author’s Personal Observations

My children are grown, but I am a grandparent and a taxpayer.  So I have the responsibility to be concerned about the education of children.  Nonetheless, I am not an “expert” in math education.  So why do I have the right to my own opinion about the best way to educate children in math?  Consider what happens when we pull money out of our pocket and we set off to buy a washing machine, an automobile, choose a university, a dentist, or any number of other different things we might want to buy.  Does pulling money out of our billfold make us an “expert” on washing machines, autos, university education, dentistry, or anything else?   No.  Nonetheless, it is our money; we each get to choose how we spend it.  We even get to buy washing machines to wash our children’s clothes, choose cars to drive our children about, help our children select a college, and pick the dentist who cares for our children’s teeth.  When it is our money, we each choose the experts we want to do business with.

So why are parents and teachers fighting about Math Investigations?  When people get elected to public office, this very strange thing seems to happen to too many of them.  Politicians too easily forget that they are spending other people’s money.   I can only guess why this happens.  I suppose that when taxpayers simply hand their money over and hope for the best, politicians must decide they know best about just about everything.   What is consummately peculiar, however, is the “solution” our elected officials have chosen to educate children.  In a land where people love to make their own choices, we have an education system where the “choices” are defined by government officials.  Within the confines of a democratic capitalist state, we have adopted the socialist model to educate children.  We have a government owned and operated school system, a monopoly that punishes parents when they choose any other alternative but government.

Monopolies, particularly government-run monopolies, are problematic.  As time passes, government-run monopolies become more and more inefficient.  Each year a government-run monopoly exists, it tends to become more captivated by special interests.

As more than one School Board member has observed, even before schools started adopting Math Investigations, the math scores of students started going down.  Why did that happen?   Perhaps the fact school systems have gotten bigger and more bureaucratic may have something to do with it.  Each year local governments and parents have less control.  Instead, “experts” in Richmond, VA and Washington, DC provide more money, more “guidance,” require more administrative overhead, and elevate more “standards” in more ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with actually teaching children.

Given their own druthers, parents would send their children to schools that satisfy them, not the interests of busybody special interest groups.  Unfortunately, government owned and operated monopolies force associations that people would otherwise not choose for themselves.  This lack of real choice creates tension and frustration.  In time, strife is almost inevitable, and so we have strife over Math Investigations.  Unfortunately, the School Board cannot actually solve the monopoly problem.  The School Board’s hands are tied by Federal and state laws.

The best School Board can do is to make an inherently warped system function as well as it can.  One of their challenges has to do with choice.  Given the lack of true choice, both the School Board and the School Staff are obligated to allow parents as much latitude as they can manage.  Hence the School Board must seriously consider the Opt In Option.  Don Richardson’s and Grant Lattin’s qualms over offering parents too many choices have a real basis.   Large bureaucratic organizations really do have trouble giving their customers choices.   Nonetheless, when School Board members debate the Opt In Option for Traditional Math, each needs to remember what the executives of capitalist enterprises do when their customers complain.   They listen to their customer’s complaints.  Then they work with their employees to resolve their customer’s complaints.  Customers, not employees, pay the bills.

The Cartoons

Political cartoons exist to provide food for thought.  So here are a few thoughts to digest.

You have to wonder what children learn about government in government-run schools.  Where did we get these bailout ideas from?

Cartoon from here.

Does a government-run educational bureaucracy exist to educate or to serve the interests of political opportunists?

Cartoon from here.

If the parent’s priorities are not the first priority of the School Staff, then whose priorities are they serving?

Artist unknown.

Many treat public ownership and operation of public education as a sacred act of charity.  Perhaps, but why is public ownership and operation needed?  Sometimes what truly motivates people is difficult to determine.  For example, because “free” government-run schools undermine Catholic schools, some suspect a component of bigotry.

1871 cartoon by Thomas Nast from here.  See here for an explanation.

This is the second part of a three-part series on how the Prince William County School Board dealt with Math Investigations at its January 21 meeting.  In Part 1, we listed the arguments of teachers and principals in defense of Math Investigations.  In addition, we listed the comments of parents, largely in protest, on the Math Investigations program.  This post will consider the comments of the School Board.  Because this section was longer than expected, I have decided to consider the treatment of the event by the news media and to offer a few observations of my own in a third post.

What Did The School Board Have To Say?

As Chairman of the School Board, Milt Johns initiated and regulated the discussion of Math Investigations.  He began the discussion by making it clear that he put the subject on the agenda at request of several board members.  He also defined the terms of the Opt In Option for Traditional Math in Elementary Schools.  Johns proposed the following for PWCS’s K – 5 Math Investigations program:

• That PWCS’ two traditional schools revert to teaching Traditional Mathematics in the September 2009.
• That any elementary school where the parents of at least 25 students (same grade level) request (in person or writing by March 31, 2009) traditional mathematics instruction offer a Traditional Mathematics class for those children.   The Opt In Option would commence in September 2009.

Johns then requested that each of the board’s members offer their own comments in two rounds, allowing each member several minutes each round.  Finally, Johns closed with his own comments.

Here is a rough summary of the comments from the board’s members.

• Dr. Michael Otaigbe: Dr. Otaigbe appreciated the opportunity to consider the Opt In Option for Traditional Math.  Otaigbe observed that PWCS is well known for offering students a choice, and he gave the example of the variety of programs offered at various high schools.  He noted that teachers and parents must work together to teach children.  If some parents do not accept the Math Investigations program, then their children will have trouble learning.   The Opt In Option would give parents — and teachers — an alternative.    Otaigbe stated he supports the Opt In Option.
• Julie Lucas: Lucas began by addressing one of the concerns of the parents who spoke during Citizen Comments.  She said she does not have a staff, and that she was unable to respond to all the emails from parents.  She also said that she did not have any parents complaining about Math Investigations in her district.  However, she did get complaints from other districts, and she feels an obligation to listen to the concerns of all parents.   She wants parents to feel welcomed by PWCS.  Lucas advocated a work session.  She is clearly concerned that the Opt In Option could generate additional costs for PWCS.
• Betty Covington: Covington echoed Lucas’ inability to respond to all the emails.  She said a significant number of parents in her district are unhappy with Math Investigations, too many to ignore the complaints.  She wonders why the Opt In Option would not be a win-win for everyone and did not see any reason why it could not be made to work.  “You can make what works work if you want it to work.”   The Opt In Option would not be an abandonment of Math Investigations; it would be an alternative for the parents who want one.   “Parents are our customers.”   She also said she has spoken to teachers who are unhappy with Math Investigations.   Covington support for the Opt In Option is so strong she expressed concern that the requirement for at least 25 students might be too large at the smaller schools.  She suggested basing implementation of the Opt In Option upon the percentage of the students whose parents request it.  She supports a work session.
• Denita Ramirez: Ramirez appreciates the passion of teachers and parents and their desire to put parents first.  She has not heard many complaints from parents in her district, but has heard complaints.  She is not yet convinced that the data supports Math Investigations.  She prefers the blended Math Investigations/Traditional Math approach, but she hears some teachers are not using a blended approach — not fair!   If PWCS cannot guarantee the blended approach is consistently offered to students, she will support the Opt In Option.  However, she is concerned the Opt In Opt would be difficult to schedule and would be detrimental to disadvantaged students.    She supports a work session.
• Don Richardson: Richardson is convinced that the Opt In Option will cost additional funds.  Busing students, for example, would cost money.  Scheduling and managing two programs would also cost, but that cost would be difficult to determine.  With the budget cuts, now is not the time for new spending.    Richardson opposes putting another burden on staff.   However, Richardson’s big objection is philosophical.  Decision-making authority should not be taken from professionals.   The school staff has earned his respect, and he trusts their judgment.  The Opt In Option would set a bad precedent.  The School Board risks other parents asking for an Opt In Option for their favored alternative in other subjects.  Further, preliminary data shows Math Investigations is just beginning to work.   His goal is to get a program that works for the largest number of students.   Instead of abandoning the Math Investigations program, the debate should be used to how to improve and make instruction more consistent.   Richardson reminded members that the board voted unanimously for the Math Investigations program.
• Gil Trenum: Trenum appreciated the comments about students losing number sense and analytical capabilities, but that was during a steady state — when no changes were being made.  Trenum also noted that choice is common in the PWCS system, and that the reason the balanced (or blended) approach was implemented was due to complaints from parents.  He wondered aloud what he should do if a parent complains his child is not getting it.  Traditional Math does work for some children.   Trenum added that teachers should be provided the tools they need and allowed the discretion to use those tools.
• Grant Lattin: Lattin began by reminding us of the problem that the Math Investigations was launched to address.  The children of the U.S.A. are rated only 19th in math.  The relative loss of math skills in this nation has profound implications for future prosperity, and the decline occurred with Traditional Math.  Math Investigations is not the cause of the decline.  He reminded parents that the first couple of years were expected to be difficult; people have to be convinced.   He believe Math Investigations is working; he has talked to all the principals in his district, and they support the program.  He said it would be a shame to abandon the program just as it is beginning to work.  Lattin supports a blended approach and said teachers should be encouraged to use both Math Investigations and Traditional Math techniques in their instruction.
• Milt Johns: Johns began his comments by thanking Superintendent Walts for his tolerance.  He noted that the Math Investigations program in PWCS predated Walts.  Walts did not initiate the program; he implemented it.  Moreover, Walts pioneered the blended approach.  Johns made it clear that the Opt In Option would not end Math Investigations.  The Opt In Option would not deprive any parent who want their child to have Math Investigations.  Nonetheless, Johns felt the need to respond to the criticism which he feels is extensive.  He had two or more emails from parents from each of 26 elementary schools.   Johns is not worried about setting a precedence with the Opt In Option and sees no slippery slope.   He also sees no additional cost.  The Traditional Math program would use textbooks that have already been purchased and an established curriculum.    No work session is needed, and budget process will use up most of the available time.  What is needed is a decision.  However, Johns agreed to poll board member on the need for a work session via email.

Johns also responded directly to some of the Citizen Comments and the email has received.  He defended the integrity of the staff from the comments of some parents (something Richardson did as well during his comments).   At the same time he indicated some disappointment with the comments and email from a minority of the teachers.  Some teachers began attacking the Opt In Option before they even knew what it was.  Further, he felt the criticism of parents and their right to be involved in curriculum choices was unwarranted (a point also made earlier by Covington).  Of course parents have the right to determine what their children learn.  The School Board itself is a parent-run institution.

Still More to Come

As their comments demonstrate, the board is split on the Opt In Option.   Fortunately, the members of the School Board usually work well together.  Hopefully, they will find a compromise that works well for everyone.

The next post will consider the value added by news media coverage.  In addition, I will explain what I think the average citizen has to learn from the School Board’s dilemma.

Part 3 of this series is here.

The Cartoons

Just For Fun

Because of the continuing controversy over Math Investigations, the Chair of the Prince William County School Board decided to put the following item on the agenda of the last School Board meeting.

Opt In Option for Traditional Math in Elementary Schools (Johns) – This agenda item provided the opportunity for the Prince William County School Board to discuss an opt in option for traditional math in Prince William County elementary schools and to revert the traditional schools to traditional math.

Math Investigations, developed and peddled by TERC, serves as the foundation of Prince William County Schools (PWCS) K – 5 mathematics curriculum (See here.).  The program has met with considerable resistance from some of the county’s parents.  Their website is PWCTEACHMATHRIGHT.COM.

Over 50 teachers and parents spoke during Citizen Comment time.  This is an almost unheard of number.  At about three minutes for each citizen, the comments took almost three hours.  Nevertheless, the school board exercised considerable patience and listened respectfully to all the comments.

The comments that occurred both during Citizen Comment time and during Board Time (by board members) during the meeting on January 21st demonstrated deep division on the matter of Math Investigations.  This post will summarize the comments from the teachers and the parents.  Later this week, we will consider the comments offered by the members of the School Board, the coverage of their meeting in the local news media.  In addition, I will offer my own observations.

Teacher/Principal Comments

One can only guess the reason, but Citizen Comment time was obviously front loaded with teachers and principles.  Approximately 25 teachers and principals spoke in favor of the Math Investigations program.  Since the viewing audience most likely dropped off as the evening wore on, that obviously resulted in the local citizenry hearing more from the teachers.   In addition, some people who had intended to speak obviously gave up.

Here, in no particular order, are some of the arguments the teachers and principles offered in favor of Math Investigations and against the Opt In Option for Traditional Math.

• The point of Math Investigations is to help children understand mathematics.  To progress in mathematics, children need to develop a number sense and a grasp of mathematical concepts.  Traditional mathematics just teaches algorithms; it does not teach well how to apply the algorithms or how the algorithms work.
• The current PWCS math program is a blend of Math Investigations and traditional mathematics, taking the best of both.  This combination meets the standards of learning imposed by the Virginia DOE (See here.).  This approach was described as balanced.
• In response to parent complaints, the PWCS Math Department has already adjusted its math program to include more traditional math and to include to the teaching of traditional algorithms earlier in the program.
• Children learn in different ways.  Math Investigations is a multimodal teaching method that is supported by brain research and demonstrated by data as being effective (See here, the PWCS website, for this data.).   Based upon this success, some teachers support carrying  Math Investigations forward into middle and high school.
• The children like Math Investigations and look forward to it.
• Math Investigations in elementary school provides children the foundation that they need for more advanced math instruction such as algebra.
• Plenty of homework material is available in the Math Investigations textbooks.
• Instruction with Math Investigations provides students with a better level of retention.
• Math Investigations helps the largest number of students.   Traditional math works for relatively fewer children and leaves more frustrated.
• The National Council of Mathematics Teachers supports Math Investigations.
• Those objecting to Math Investigations are just objecting to and suspicious of change.  They need to participate in parent work sessions and math nights.
• The Opt In option would be a step back.  It would divert resources, cost more, and complicate the execution of instruction.
• The teachers are the professionals and the experts in math instruction.  Parents should respect their expertise and let the teachers do their job.

Parent Comments

Against Math Investigations

As Citizen Comment time progressed, about an equal number of parents spoke.   With few exceptions most parents spoke in favor of the Opt In option or for just dropping Math Investigations.   Many of their arguments are detailed at PWCTEACHMATHRIGHT.COM.

Here, again in no particular order, are some of the arguments parents offered against Math Investigations and for the Opt In option.

• Most parents said Math Investigations is not working for their children.  They are forced to make up for what their children are not learning and teach it at home.
• Math Investigations robs the children who get it.  The program is dumbed down.
• Based on the results of the PWCS’ own survey (see page 11 here), almost half of the parents are unhappy with Math Investigations.  (Author’s note:  The satisfaction trend is significantly downward.  See page 7 here for the results of last year’s survey.).
• When the Virginia DOE rated Math Investigations against the standards of learning, Math Investigations text scored poorly.  Math Investigations did not satisfy the standards set for the fifth grade.
• Parents said Math Investigations does not deliver, and they claim math scores go down where it has been implemented.  One noted that most of the evidence that supports Math Investigations was financed by TERC.  (Author’s note:   While it is clear that some of the parents have studied this matter carefully, this argument with PWCS and TERC educators is beyond the scope of this blog.   The debate quickly become an argument over which statistics to use and which education experts to believe.)
• Parents, not teachers, are their children’s primary caretakers and teachers.   As their children’s primary advocates, parents have the responsibility to decide what and how their children will be taught.
• Parents have the right to question the expertise of professionals.  Even doctors make mistakes when they do not listen to the concerns of their patients.   As their child’s advocate, parents serve as the voice of their children and must be seen as part of the solution, not the problem.
• Parents said that they attended parent work sessions and math nights.   They still do not like Math Investigations.  They complained that  Math Investigations is too dumbed down and the algorithms it teaches to solve math problems are overly laborious.
• The fact that children appear to enjoy Math Investigations is not particularly relevant.  Children might enjoy a diet of popsicles and pop tarts, but no responsible parent would put their children on such a diet.
• PWCS’ blended Math Investigations/Traditional Math is not consistently offered across the school division.  Some schools teach Math Investigations exclusively.
• There is no real evidence Math Investigations actually works.  A  TERC type method was tried in California in the 90’s.  As a result, the number of college students required to take remedial math doubled. TERC promotes Beyond Arithmetic (see front cover here.).   This book supposely demonstrates that  TERC encourages the suppression of accuracy and precision in favor of estimation and many possible right answers (try googling “beyond arithmetic” accuracy precision terc — Author edited the previous link for clarity.) .   What Math Investigations does not do is provide the foundation for learning mathematics as a vertically structured knowledge domain (i.e., before you learn the advanced concepts, you have to understand the basics.).
• Math Investigations dwells too long on the concrete (manipulatives and games) without getting into abstract concepts and the application of algorthms.
• One parent observed an odd disconnect.  Many of the parents complaining about Math Investigations have advanced degrees and jobs that require they understand mathematics well.
• Some parents wondered how the PWCS leadership managed to get its principles and teachers so solidly behind Math Investigations.  None of the PWCS’s principles and teachers came to the School Board to complain?  They all like Math Investigations?
• Math Investigations emphasizes group learning.  When success is measured as group success, individuals have no opportunity to excel or fail as individuals.  Moreover, some children want learn, not just play games.
• Another parent compared Math Investigations to the Montessori method (see here and here).   What she observed is that unlike the Montessori method which starts by providing a child concrete manipulatives and then progressively encourages children to learn more abstract concepts, Math Investigations seems to stop at the concrete without ever getting to abstract concepts.

For Math Investigations

Here are some of the arguments parents offered in support of Math Investigations.

• As a mother and business owner, one parent wants her children to learn mathematics because the skill is essential.   She argued traditional math is not working.  Too many adults do not know math.  She says the board made a good decision and should stick with it.
• Another parent simply says she is convinced Math Investigations works and all schools should offer the same math program.  She understands that some parents find the change scary.
• A few parents made the clear statement that Math Investigations (blended with traditional math) is working for their children.  That statement came principally from teachers with school age children.  However, it also included few parents who are not teachers or PWCS employees.

More to Come

This blog is more about a discussion of principles of good government than the fireworks that sometimes result from human interaction.  Nonetheless, in the next post we will consider the fireworks.  That is because avoiding those fireworks is a large part of what good government involves.

Part 2 of this series is here.

The Cartoons

What we have is a definitive difference in opinion.

Although the public school system aims to be secular, PWCS teachers and principals claim to be on a quest to end math atheism.

Unfortunately, some parents have yet to be convinced.  They wonder if the School Board has made a mistake.

Nonetheless, we can be confident that our School Board is not ignoring the problem.

This is the fifth part of a six-part essay.  Here are the six parts.

• Why Did I Write This Series?
• Capitalism Versus Socialism And The Culture War?
• What Does The Bible Say About Private Property?
• What Is The Problem With Collectives?
• When Is Socialism the Best Moral Choice?
• When Is Capitalism The Best Moral Choice?

When Is Socialism the Best Moral Choice?

Before we can answer this question, we must do four things.

• Properly define socialism.
• Acknowledge what we actually need (not want) from government.
• Consider the threat.
• Pose a solution.

The Definition of Socialism

Consider the definition below.

socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn:
socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]

We tend to think of socialism and capitalism as polar opposites.  Some laud Socialism as being based upon unselfishness whereas capitalism is the economics of selfishness.  Others note the inefficiency of socialism.   These people also point out a problem with giving the government the ownership of industry.   When government owns everything, our too often not so unselfish leaders own us.

In practice we have an economic system that is a compromise between socialism and capitalism.  Many suggest that any economic system exists somewhere on the continuum between socialism and capitalism, but that is not exactly true.  There are many ways besides ownership for government to exercise control over the economy.  Look at our tax code, for example.  Federal, state, and local governments use reams of paper to document a tax code that influences where we shop and what we buy.  How many people buy instead of rent just for that tax break that allows us to deduct the interest on our mortgage?

As defined, the term socialism simply does adequately describe how government can control property and people.  As we shall see, ownership is an unnecessary luxury.  Instead of owning our property (or us) outright, government can selectively tax, subsidize, regulate, and indoctrinate.   Instead of owning, government can use carrots and sticks, and if that does not work, government can just tell us what to do and punish us when we do not obey.

Without appearing to be as powerful as they actually happen to be, our leaders can exercise enormous power.  If all that matters is power and control, ownership is a luxury.

Power and control over others are what some people seek above all else.  Since we call such people busybodies, we may as well call their ideology Busybodyism.   Can we also cease using the term socialism?  No.

What Do We Need From Government?

Our nation’s founders defined what we need from government quite concisely in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,… (from here)

We do not need government to educate us, feed us, provide us medical care, give us money in retirement, protect us from poverty… We do not need government to give us things.  We need government to protect our rights.  In fact, whenever government gives us things, government has to violate the rights of some of our fellow citizens.  When government gives us things, it takes from our fellow citizens.   So when we demand that government give us something, we are demanding a government that threatens the rights of our fellow citizens.

What Is The Threat?

We are the threat.  We each tend to be a control freak or a busybody, and politicians are most likely the worst amongst us (see here).  We want the comfort of an assured solution.  We do not like to depend upon the decisions of others.  We want to be certain that other people will make the “right decision.”   So rather than relying upon our neighbors to decide what is best for themselves, we can be easily tempted to accept the promises of political opportunists (See this post for more on political opportunists.).   Instead of doing what is best for the country, political opportunists promise us what we want.   We give them more power, and, maybe, we each get some part of what we wanted.

Within republics, subtlety has always been a large part of the art of grasping for power.  When Julius Caesar took over the Roman Empire, he did so with obvious intent.  His opponents killed him.  Because Caesar made it so readily apparent that he would be end of the Roman Republic, his enemies feared him.   To avoid posing so obvious a threat, Caesar’s nephew, Octavius (as Augustus), maintained a facade.   He formally returned power to the Roman Senate.  In theory he relinquished his control of the Roman provinces and their armies.  The new Augustus chose to  hold onto the strings of power via other less obvious means.

Thus calmed, the citizens of Rome accepted dictatorship.  The Augustus quietly assumed the reins, restored order, and skillfully soothed hurt feelings.  After all, the new Augustus was only the first amongst equals.   With minimal fuss, the Roman Republic quietly died.

In our quest for material things and nice little perks, we easily forget the reasons behind traditions.  Remember for a moment the celebration of Christmas, that day less than a month ago.  For how many of us has the birth of Christ faded into Santa Claus and Christmas Trees?   Just as we too easily forget the reason for the season (and have to be reminded), we also forget the reason we need our government.  Then, instead of having a government that protects our Rights, including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; we end up with a government that gives us things.

So When Is Socialism The Best Moral Choice?

Unfortunately, socialism is sometimes necessary.  Sometimes the government must own and operate institutions.   Yet whenever we think about government, we must remember that government exists only to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Government does not exist just so we can impose our will (or supposed solution) on others.   Wherever we use power of government, we should use the minimum amount of government required to get the job done.

Government power is required when an individual’s free choice would unacceptably infringe on the rights of others. For example, we cannot allow bank robbers, or those lawfully accused of bank robbery, their freedom.  Because even suspected bank robbers cannot be trusted, in such instances we have no choice except to have appointed public servants restrain the accused.   Even so, to keep the power of government officials in check, we have juries.  Whenever possible, we defuse power from government leaders.

Look back into our history.  At the time of our nation’s founding, all the institutions of government were unavoidably government institutions.  What private concern can be trusted to run their own private army, police, court system, or to set up our nation’s currency?  Although all these things have existed (and still do).  Nevertheless, without firm government regulation, private armies, private police, private court systems, and private currencies can too easily raise havoc.

Government power is also required when no private alternative exists. Efficient commerce requires government regulation, not necessarily government ownership.  Without laws against fraud, for example, commerce between strangers becomes extremely difficult.  Imagine, for example, being on the road and being stopped to pay tolls on unregulated private roads.  Imagine not being able to trust the restaurants.   What if you had no idea what was in the food or even whether it was safe to eat?

Because we have the right to travel, we need roads and government exercises powers such as the right of eminent domain.  Nonetheless, consider the conundrum we have put ourselves in.  We all pay for roads we will never use.  Why do citizens in Florida pay for a road in Alaska?  The reason is that we have placed no checks on the powers of our leaders.  We give them our money and let them freely choose how to spend it.  When toll roads were still common, we did not give our leaders our money to spend until we were ready to drive on the road.   So the roads went where we needed them to go.

Because they benefit the safety and security of all, and no private organization could run them profitably (or fairly), we have such things as the National Weather Service and the Center For Disease Control and Prevention.

Conclusion

There is no simple straightforward rule that clearly defines in every case when government needs to own and operate, needs to tax, needs to subsidized or needs to indoctrinate.   Our Constitution resulted only after years of debate and the failure of the Articles of Confederation.  Because we have no clear solution, we will always argue.

Nevertheless, each of us needs to examine carefully our own motives.  Are we insisting on a government solution because we are just being busybodies?  Are we concerned about our neighbor’s rights or are we just trying to get what we want?  If the truth is the latter, then we each need to remember that if we get what we want we will be the poorer for it.

Continued — When Is Capitalism The Best Moral Choice?