What is the Overton window? The Overton Window, Illustrated cites Wikipedia.

The Overton window is a concept in political theory, named after the former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joe Overton, who developed the model. It describes a “window” in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue.  (from here)

With a little more definition, here is how Smash Mouth Politics says Liberals use the Overton window.

The Overton window is basically the window that is currently “mainstream” on any given issue.  And the liberals are always trying to pull that window to the left, to exert leftward pressure on the window, to pull American ”mainstream” to the left.  And one way that they do that is by taking extreme positions that Americans reject in vast numbers, in order to make less insane but still liberal positions seem “mainstream” by comparison.  (from here)

Doesn’t the fancy title, charts, and scholarly writeups make the Overton window sound sophisticated? It is not. Don’t our children do much the same thing? Remember when we were children? Which of us did not try to persuade our parents to allow us to do something we deep down knew was wrong? Think of the things we demanded, of our desire to be liberated from “stupid rules.” We wanted:

• Candy.
• No homework.
• Our own version of the truth.
• To set our own hours.
• Parties unsupervised by any adult.
• A new car.
• Fancy, strange, revealing clothes. Weird hairdos.
• Tattoos and piercing.
• Unsupervised dating.
• To get drunk and do drugs.
• Premarital sex.
• And so forth.

How did we justify such nonsense? We said all our friends were doing it. We called those who believed in traditional values squares. We described how stylish we would be. We explained that modern technology had made all our wants “safe.” We rationalized for our parents that we would do it anyway. And we pestered our parents mercilessly until some of them gave in.

How can we resist those who relentlessly seek to shift our values? The Book of James speaks directly to such concerns and begins with the subject of temptation.

James 1:2-8 (Today’s New International Version)

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. Those who doubt should not think they will receive anything from the Lord; they are double-minded and unstable in all they do.

The Winner in the Third Party Blog Category

The blog Below the Beltway wins in the Third Party Blog Category. This post, I AM A WINNER? — PART 2, describes the criteria.

Why Below the Beltway?

Doug Mataconis, the blogger at Below the Beltway, is a self-proclaimed Libertarian.

On the intellectual side, I guess its fair to say that I started out as a conservative of some variety and gradually became a libertarian. In college, I was a subscriber to National Review and started reading Milton Friedman and other economists. That eventually led me to Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. Then the floodgates started to open. I discovered Ayn Rand and read everything she wrote as fast as I could. For a time, I considered myself an Objectivist but, that infatuation started to fade as I became more familiar with some of the more cult-like elements of that philosophy.

I’ve also distanced myself from the more extreme elements of the libertarian movement. I was, I will admit, not entirely a supporter of the first Gulf War. I found the idea of American soldiers being sent into battle to defend the Kuwaiti and Saudi Royal families and their 15th Century ideologies to be offensive. I opposed the interventions in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. But then, September 11th happened. Call me a pro-war libertarian who watched the Twin Towers fall live on television. All I know is that the evidence is clear that Western Civilization is in a fight for its own survival right now. Following the naive foreign policy advocated by the Libertarian Party and its pacifist allies is, quite frankly, a prescription for suicide. (from here)

Thus, Mataconis is a Libertarian, but he is not an advocate of the Libertarian Party. So why did I pick Below the Beltway? Well, I looked at the blogs the Libertarian Party of Virginia links to. I like Below the Beltway better. Moreover, in spite of his protestations to the contrary, Mataconis takes a real interest in the Libertarian Party.

A Review of a Below the Beltway Post

In America, we almost never find ideal political allies. Even when we find someone whose opinions match our own, we change. There was time, for example, that I might have shared more of Mataconis’religious views, but I changed my mind. There are also things about another person we find difficult to understand. For example, why did Mataconis post this quote?

The fact is that liberty, in any true sense, is a concept that lies quite beyond the reach of the inferior man’s mind.  He can imagine and even esteem, in his way, certain false forms of liberty–for example, the right to choose between two political mountebanks, and to yell for the more obviously dishonest–but the reality is incomprehensible to him.  And no wonder, for genuine liberty demands of its votaries a quality he lacks completely, and that is courage.  The man who loves it must be willing to fight for it; blood, said Jefferson, is its natural manure.  More, he must be able to endure it–an even more arduous business.  Liberty means self-reliance, it means resolution, it means enterprise, it means the capacity for doing without.  The free man is one who has won a small and precarious territory from the great mob of his inferiors, and is prepared and ready to defend it and make it support him.  All around him are enemies, and where he stands there is no friend.  He can hope for little help from other men of his own kind, for they have battles of their own to fight.  He has made of himself a sort of god in his little world, and he must face the responsibilities of a god, and the dreadful loneliness.  Has Homo boobiens any talent for this magnificent self-reliance?  He has the same talent for it that he has for writing symphonies in the manner of Ludwig van Beethoven, no less and no more.  That is to say, he has no talent whatsoever, nor even any understanding that such a talent exists.  Liberty is unfathomable to him.  He can no more comprehend it than he can comprehend honour.  What he mistakes for it, nine times out of ten, is simply the banal right to empty hallelujahs upon his oppressors.  He is an ox whose last proud, defiant gesture is to lick the butcher behind the ear.

— H.L. Mencken (posted here on Below the Beltway)

Nevertheless, Mataconis remains more a political ally than not. Why? Like myself, Mataconis believes in limited government and respects the Constitution as a legal document, not a living document. Does Mataconis respect the original meaning of the Constitution exactly the way I do? Probably not. A political ally is just someone we agree with most of the time, not all the time.

In The Phony “Corporate Rights” Argument Against Citizens United, Mataconis and I find common ground. Excerpting from When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don’t Lose Their Rights by Ilya Shapiro. Mataconis highlights this statement.

The proposition that only human beings, standing alone, with no group affiliation whatsoever, are entitled to First Amendment protection — that “real people” lose some of their rights when they join together in groups of two or ten or fifty or 100,000 — is legally baseless and has no grounding in the Constitution.

What was the subject of the post? This post addressed the Supreme Court’s enforcement of our First Amendment right to free speech. This occurred when the Court overturned a portion of McCain-Fiengold, declaring that corporations have constitutional protected free speech rights. In their decision, the Court apparently remembered that the First Amendment includes more than just the right of free speech. The First Amendment also includes the right to freely assemble and the right to petition the government.

So how does this post relate to James 1:2-8? Has Mataconis ever asked God for wisdom? I don’t know. All I know is that Mataconis has a code he honors — that his code respects the rights of others, and that he has at least given serious thought as to how he should adhere to this code.

Admittedly, I have never bothered to read anything by H.L. Mencken. So when Mencken speaks of the inferior man’s mind, perhaps I misunderstand, but I doubt it. I don’t think there truly is such a thing as an inferior man’s mind. What I think is that some people tend to think only of themselves and that others strive to respect the rights of their fellow human beings. Because God endowed us with our rights, I do not believe liberty simply means self-reliance, resolution, enterprise, or the capacity for doing without. Nor do I believe liberty puts us into a world full of enemies. What I believe liberty means is loving your fellow man enough to respect his life, liberty and property.

There is a form of Christian love called agape. Agape love corresponds to the love of God for humankind. Agape love is unselfish, unsexual, brotherly love. Because love is sacrificial, love requires self-reliance, resolution, enterprise, and the capacity for doing without.  Yet when we persevere in agape love , we set both ourselves and others free. As Christ did for us, we set a good example, and we show others how to live in harmony.

Other Contest Winners

See I AM A WINNER? — PART 1 for a list of winners and contest rules.

The Criteria

How am I going to choose seven winners? 

1. Each blog I choose will be a Virginia blog.
2. I will consider only political blogs.  That is what I know about.
3. Picking (or picking on    ) the blog in some way furthers the Conservative agenda.
4. The blogger(s) must post regularly (at least once per week).
5. The blogger must have posted recently.
6. One of winner’s posts gets subjected to an intense review.
7. There will be one pick in each of the following categories: Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Third Party, News Summary blog, and Editiorial Content blog.
8. Starting Monday, February 8th, I will pick one winner each week.

• 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.

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.

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