Editorial: Pi is not three – really!
By Mark Grunwald
Dear Scott Walker,
Scott, I wish to respond to your July 9th column, “Pi is not three,” in which you object to Wisconsin’s school choice program, especially the provision that allows economically disadvantaged families to send their child to a religious school.
You begin your letter by arguing that the courts have been wrong in deciding that the choice programs do not violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment to the US constitution – the right that guarantees the freedom of religion. The clause prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, establishing the principle of separation of state and religion. That the founders wrote this clause into the amendment is understandable given that many were fleeing countries where their religious beliefs conflicted with the state-sanctioned religion. They desired to live in a country where freedom of religion was protected. They did not, however, want to reside in a country where freedom from religion was the law of the land. The establishment clause forbids the government, not only from promoting a particular religion, but also from inhibiting a particular religion. Furthermore, this amendment does not mean that they were neutral in their view towards religion. They recognized that, on the whole, religious belief and practice promoted the development of the virtuous citizens necessary if our nascent democracy was to flourish.
Before addressing your objections, let me summarize for the Courier’s readers how Wisconsin’s first-in-the-nation school choice program developed and how it currently works in Prairie du Chien. The program began in 1990 in Milwaukee. Elected officials from Milwaukee- Democrats- were concerned about the low educational achievement of Milwaukee students enrolled in the city’s public schools. They championed the idea of giving the parents from poor families the opportunity to enroll their children in nonsectarian schools by providing them with vouchers to defray the cost of tuition. With the support of the Republican governor, Tommy Thompson, their idea was approved by the state legislature. When these students’ performance improved, the school choice idea grew in Wisconsin and throughout the country. There was significant opposition to choice especially from the teachers’ union and organizations like the ACLU. However, choice programs were upheld in numerous court decisions, not only in Wisconsin, but across the nation. In 2002, the US Supreme Court – not the “conservative” court of today - ruled that Ohio’s choice program that allowed parents to choose a religious school was not in violation of the establishment clause. The majority argued that Ohio’s program was “neutral in all respects toward religion.” Parents could choose a religious school or a secular one. The government was not deciding for them.
Fast forward to 2024 and to Prairie du Chien. For a family to receive a voucher for their child, the family income must be less than 220% of the poverty level. For a two-parent family of four, the income cut off is around $70,000. Choice students can make up no more than 9% of the local school district’s numbers. So, because in 2024 there were 905 students in the PDC public schools, no more than 81 youth in Prairie can receive choice funds. 30 pupils residing in the PDC district received choice funds last year. Being most familiar with Prairie Catholic K-8, I can tell you that 20 of those students attend Prairie Catholic. The schools’ total enrollment is 120. At $10,000 per student, the school received $200,000. The largest income source for the school comes from parish contributions. The second largest source is from tuition. Received only over the last few years, choice funds – while appreciated- are not what keeps the school open and growing.
Now, Scott, to your objections. First, you state that if tax dollars are to go to private schools, regulations should follow. They do. There is a detailed application and an inspection that choice schools must submit to. However, those applications do not ask the school what they teach the value of Pi is. I shudder to imagine the Big Brother bureaucracy that would have to be created to monitor what is taught in every public and private school classroom in the state.
Second, you write that the state is “so stingy in so many things but generous to private schools.” Andy Banasik, PDC superintendent, at a forum before the recent school referendum election stated that local choice K-8 students were receiving as much money per student from the state as our public-school K-8 students were. I believe him. However, an internet search states that for K-8 students in public schools in Wisconsin, the average reimbursement is over $16,000. When I asked school board member, Lonnie Achenbach, about this, he confirmed what Banasik said, but also suggested that the internet was right. He said that some districts receive more money from the state, and that the top district receives $26,000. The $16,000 difference between the top-funded district in the state and Prairie is hardly fair, but it is not a problem created by the choice program. It will not be solved by eliminating choice. Also note, that property taxes provide another $3000 to $4000 per public school student per year in PDC. Private schools receive none of these dollars. So, Scott, to say that state and local government is generous to private schools, but stingy to public schools is not true.
Third, you propose that all students should meet a literacy standard. Few would disagree with this goal. Unfortunately, forty percent of 4th graders in our country have less than basic reading skills and only 26 percent of 12th graders are proficient in math. The three Rs are important. But, do you think choice schools do not teach these basic subjects? Based on the home-schooled and private school students I know, I suggest that they are not the ones dragging down these scores.
Fourth, you suggest that all schools should be able to accommodate all students regardless of their special needs. In principle, that sounds great. However, the smaller the school, whether public or private, the less possible that is. Our small rural schools have been sending the neediest kids out of their districts for a long time. However, each district is responsible for paying other districts for the cost of meeting that student’s needs. Districts can spend several hundred thousand dollars per year to meet a single child’s needs, exceeding Prairie Catholic’s total reimbursement from the choice program. A different payment system should be devised, that is fair to all students and districts. Again, this difficult problem will not be solved by eliminating choice.
Finally, addressing your primary objection, you contend that religious schools teach that the value of Pi is three and not 3.14, because of a single passage in the Old Testament, 1 Kings 7:23. This passage describes the work of Hiram, a metal worker that King Solomon, who ruled Israel three thousand years ago, employed in the building of his palace. The passage reads: “Then he (Hiram) made the molten sea (an above ground bath); it was made with a circular rim, and measured ten cubits across, five in height, and thirty in circumference.” Pi is the number the diameter of a circle is multiplied by to equal the circumference of the circle. Pi= C/D. You argue that because religious schools only teach religious truths, these schools will produce “unsuccessful engineers”, that “windows will leak, roofs will collapse, and highways won’t meet up.” You go on to write, “When my taxes pay to educate my neighbor’s child, I want that youngster taught the practical value for pi, not the religious value,” and “To borrow from Dr. Fauci, if we used three for pi, people would die.”
Unbelievable! Do you really think that the medieval universities that the Church established taught that Pi equaled 3, and not 3.14 as the Greek mathematician, Archimedes, proved 750 years after King Solomon’s reign? They did not. Nor do any religious schools teach that today, that I know of. If you know of a single exception, Scott, good for you, but remember this. In the social sciences, the exception does not refute the rule. If it helps you rest easier at night not worrying that your roof might fall in, I assure you that I and other three-year-old Christian kids were taught to sing, “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so”, and not “Pi equals three this I know for the Bible tells me so.” Frankly, that you would write such nonsense is insulting to all Christians – and Jews as well. You owe me, and many of your neighbors, an apology.
The education of children is one of the most important tasks our society has. The primary responsibility lies with the family, but we all have a duty to aid our neighbor. To succeed in this task, all of us must be able to discuss this civilly and factually. This is especially incumbent on those who are – or who aspire to be- our elected representatives.
