Good morning.
Wednesday in Whitewater will be sunny with a high of 71. Sunrise is 7:31 AM and sunset 5:45 PM for 10h 13m 55s of daytime. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 63.2% of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1947, in California, designer Howard Hughes performs the maiden (and only) flight of the Hughes H-4 Hercules (also known as the “Spruce Goose”), one of the largest fixed-wing aircraft ever built.
For many years, in confident conviction as FREE WHITEWATER’s libertarian blogger, I have opposed school referendums, notably capital ones, for the Whitewater Unified School District. It is with equal confidence that I now urge my fellow residents to support the Whitewater Schools’ 2022 operational referendum. The well-being of our students will best be served through operational stability, and, once assured, that stability will offer time for methodical adjustments in the district’s operation.
The rejection of this operational referendum — one that simply allows the district to continue needed services day-to-day — would plunge this district’s residents into destructive, internecine strife over budgets from one year to the next. Our community, managing through multiple challenges, would make no better choices, and find no better solutions, in the chaotic, uncertain political environment after a failed operational referendum.
There is a profound difference between wanting change and fomenting disorder. We cannot burn this village to save it. Many years ago, using a different metaphor, the noted libertarian Sheldon Richman proposed that the only way to manage the ‘onion’ of government was to smash it completely. He was wrong: a reasonable man peels away parts of government deliberately and methodically only after careful reflection. Opposition to this referendum is an unreasonable smashing in the place of careful peeling.
I have — rightly — opposed capital spending for a new athletic field. While not a single argument made in defense of that artificial turf has been persuasive — not one — the relevant consideration is that this is not a capital referendum, but a referendum for ordinary daily expenses. Rejecting this referendum will most certainly not recoup the money spent on the field. Those are sunk costs, that is, past costs that cannot be recouped. (No one is going to dig up the field and sell it on eBay.) All rational economic decisions are made at the moment, in the present, based on what is best going forward.
There are, to be sure, administrative challenges in this district. Not one of them will be fixed by rejecting the operational referendum. No one will be made wiser or more communicative. On the contrary, the whole district — board, administrators, teachers, students — will be plunged into quarrelsome debates over budgets rather than, well, the daily teaching of students.
Academic performance will not improve by rejecting this referendum. It’s a diversion and a delusion to believe that if performance is insufficient now, students will somehow do better the day, month, or year after a failed referendum. They won’t do better, but they will be distracted with a year or more of battles over what’s to be cut, and when it is to be cut.
The opposition to this referendum has proposed not a single credible plan for improving learning. Not one. Complaining about academic past performance will not improve students’ present and future performance. (Indeed, opponents to this operational referendum haven’t even proposed an amount of cuts they’d prefer.)
Opposing the referendum because of past decisions on virtual schooling is both backward looking and punitive. Much of this looks like a Revenge and Retribution Tour. I have consistently argued against amateur epidemiology on all sides — no one in this community truly knew what would happen during much of the pandemic. There’s a lot of pretending about getting in right, or others getting it wrong, but for all of us in Whitewater this was guesswork.
Dr. Emily Oster, nationally noted for wanting schools to be open, writes sensibly that we should Declare a Pandemic Amnesty (‘We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID’):
The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet. These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing. Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.
There’s a false idea that some members of the board are in the grip of pride, and won’t admit their supposed pandemic mistakes. That’s a misunderstanding of wrongful pride. (Obviously, pride as satisfaction in running a race or feeling oneself as equal under law to others, for example, is not wrongful pride.)
Wrongful pride requires arrogance, and so is best understood as hubris (literally, an arrogant presumption). No one on this board, whatever decision he or she made during the pandemic, acted out of arrogance. They acted under conditions of uncertainty, and were very plain that they were uncertain.
Emily Oster’s right: the pandemic is over — time to move on. No apology required.
We’ve students in considerable, regrettable need. Not one student will be helped by rejecting this referendum. All will continue to be helped by supporting it. No students deserve disorder, least of all ours in Whitewater.
There’s much to be done, in reform, and reform will come most effectively through a methodical approach. I’ve no doubt that this is the better way. If all the world thought otherwise, still I would hold this position.
STABLE. SECURE. SENSIBLE.
I urge this community to support the Whitewater Schools’ referendum to assure a continuity of services so that, in these next years, we can apply ourselves to constructive change from a stable foundation.
The big problem with voting no is that there’s no plan afterward. They should have offered something. “Trust us after” doesn’t cut it. Yes the money matters but why not explain what should go? That’s where this whole thing with the signs off. That should have been the first part.
Voting yes because not waiting for someone’s napkin plan.
Thank you for taking the time to write about this. You are saying what a lot of us are saying. Yes, there are things we don’t like but we do not want it to be worse. We have two kids in the district. This is not the time to make more problems. Maybe some people can take the commotion but not us. Kids have enough trouble without this on top of it. i hope the community sees what a mess we would be in. Also voting yes.
The anti-referendum campaign tied itself to “bailouts” for “shutdowns”. That’s where it gets some momentum. It’s also where a lot of people are tired of focusing.The reply that says “move on” reflects another mood. Those perspectives are opposites.
There is still heat around this issue but not like 2 years ago. The quote from Dr. Oster really drives that home because she doesn’t want to argue anymore than most people do. She was for staying open but admits no one was sure. You found a big name (looks like her article just came out).
Are people willing to fight again after they fought over shutdowns?
Which mood prevails?
We will know is six days.
As someone who also in the past has not been supportive of referendums, in this I agree. A critical juncture for our community lies in this vote. There is much to be done in every part of our community including the school district. One hopes that the community supports this referendum AND shows up to continue the conversation about improvements still needing to be addressed within the district.
That’s very much the key — keeping going after an election, referendum, or other major event. Even a bit each day, multiplied by many people, would make a great difference.