From Bob’s e-mail:

Congress has NEVER, in 220 years, mandated that individuals purchase any private service or good, until now.

Both the House and Senate health insurance “reform” bills approved by Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner threaten our families with jail time and fines up to $25,000 if we do not purchase health insurance that Obama Health Czars think is good for us whether we want it or not.

For example, both Mark Warner and Jim Webb voted to coerce you into paying for elective abortions.  Penalties, including jail for a year if you refuse to pay, start for a single month without health coverage.

“Health care reform” bills which Congress’ own staff call novel, unprecedented, and of suspicious constitutional foundation are not solutions to problems.

Rather, the bills threaten our liberties and economic welfare because they steal the primary responsibility for economic welfare from families and adult individuals and turn it over to Washington politicians and their bureaucracies.

Something is very wrong with this.  We all know it.  And we can stop it.

My HB 10 is a direct challenge to Obama Care mandates and affirms that no person, church, business or other entity can be punished for failure to purchase a particular plan of health insurance.

The purpose of HB 10 is to empower the state of Virginia and Virginia citizens to challenge the health insurance mandate provisions of the federal insurance bills.

HB 10 (see Q and A below) will get around the ideological road blocks from out of touch  Congressmen and Senators because states and grass roots citizens still are the foundation of our Constitutional balance of power………

Bob has prepared a Q& A on the state authority to challenge the insurance mandates in the federal health care bills which you can find here.

Bob’s a great man.  He knows Constitutional Law and doesn’t back down from a fight.  He’s been standing up for me and the other residents of my district since 1991.  If you live in Virginia, you might want to contact your state Delegate or state Senator and ask them to back HB 10.

The initiative requires that each participating state adopt and implement at least 85% of the “Common Core” grade level specific Math and English standards for use in public schools in their states.    The US Department of Education, in establishing the rules by which the $4 billion in Race to the Top funds will be awarded, has given priority to states which agree to adopt the national “Common Core” grade level specific standards.

One problem – the standards haven’t been written yet.

Let me repeat that, because it’s a very important point.  Forty-eight states, 2 territories, and DC have agreed to adopt and implement in every public school in their state / territory / district academic standards for math and English which have not been written and they have not seen.

The CCSSI recently released its “College and Career Readiness” standards which, according to the group, ”define the knowledge and skills students should have to be ready to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing, academic college courses and in workforce training programs.” Yet, the “College and Career Ready” English standards don’t meet the requirements for high school graduation, and, the “College and Career Ready” Math standards fail to meet the minimum admission requirements for most 4-year colleges and Universities in the country.

For English, the “College and Career Ready” standards appear to be little more than a list of skills and reading strategies with no relation to content.  For Math, the “College and Career Ready” standards describe the skills necessary to complete Algebra I and a few concepts associated with Geometry and Algebra II without regard to the minimum general entrance requirements for most 4-year colleges and Universities and no mention of the additional skills and coursework necessary to enter Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs.

In short, the bar the CCSSI set that all student’s must meet to be “College and Career Ready” fails to meet the minimum admission requirement for most 4-year US colleges and Universities in the US.

You may think, who cares, the “College and Career Ready” standards aren’t the “Common Core” grade level specific standards participating states agreed to adopt.

While technically correct, that assumption omits one key point.  The “Common Core” grade level specific standards, which must be adopted by every state except Texas and Alaska, describe the knowledge and skills students must master at each grade level to achieve the “College and Career Ready” standards. Our public schools will be required to adopt grade level academic standards for math and English which will render their students ineligible for admission to many, if not most, 4-year colleges and Universities in the country.

In a show of support for this effort, Secretary Duncan recently released $350 million in Race to the Top funds to support states in the creation of a common assessment linked to the “Common Core” standards being developed by states.

The “Common Core Grade Level Specific” standards haven’t been issued, yet.  They’re due out in January.

We can always hope that the subject matter experts serving on the standards drafting committee will have the knowledge and foresight to draft rigorous, appropriate standards.    Unfortunately, there appear to be very few subject matter experts serving on the committees responsible for drafting the standards.

We can always hope that the standards drafting committee will be open to adapting and revising its recommendations based on feedback received from state Departments of Education and stakeholders.  Unfortunately the initiative hasn’t developed a process by which it will consolidate and review any of the feedback it receives, and the process has been rushed to such an extent that there is little time for concerns to be addressed.

As it stands now, it appears that a national Common Core of academic standards will be issued and implemented in almost every public school in the nation with a common national assessment along for the ride.  Those standards will likely be inadequate to meet the current minimum entrance requirements at many colleges and Universities in country, which means fewer public school kids will be going to college or colleges will be forced to drop their admission requirements. With budgets tight in states across the nation and $4 billion in federal incentive, there is a low probability that individual states will choose not to participate.  Efforts to slow, or allow more room for feedback and concerns at the national level have been met with silence.

It’s time to direct our attention to our elected state officials to determine how they plan to implement these national standards.  Questions we should be asking include, but are not limited to:

• Will the national “Common Core” standards replace our state standards?
• How will the state select the “Common Core” standards it will implement?
• If the “Common Core” standards don’t meet our state’s high school graduation or college entrance requirements, can  we adopt tougher standards?
• What process has been developed for stakeholders to provide feedback and commentary on the “Common Core” standards selected by the state?
• What is the timeline for implementing the “Common Core” standards in public schools in the state?
• And last, but not least, on what authority did the elected Governor or state legislature abdicate responsibility for the standards our public schools must meet to a national board over which we have no control?

It’s HR 3400, has been proposed in the House, and goes by the name Empowering Patients First Act. You can find the bill summary on Tom Price’s site or read the full text of it at gov track linked above.

I’ve provided an extremely brief overview below, but I’m confused, and hope some of you can help me understand this a bit better.

I’m not a fan of the Democrat’s health care bills. It seems that I’m not alone.  Like many, I firmly believe that people who can not afford health insurance need some sort of help and with Medicare and Medicaid on the brink of bankruptcy, we’ve got to do something.  I fear that that something will be the Democrats plan, which it seems increasingly will be forced through under the nuclear option.

That’s why I’m at a loss to explain why I’ve only just learned of the Republican’s plan.

The GOP’s bill seems to do what I’d believed was necessary to address the problems in the health care industry, but no one is talking about it. I know watching the Democrats self destruct is good fun, but I can’t help but wonder why the GOP hasn’t pushed this alternative to give us something to root for. By rooting for this bill we could give our elected officials an out from the Democrats plan for the federal government to assume control of virtually every health care plan sold in the US.

I just really don’t understand why we’re not hearing more about the plan.  I hope some of you can explain it.

Anyway, the links are above and my extremely brief overview is below, as well as a few very basic examples of the impact of each plan. If you’re so inclined, please take the time to read the bill. It’s not that long and a much easier read than the Democrats bill.

Please note: I’m just a Mom and not an expert in reading and interpreting legislation. If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please let me know. If my assumptions or math are wrong, please let me know. I’m not an expert, I’m just a Mom trying to sort this all out.

****
In summary, the act provides the following:

An enhanced individual market

To bring costs down in the individual market for health coverage, the act allows membership organizations to offer health insurance to their members. The bill also makes money spent on purchasing an individual health care plan deductible from your federal income taxes.  The bill provides qualifying low income individuals and families who may not pay any taxes the option of receiving a refundable federal tax credit of $2000 for an individual, $4000 for a couple, and $5000 for a family.

Increased Affordability for Small Businesses

To bring costs down for small businesses, the plan allows associations – professional, trade, industry – and Chambers of Commerce to provide health insurance to their member groups.

Coverage for those with High Risk Conditions or Pre-Existing Conditions

The bill provides credits and funding to states which create a high risk pool for individuals whose pre-existing medical conditions preclude them for obtaining affordable health coverage.

Other Benefits

The bill also allows individuals and small businesses to shop across state lines for insurance if the insurance in their state is prohibitively expensive (more than 10% above the national average).

The bill allows individuals to opt out of Medicare or their employer sponsored health benefit plan, and gives them a credit to purchase a plan on the individual market should they so desire.

The bill provides for tort reform, physician payment reform, and increased fraud prevention, investigation, and enforcement.

The bill provides loans and repayment options to make medical school a bit more affordable.

The bill requires states to enroll at least 90% of the CHIP eligible children before expanding eligibility to 3 times the poverty level.

********
With it’s reliance on expanding pools and tax deductions and refundable credits to provide a public option, Democrats will argue that the bill benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. So I thought a few examples using the overall benefits spelled out in HR 3200, the Democrats plan, and HR 3400, the Republicans plan, might add a bit of clarity.

Any individual or family living at or below 1.33 times the federal poverty level qualifies for Medicaid / SCHIP coverage. That doesn’t change in either bill, so the benefit for those families under either bill is the same.

Children living in a family at or below 2 times the federal poverty level qualify for SCHIP coverage (for a single parent with 2 kids that’s below $36,620; for a Mom and Dad with 2 kids that’s $44,100). Their parents, however, do not. What benefit will be available to Mom and Dad under either plan depends on how much they make, how much their insurance premiums cost, and how much they pay in taxes.

What benefit would a Mom with 2 kids making $30,000 a year receive under both plans?

At $30,000 a year her income is below 2 times the federal poverty level for a family of 3, so her children would qualify for coverage under SCHIP. Because her income is more than 1.33 times the federal poverty level, she would not qualify for Medicaid.

Under HR 3200, the Democrats plan, if her employer provides a health benefit which costs her less than 1/12 her annual income (or $2,500) she gets nothing. If the premiums paid for a health insurance plan provided by her employer or purchased from the federally controlled Health Insurance Exchange exceeded 1/12 of her annual income, she will be eligible to receive additional taxpayer assistance. The benefit would be the extent to which the average of the three lowest costing basic plans exceeded 1/12 of her annual income.

So she’d get a benefit if the average cost of premiums for a basic plan exceeded $2,500 a year, or $208 a month. If her employer offered a less expensive plan or she found a less expensive plan from the Exchange, she’d get nothing. Note that the benefit isn’t calculated from the plan she chooses, but rather the average cost of the three lowest costing basic plans.

Under HR 3400, the Republican’s plan, that Mom would be able to deduct either the cost of any premiums she paid when determining her taxable income or would receive a refundable tax credit equal to the lesser of the premiums she paid or $2,000. She could even split the premiums and use part to reduce her taxable income to 0 and then use the rest as a refundable credit. If her employer offered a plan which she couldn’t afford, she could opt out of her employers plan and enroll in an individual plan and receive the benefit described above.

If this Mom’s premiums are less than $4,500 then the Republican’s plan offers her the greatest financial benefit.

For the Democrats plan to provide this Mom with a greater benefit, because she will be eligible to receive a $2000 refundable tax credit under the Republican plan, the cost of the premiums she pays will have to be at least $4,500 ($2000 more than 1/12 of her annual income).

What about a Mom with 2 kids who makes $60,000 a year – how much would she get?

This Mom makes more than 2 times the federal poverty level, so her kids don’t qualify for SCHIP and she doesn’t qualify for Medicaid.

Under HR 3200, the Democrat’s plan, because her income is less than 4 times the federal poverty level for a family of 3, she may qualify for additional taxpayer assistance, depending on the cost of the premiums she pays.

If her employer provides health insurance and the cost of the premiums she pays for that insurance is less than 1/12 of her income, which is $5,000, then she will not be eligible to receive any taxpayer assistance.  If her employer does not provide health insurance, or the cost of her employer sponsored coverage is more than $5000, then she’d be eligible to receive additional taxpayer assistance.

That assistance will be equal to the excess of the premiums she pays for her employer sponsored plan or a plan she purchased from the Exchange over $5000.  If she purchases a plan from the Exchange, the cost of the premiums used to calculate her benefit is the average cost of the three lowest costing basic plans offered through the Exchange.

Under HR 3400, the Republican’s plan, because her income is more than 3 times the federal poverty level, she is not eligible to receive the refundable credit. If her employer sponsors a plan and she opts out of it, she can purchase health insurance from the individual pool and deduct the cost of premiums for that plan from her federal income taxes. If her employer does not sponsor a plan, she can purchase health insurance from the individual pool and will be able to deduct the cost of premiums for that plan from her federal income taxes.

For this Mom, which plan offers the biggest benefit depends on how much the premiums on her insurance plan are and her tax bracket. According to the Tax Foundation, the average federal income tax paid by families with $60,000 annual income is about 16%.

If her premiums are less than $5,000, no matter what federal income tax rate she pays, the Republican plan provides her with a greater financial benefit.

Assuming she pays 16% in federal income taxes, and her premiums are less than $5,952 a year, then the Republican’s plan provides her with the greatest financial benefit.  If her premiums exceed $5,952, then the Democrats plan provides her with the greatest financial benefit.

What about a Mom with 2 kids who makes $300,000 a year – how much would she get?

Under HR 3200, the Democrat’s plan, she’d pay an additional tax.

Under HR 3400, the Republican’s plan, if her families coverage coverage came from her employer, then she’d get nothing. If she purchased her families coverage from the individual market, then she’d get to deduct the cost of premiums paid on their plan, to the extent of the national average paid for premiums by employers.

For this Mom, the Republican’s plan nets the most benefit. But that benefit is limited to the national average paid for premiums by employers. According to this 2007 survey by AHIP, the average cost of premiums for a non-employer sponsored family plan in 2007 was $5,800. Assuming that $5,800 is still the average cost of premiums for a family plan, then the amount she could deduct when determining her taxable income would be $5,800. Her net benefit, assuming she pay 23% of her income as taxes, would be about $1,300.

What about people with really high premiums?

Just based on the additional assistance provided as reduced taxes or other credits, for people’s whose income is below 4 times the federal poverty level and who have really high insurance premiums, the Democrats plan seems to offer more financial assistance.

But, the benefit provided under the Democrats plan is limited to those making less than 4 times the federal poverty level. For individual making over $44,000 a year or families making over $88,000 a year, under the Democrats plan there will be no additional assistance in purchasing health coverage for them or their children, and cancer or other high cost medical conditions don’t just affect the poor.

Additionally, the Republican’s plan calls for states to create high risk pools for people whose premiums exceed 1.5 times the standard rate for equivalent coverage. I don’t know what benefit these high risk pools will offer in terms of reduced premiums or competition relating to increased availability of high risk plans, but, the benefit in the Republican’s plan isn’t limited based on income level – it’s available to any person and their dependents whose family health conditions result in higher than average premiums irregardless of income level.

Because I can’t put a dollar amount on the Republican’s plan, I can’t say with any degree of certainty which plan offers a greater benefit or at what levels those benefits are offered.  I can say that the Democrats plan will offer you no benefit if you make more than 4 times the federal poverty level and you have high premiums.

I have to admit that it all sounds wonderful. A common core of fewer, clearer, higher standards which states could voluntarily* adopt and a uniform assessment by which student achievement could be gauged – it all sounds great.

But then I look a little closer and realize that what they want is blind faith.

The NGA and CCSSO want us to blindly accept that the experts they’ve consulted are the experts we trust, that the research they’re relying on is accurate and scientifically valid, and that the conclusions of this unknown group based on unspecified research in secret deliberations will exceed our expectations. But they haven’t presented or done anything to deserve this trust: the names and qualifications of those involved in the effort are still secret, the research they’re relying has not been disclosed, and the groups deliberations are not a matter of public record.

The secrecy is bad enough, but now they want us to endorse their secret effort and the conclusions they reach without giving us anything on which to base that faith.

Experience has taught me that if you place blind faith in the government, you’re lucky if all they cut off is your tail.

Perhaps it’s time to send the NGA and the CCSSO a note and let them know that if they want us to believe in and support what they’re doing in the Common Core Initiative, then they need to open the initiative to public scrutiny.  The email contacts for each group are below:

communications@ccsso.org

webmaster@nga.org

* States which voluntarily adopt 85% of the CCI standards will continue to receive federal funding for public education.

American children spend less time in class covering fewer topics with less depth than children in many other nations.

American students are consistently outperformed by students from other nations in math and science, according to both the PISA and TIMMS assessments.  American companies no longer look in America to find the best and brightest engineers and math minds.  Fewer and fewer Americans are obtaining degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM).

American student literacy rates don’t even rank among the top 20 nations according to PISA. The US ranks 17th in adult literacy rates. According to the Fordham Foundation, “two-thirds of US children attend schools in states with mediocre standards, or worse.”

Yet, despite being routinely stomped by students from other countries on international assessments like the TIMMS and the PISA, student performance on state assessments and on The National Report Card show remarkable progress.

Public education in America is broken and failing our children.

If you were President and you were in a position to change that, what would you do? Would you convene a panel of the best and brightest minds in the nation to draft standards of academic quality each state should strive to achieve? Would you ensure that the identities of those on the panel and their qualifications were known to the public, that the panel’s deliberations were taped and open to the public so that citizens could express their concerns before any recommendations were set? Would you encourage states to consider incorporating the panel’s recommendations into their state academic standards?

Or would you launch an initiative to draft national academic standards, refuse to disclose the identities of those involved in the initiative and their qualifications, ensure that the deliberations of those involved were classified, and then make federal funding for public schools hinge on whether the states adopt the standards the initiative develops? Would you then extend the initiative’s efforts beyond merely drafting academic standards to include developing national assessments and allocate $350 million in federal funds to support the assessments development effort ?

Which approach do you think the US is following now?

On June 1st the Common Core Initiative was announced. It’s goal – to draft national academic standards which states could “voluntarily” adopt if they want to continue to receive federal funding for public education. The names and qualifications of those involved in drafting these so called “voluntary” standards are being kept secret. The first set of standards developed as a result of this initiative are set to be released on July 9th and the second batch is due several months later.

There are those who say that in the school’s, content is king. Once the Common Core Initiative has completed it’s work, that content will be dictated and controlled by the federal government. Textbook publishers will develop instructional materials which meet the federal standards and state’s will be allowed to select from the federally approved programs if they want to receive federal funding for their public schools. Student performance and accomplishments will be gauged based on the federal assessment.

Our public schools will be nationalized.

You may think that that’s not such a bad thing, considering the relatively poor job the states are doing at teaching our nation’s children. That those developing the standards must be wise and gifted in their respective fields. Thus far only one name has been leaked. The individual is supposed to be leading the effort to draft mathematics standards and he’s an English Major.

Why does the fact that that the person charged with drafting math standards for every public school in the United States is an English major, and not a mathematician, make me sick to my stomach? How am I supposed to believe in and take comfort in what the Common Core Initiative will be mandating for my children and for every child enrolled in public school in the United States when they conduct their work in secret and when the only person rumored to be affiliated with the math Initiative isn’t a mathematician?

Unfortunately there’s very little we can do to stop the federal government from nationalizing our public schools.

But we can demand, from our elected officials and leaders of the Common Core Initiative, that they stop operating in secrecy, that the names and qualifications of those involved in drafting the standards be released to the public for vetting now, that transcripts of the initiatives past deliberations be open for public review, and that future deliberations be open to the public. We need to demand that mathematicians be included in writing math standards, that Chemists be involved in writing Chemistry standards, that Revolutionary War Historians be involved in writing Revolutionary War standards.

Here is a link to the leadership team in the organization leading the effort to draft national academic standards.

For some time I’ve been involved in a fight in my local community to get rid of a mathematics curriculum I think is remedial.  The group fighting to bring real math back to our schools has pushed the county school board to dump the remedial program and adopt a more rigorous program.  To be honest, until recently we hadn’t accomplished much.

This summer the results of a county-wide survey of parents and teachers came out, and I began to wonder whether we were pushing for the right thing.  The survey indicated that about 25 – 30% of the parents liked the remedial program and felt that their children were doing well in it, about 25 – 30% hated the program and felt it was leaving their children behind, and the rest didn’t really care either way.

After the survey came out I began to wonder whether it was right for me to demand that the school system get rid of a program when approximately the same percentage of parents loved it and hated it.   I wondered whether those of us working to restore real math to county schools ought to change tactics.

While the group opposed to the remedial math program didn’t agree, I asked the school system to give parents a choice – to provide two different programs, each of which followed a  different approach, and allow parents to choose which one they felt was best for their child.  Each school could determine the best method for providing two different instructional programs  – having teachers teach two different programs in the same classroom,  having students rotate for math,  or pulling students out – whatever approach worked best in their school.  But control over which instructional program each child would follow would rest with the child’s parents.

The idea was well received by the school board, and the we began pushing for choice.  Our school board had a vote on choice a few weeks ago and the motion was defeated with a 4 /4 split.  We believe the motion would have passed 5 /3 or 6 / 2, had it not have been for a last minute counter-motion that pulled two supporters away.  While the defeat had me disappointed,  it also got me thinking.

With the public schools it’s all or nothing.  Your children either follow the program the school system selects or you pull your kids and home school or send them to private school.  But why?

Why does it have to be one way?  Why does it have to be ONLY condoms on cucumbers or fuzzy math?   Every state has minimum standards instructional programs must meet and provide a list of  textbooks, materials, and curricula that meet those standards.   With so many choices available, why can’t schools offer different alternatives and let parents decide which works best for their children?

Take sex ed.  You want your kids taught to put condoms on cucumbers – great.  I prefer something a bit less explicit for my children.  Take earth science.  You want your kids taught that evolution was just a coincidence – great.  I prefer the divine spark. Take math.  You want fuzzy reform math for your children – great.  I prefer something a bit more rigorous for my children.  Take History, Geography, Social Studies, anything – why not offer alternatives and give students and parents a choice?

As long as the program meets state standards, why not?

When I look at the platform the state GOP has regarding public education, much of it seems to hinge on vouchers.  I’d love for vouchers to be authorized, but wonder whether it’ll ever happen.  By making vouchers such an important part of our platform on education we’ve more or less abdicated responsibility for the public schools.

Maybe it’s time for the GOP to change tactics.  Still push for vouchers, but get back into the game and work to reform the public schools at the same time.  Instructional choice might be the reform we’re looking for.

By proving different instructional programs, and allowing parents to choose which one works best for their children, parents get to say what their children are taught, how they’re taught, and with what materials.   The key is that parents are given a choice for their children.

Maybe it’s time for the GOP to be Pro-Choice.

**** Post revised due to my poor grammar and overly emotional rant *******

I agree with him in a sense, because professional educators do know more about teaching children than non-professional educators do, however, that doesn’t mean elected school board members should ignore parents concerns or brush them off as irrelevant simply because they don’t come from the professionals. Like it or not, the people who know their children best and who love them the most, are their parents.

The issue which brought about his comments was an agenda item discussing giving parents a choice in how their children are taught mathematics. My previous post discussing the curriculum and efforts by parents to be given a choice can be found here.

The meeting was rather long, it went until well after midnight. Most of the speakers were quite polite, although sometimes a bit heated. One speaker, who opposes to idea of giving parents a choice and is employed by the county, spoke forcefully that the professional educators, such as herself, ought to make the decisions regarding curriculum and parents should be quiet because they don’t know what they’re talking about and the educators have the children’s best interests at heart. Her comments were met with resounding applause from the close to 50 teachers and administrators who attended the meeting.

Board members debated the issue, and seemed to be leaning toward holding a work session for further discussion, but no decision regarding a work session or vote to allow choice was made. One board member, Mr Richardson, who is opposed to choice, stated that allowing parents a choice in how their children are taught math would set a precedent and open every other instructional program to the same standard. I found that rather interesting because I agree with him, but I tend to think that allowing parents a choice in what their children are taught and how, is a good thing.

The board then ended the meeting with their comments. That’s when things got a bit more heated.

The first member to speak, Mr Lattin, went directly after one of the parents who has lead the charge for choice. He accused the parent of lying, of being a master manipulator and using the other parents as puppets who simply repeat whatever he tells them to say. He questioned the veracity of parents concerns when “almost 2/3 of the emails were just cut and paste”. A number of parents left the meeting at that point.

Then Mr. Richardson spoke. Mr. Richardson called the parents who left the room childish. He accused them and other parents of defaming the school system and the character of it’s employees. He accused the parents of spreading misinformation. He said the school board had spent far too much time listening to these parents when they should be listening to the people who know what they’re talking about.

As one of the parents on the receiving end of this diatribe and many others from the same two individuals, nothing I have ever said is misinformation. Everything is backed up with evidence gathered from sources unaffiliated with our fight and from documents obtained from the school system via FOIA. No one has ever told me what to say or how to say it. And the people who walked out did so rather then sit mutely by and take sucker punches.

So, where are we now? Nowhere, really. We believe four members support choice, two oppose it, and two others are undecided. The school system is facing severe budget shortfalls next year and will have to decide what to cut. Purchase orders for instructional materials will be issued in a few weeks – including somewhere between $500,000 to $750,000 for annual math “consumables” and material to expand to program to fifth grade. There is no time in the schedule for a work session on choice and no action item voting on choice is on the horizon.

The truth is that I don’t want to take anything away from anyone. I recognize that many parents and teachers believe the current program is more than adequate, but I disagree. I believe that the current program lacks the academic rigor necessary for my kids to succeed and would like to be able to enroll them in a program which has that rigor. That’s all I really want.

***
A link to the web site with the meeting broadcast can be found here. The meeting was long – the last 15 to 20 minutes are where the member comments appear.

***

Thank you for your feedback on the original post.  I hope that this one is an improvement.

How could something so shocking happen? Well, it all started in 2006 when PWC selected a controversial mathematics program called Investigations in Number, Data, and Space as it’s primary curriculum for students in grades K – 5.  Investigations follows the constructivist, or reform, philosophy much like Every Day Math, except that EDM actually teaches a few concepts and is the equivalent of a college Calculus course when compared with Investigations.

Selection of the Investigations curriculum was biased from the beginning and school officials appear to have disregarded regulations promulgated by the state Board of Education in an effort to ensure that the text was selected. School officials have misrepresented what the county program does and does not entail, selectively reported test scores to paint the program as favorably as possible, failed to mention the results of their own survey which indicated that almost 50% of parents and 2/3 of grade 3 teachers were dissatisfied with the program, have attempted to stall efforts to gather data under FOIA, and have intimidated the parents who have dared to speak against the program.

In other words, PWC school officials and elected board members have acted just as we’ve come to expect politicians to act.

A short time after the battle to get rid of fuzzy math began, the parents leading the battle realized that the county had spent a small fortune implementing Investigations and that so many school officials and board members had expressed faith in the program that convincing the school board to dump it would never happen.  So we changed tactics and began requesting that the school system create an alternate instructional track based on a traditional, rigorous curriculum, which parents could opt their children into at their own discretion.

We’ve been pushing that front for some time and to tell you the truth it really didn’t seem like we’d made any progress – until about a week ago. At the January 7th board meeting one board member, who happens to be a Republican, using information gathered by school central office staff, accused the parents leading the charge against fuzzy math of being liars and disclosed the schools the children of those parents attend As one of the parents leading the charge against fuzzy math whose child was outed in the public forum, I have to say that I was incensed.

And then the reason for his attack became clear when a few days later an item was added to the January 21 school board meeting agenda debating to allow parents an opt in for traditional math.

I have to tell you that I am amazed. The public schools are our lovely little taxpayer funded monopoly and I have to pay for them even if I yank my kids because the schools are failing them. Because they’ve got their lovely monopoly, school systems are generally non-responsive parents and have a “we know better than you so just sit down, shut up, and enjoy it while we screw you and your kids” attitude. Until that agenda item was added, PWC seemed to epitomize that philosophy.

If the motion gets passed and parents are allowed to opt into an alternate instructional program, PWC stands poised to change that paradigm by giving parents control of how their children are educated and with what materials in the public schools. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

There are 8 board members and we need 5 to carry the issue.

We’ve been mobilizing our forces as best we can but we can’t reach every resident. The board meeting is January 21st. I’m not sure if they will vote that night to authorize an alternate instructional program or whether they’ll defer that vote to the next board meeting but I sure hope they’ll take this step on the 21st.

We could use all the help you can muster to get the word out – especially in PWC.

Imagine a local school district agreeing to allow parents a say in how their kids are educated and with what materials. Please help us make this happen.

The links below will give you more information on our fight and take you our blog, web site, math forum, and petition with almost 1500 signatures on it (which represents about 5% of the K – 4 parents).

Blog – http://www.pwceducationreform.wordpress.com

Web Site: http://www.teachmathright.com

Forum – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PWCSMathForum/

Petition – http://www.petitiononline.com/123math/petition.html