Heterodox Academy carries the conclusion of my exchange with Robert Pondiscio on the relationship between school choice and how classrooms handle viewpoint diversity.
I go through Robert’s essay point by point, but I would say this is the nut of my response:
Robert seems to think he is disagreeing with me when he says that “viewpoint diversity within schools, not merely between them, is indispensable,” but that is exactly what I said in my essay. My argument is that political conflict is undermining schools’ — especially public schools’ — ability to provide this. I support choice not only because it is necessary to serve students who have diverse needs and preserve a diverse society — because pushing all families into culturally homogenized schools, in obedience to what Charles Glenn calls “the myth of the common school,” entails the suppression of cultural minorities — but also because it is necessary even to preserve viewpoint diversity within the classroom. The attempt to force families that do not share one another’s beliefs and educational priorities to share culturally homogenized schools breaks the bond of trust between parents and schools, and forces parents into a permanent state of political war (such as the one we are now experiencing over critical race theory) for control of the schools that are forming their children. Teachers and schools will not feel safe allowing real viewpoint diversity to happen in their classrooms unless they know parents trust and support them.
Of course, Robert also gets his innings against me. Go give HxA a click and find out what he has to say! Then let both of us know what you have to say.
I’m grateful to Robert for the opportunity to exchange views on this important – and increasingly so by the month – subject.
Heterdox Academy carries part one of a two-part debate between me and Robert Pondiscio on whether school choice would contribute to better handling of viewpoint diversity in K-12 classrooms. I argue yes:
From top to bottom, our school system is built on the idea that every child in a given location ought to attend the same school and be educated according to a uniform, standardized curriculum and pedagogy. But if one size must fit all, it seems impossible to avoid endless, educationally destructive culture wars about which way is the “One Best Way.” Certainly the long track record of political firestorms about the content of education over the past century does not justify much hope for a standardized, uniform education that isn’t a subject of constant culture war….
Educators, wanting to avoid getting entangled in political conflicts over their classrooms, are highly incentivized to reduce this politically radioactive element of the curriculum to a minimum. K-12 public school teachers in Wisconsin, and in any of the growing number of states where these conflicts are emerging, risk becoming a legal test case or a social media scapegoat if they prioritize open and free exchanges of opinion in the classroom. The only safe thing to do if you’re a teacher in this environment is to cover the touchy subjects as quickly and as superficially as possible, with minimal opportunity for potentially dangerous critical thinking or open discussion, and move on….
School choice would get political culture wars out of the classroom. When people are convinced that all children — and especially their own children — are being indoctrinated into the other side’s propaganda, no force on earth will stop them from fighting tooth and nail to seize political control of education in order to prevent this indoctrination. But if different schools could take different approaches, with parents able to decide which schools their children attend and thus the approach under which they are educated, schools would be free to educate independently of culture-war pressures.
Robert demurs:
This betrays a view that the only stakeholder in a child’s education is the child and their family. It elides almost entirely the fact that the cost of educating the nation’s children is socialized. You pay school taxes, directly or indirectly, whether you have one child enrolled, 10, or none at all. This is a feature, not a flaw, of our system. It reflects the belief that a free country depends on a well-educated citizenry capable of self-government. We are literally invested in the outcome of all children, not just our own.
That shared stake in the education offered to all students is also an argument for at least some shared curriculum across even schools of choice, again something Forster demonstrates no patience for. Instead, he indulges perhaps the greatest misapprehension about American education: the assumption that children move in lockstep through a state- or district-mandated curriculum. Forster creates a strawman of it, contrasting choice with “One Best Way” schooling, even capitalizing it to ensure the derision is lost upon no one….
Not incidentally, the strongest argument for common curriculum has nothing whatsoever to do with political indoctrination or a desire to tamp down viewpoint diversity. For more than 40 years, E.D. Hirsch Jr. has demonstrated convincingly that language proficiency in a diverse society rests on a shared body of knowledge, cultural allusions, and idioms. Perhaps for this reason, the common curriculum Forster disdains is a standard feature of pluralist systems.
Part two, in which I reply to his reply, and then Robert replies to my reply to his reply, is coming your way on Friday.
Meanwhile, you can reply to all these replies right now. Create some viewpoint diversity and let us know what you think!
OCPA carries my latest on how school choice saves money for government schools, as well as state budgets:
That choice “drains money” from affected government schools is a canard. If I choose to have my appendix taken out at St. Paul’s Hospital, I am not “draining money” from the budget at St. Peter’s—not robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were. If the government sues my business for declining to make a wedding cake for a man who’s marrying a shoe, and I choose to hire Atticus Finch to defend me, I am not “draining money” from Perry Mason. The government school monopoly is the only place anyone ever thinks of people as “draining money” from every service provider they don’t choose to work with.
Many JPBGers will be familiar with the reason choice typically improves the budget situation in affected government schools: variable costs, which go down when a student leaves, are much larger than variable revenues. This means that when schools lose a student, while their revenues go down, their costs go down even more.
A large body of empirical research confirms this. See this recent major study by Marty Lueken.
Whenever a choice program is enacted, education special interests wail to the cameras about the enormous proportion of their budgets supposedly made up of fixed costs, which remain in place when students leave. It’s a funny thing, though; when state legislative committees get together every year to set funding formulas for state support that’s based on enrollment, those same lobbyists suddenly get a strange form of amnesia. They wail to the committees about their need for big per-student allotments from the state to cover their enormous variable costs….
It’s also true that children who enter a choice program when they are beginning school for the very first time do not save government schools money, although they do save states money (because they never enter the more-expensive government school system). The evidence finds this isn’t a big enough effect to remove the net savings. Also, if a choice program gets high participation, we can expect local governments eventually to adjust their tax burden—but that’s very unlikely either to happen quickly or to remove all the savings.
Above all, you know who is in the details. The specific design of each choice program determines how much is saved. Some programs are revenue-neutral for schools and/or states. A few even cost small amounts rather than saving money, because the program design didn’t prioritize savings.
This is yet another reason to favor ESAs, which – unlike vouchers or tax-credit scholarships – allow us to know in advance precisely how much money each participating child will cost, thus allowing us to exert very fine control over the fiscal impact of the program when we design it.
It will cost you nothing to let me know what you think!
In a post that ran today on Gadfly, Daniel Buck attributes to me views that I do not hold, and mischaracterizes the content of the articles he links to by myself and Neal McCluskey.
I reached out to Fordham to ask for an opportunity to run a response, but they refused. I even offered to revise my response to meet concerns they might have, but they refused to allow me to run any response.
The premise of Buck’s article is that “the essential question” under debate in the exchanges he links to is: “Is school choice sufficient to reform American education?” However, the only people he names or links to on the side that supposedly answers “yes” to this question are Neal and myself. Buck links to one article by Neal, two articles by me, and a tweet by Neal. He neither names nor links to any other sources. And neither Neal nor I asserted that school choice is sufficient to reform American education.
In fact, I asserted the opposite. In both of the articles that Buck links to, I argued that one of the primary reasons school choice is so valuable is that it greatly increases the political leverage of other efforts to reform the government school monopoly. Obviously this is premised on the view that other reform efforts are necessary and good, a view that I explicitly endorsed repeatedly in both articles.
Buck is just making false statements about what Neal and I said.
In one paragraph, Buck describes views held by “libertarians” who are “disciples of Milton Friedman.” He does not name any names, and links only to an article by me. But I am not a libertarian. The libertarian idolatry of “markets” that Buck describes, in a paragraph that links to me as its only example, is actually a view that I have been arguing for some time the choice movement needs to move away from.
I will plead guilty as sin to having known, admired and loved Milton Friedman. But, as Milton would have been the first to insist, that does not make me his “disciple.”
Anyone can make an innocent mistake. I’ve made tons of mistakes in my career that were far more humiliating than this one. The best policy is to be willing to admit a mistake when you’ve made it; I hope Fordham adopts that policy soon.
Everybody sing along! Come on, you remember the words! “This finding’s been replicated…”
(Guest post by Greg Forster)
OCPA carries my article on why a universal ESA is the way to go if you want to improve outcomes in the government school system:
We’ve tried lots of strategies for getting better outcomes out of the monopoly school system. We’ve tried spending an endless geyser of additional money—Oklahoma school spending went up from $3,771 per student in 1970 to $8,735 in 2016 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), and has continued to increase, hitting a record total this year. We’ve tried high-stakes testing. We’ve tried raising teacher pay. Other states have run major experiments with everything from smaller classes to merit pay for teachers to mandatory graduation exams.
Here and there, a few of these efforts have produced local instances of success. But none of them has worked consistently at scale. And even the local success stories have a tendency to fade over time, as school leadership inevitably gets passed on to a new “pharaoh who knew not Joseph.”
What works? School choice, according to a large and consistent body of empirical research.
Some people simply can’t wrap their heads around the idea that government schools would be improved by taking the handcuffs off parents and allowing them to leave the system. They’re so busy “strengthening” the system that they can’t see they’re really weakening it. They’re denying it the one thing it really needs: healthy accountability. Bob Dylan was right—you gotta serve somebody.
This is sometimes called the “paradox of intention.” It happens when people are so monomaniacally intent on achieving a goal that they lose perspective on the big picture, and as a result, do things that are counterproductive even for the goal they’re obsessed with. We’ve all seen the guy who wants a date with a particular girl so badly that he acts stalkerish and creepy around her. In every war, there are leaders who want to capture a particular position so badly that they don’t have the patience to wait for the right moment to strike. We keep shoving bigger subsidies at colleges because we want to make tuition affordable, and as a direct result, tuition keeps climbing into the stratosphere.
Come for the overview of school-choice research, stay for the snappy C.S. Lewis quote at the end!
Exercise your right to hold others accountable through choice by choosing to let me know what you think.
I am delighted to report that Robert Pondiscio seems to have realized how wrong he was when he wrote a month ago that “school choice may ‘solve’ the CRT problem for a family, but it can’t address the clear interest every American holds in the education of the next generation.” His new post is simply chock full of ways in which school choice can address the clear interest every American holds in the education of the next generation. Great to see this progress!
He now realizes that the way forward for education in a pluralistic society is “to turn up the lights on what is possible when there’s room for a wide variety of schools, curricula, and cultures.” The stark contrast between this and the demand for uniformity in his earlier article is a delight to behold.
Soon, he may even get far enough to realize that an environment of educational pluralism would itself constitute the most profound pedagogical structure for cultivating in children an appreciation of the American experiment in human rights, religious freedom, social pluralism and equal justice under law.
Pondiscio does engage in a little slight of hand, responding to my previous post but avoiding completely its main argument, which was that choice is the only realistic political strategy for accomplishing the changes in public schools that Pondiscio himself wants to make. Pondiscio is in favor of changing the way public schools handle topics like CRT. So am I. And if I understand him rightly, the changes he favors are substantially the same as the ones I favor. The difference is that I have a viable strategy for achieving the changes that we both want, and he does not.
I will, however, cop to his charge that I think it’s absolutely essential for a strong bond of trust and cooperation to exist between parents and schools. Pondiscio chooses to characterize this as an argument that the value of choice is “to allow families to avoid exposing kids to ideas and curricular content parents don’t like.” I would prefer to say that adult citizens absolutely should not stop fighting with one another over how the next generation of Americans should be educated, but they should abandon the tactic of holding one another’s children hostage at gunpoint in these fights. It’s not only wrong, it also doesn’t work, and it inflicts enormous collateral damage on the educational environment.
Ironically, Pondiscio even portrays me as seeking to hold other people’s children hostage at gunpoint because I am in favor of everyone on both sides stopping their current practice of holding other people’s children hostage at gunpoint. Pondiscio writes: “This version of choice feels lifted not from a heart-warming rom-com, but from a mob movie: ‘You’ve got a nice family. It’d be a shame if anything were to happen to ‘em.'”
It was the state that came into my home and took my child away, at gunpoint, to educate my child in the way the state thinks best. And when I point out what is happening, Pondiscio says I’m the one who made this into an ugly confrontation and threatened other people’s children.
The French have a saying: Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l’attaque il se défend.
But at least Pondiscio is making progress. His embrace of educational pluralism is warmly welcome.
Let’s hope he also no longer believes we should hold up an extremely tiny, unrepresentative, cherry-picked selection of bad private schools in order to discredit school choice. (“The hyper-elite, prodigiously expensive private schools favored by America’s gentry are among the very wokest schools.”) Your typical private school is something like a central-city Catholic school or an exurban evangelical school – not, I think, hotbeds of toxic wokism.
And let’s hope he no longer believes that it’s impossible for Mexico to privatize its nationalized oil monopoly because there aren’t any private oil companies in Mexico to do the work. (“Choice as the remedy for CRT debates ignores that the percentage of families with ready access to more than a small handful of quality options is probably quite modest.”) If the government gave out free hot dogs on every street corner, the private hot-dog stands would all close because they would have no customers – but the absence of private hot-dog stands would not be an argument that only government is capable of delivering hot dogs on those street corners.
As heartened as I am by the stark contrast between his earlier article and his latest post, I do see one troubling common thread. In both, Pondiscio is demanding that we must not connect school choice in a substantive way to the debate over how we educate children into the American experiment in equality and freedom – the commitment to human rights and equality under the law that makes America exceptional.
I decline the invitation. The only reason I’ve ever been interested in school choice is because it’s the only education policy that really takes seriously the American experiment in equality and freedom. I’m really glad that it also has the side effect of closing the education gap and all that.
But American exceptionalism has always been my only real interest in school choice.
As Milton said (and Alexis de Tocqueville said almost exactly the same thing in a longish passage in Democracy in America, but Milton was more pithy): A society that prioritizes equality over freedom will get neither; a society that prioritizes freedom over equality will get a high degree of both.
This story’s so wild, I figured I’d better put the whole thing in the headline. If the headline only covered part of this story, everyone would read it and jump to the wrong conclusions about what’s going on, based on their priors. That’s never happened on the internet before, and I wouldn’t want to be the person to cause the first case!
Loyal JPGBers will recall that in 2019, the San Francisco school board paid $600,000 to remove a mural of the life of George Washington from its George Washington High School. Although the original decision was to destroy the mural by painting over it, subsequently the plan was changed to conceal the mural by covering it.
The mural depicts George Washington cruelly oppressing slaves and Native Americans. (Among much else! The mural consists of 16 panels, and the controversial part is only on two panels.) It was painted in the 1930s by a communist who hated equality and freedom – apologies for the educationally necessary redundancy in that description – and who wanted to destroy the American experiment in equality and freedom by encouraging the idea that the violation of equality and freedom by the American founders discredits the very idea of equality and freedom.
George Washington enslaved people, therefore we should all be enslaved.
The mural was funded by a New Deal federal agency.
The Frisco school board (including 2021 Higgy Laurate Alison Collins) voted to remove the mural, not because they failed to understand that its purpose was to destroy equality and freedom, but because the mural’s explicit depiction of the depraved brutality that is always involved in denying people equality and freedom was upsetting to the students. In the new world of therapeutics, on the woke left as on the nationalist right, psychology trumps justice.
Of the $600,000 spent to remove the mural, $500,000 was spent on an environmental impact statement.
Guess what? A judge just ruled that the school board violated the law in removing the mural – because it failed to comply fully with California environmental impact law. Its $500,000 environmental impact statement apparently failed to conduct a legally sufficient review.
When I first saw two years ago that the environmental impact statement cost $500,000, I thought to myself, “somebody got a sweetheart deal.” It never occurred to me – shame on me! – that they might not even live up to their end of the sweetheart deal. Maybe some of that money can be clawed back, if (as now looks possible) the board gets new leadership.
The mural is now required to be uncovered and visible, unaltered.
Meanwhile, in the two years since the original board vote, the cost of the removal project has ballooned to $900,000. That’s before the judge’s ruling.
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
The woke project to destroy the Constitution, like the nationalist project to destroy the Constitution, has a lot of power to destroy things. But they can’t build anything, because they don’t have a deep and stable framework of moral ideas. When the moral imperatives favored by “our side” – facing up to the ugliness of racism, cultivating the psyches of young people, compliance with an environmental protection bureaucracy – collide in ways that require hard choices, which takes precedence? And when people who are all on “our side” disagree, by what process shall we reach a decision?
These groups are all doomed to tear themselves to shreds in bottomless Nietzschean power struggles. Pat Buchanan’s nihilistic question – “Somebody’s values are going to prevail. Why not ours?” – applies within movements as well as between them.
In case you missed it, Samuel Goldman had a great article in The Week about why conservative efforts to change the content of education always fail:
Laws and regulations aren’t self-enforcing, after all. They have to be interpreted at the district, school, and classroom level….A challenge to CRT bans in particular is that they’re unpopular among the people responsible for enforcing them. Although not uniformly liberal, teachers tend to support Democrats. Party leaning doesn’t determine opinions on any particular issue, of course. But Democrats report overwhelmingly positive opinions about CRT in particular and “structural” accounts of racism in general.
Raw numbers don’t tell the whole story, either. As Richard Hanania has argued, motivated minorities outweigh passive majorities. In particular, it’s likely that the teachers most active in administration, professional development, and union affairs are more left-leaning than their colleagues. Recent decisions by the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers to emphasize “anti-racist” policies support this assumption.
Goldman correctly concludes that in education, there are only two realistic political alternatives for the right, if they are really interested in winning. One would be a right-wing reenactment of the left’s “long march through the institutions,” which would allow the great-grandchildren of today’s right-wingers to exercise the kind of cultural power progressives now wield. The other is “radical…educational pluralism,” by which Goldman means school choice as a revolutionary challenge to the very idea of monopolization of schools, rather than school choice as merely the welfare state by other means – an escape hatch for the most needy kids in the worst schools.
Goldman also correctly concludes that school choice is the more plausible option.
Milton used to talk about the stark difference between “charity vouchers,” offered only to the poor, and “educational vouchers,” offered to everyone: “Charity vouchers help the poor but will not produce any real reform of the educational system. And what we need is a real reform.”
Goldman has seen what Milton saw – the real value of school choice is that universal school choice makes the government school system accountable to parents, and nothing else will.
It seems like Goldman feels obligated to say some negative things about the prospects for choice, because he throws in some easily refuted canards:
There is, contrary to Goldman’s unsupported suggestions, no ambiguity about the legal status of school choice programs. Choice has won a long string of solid Supreme Court victories that have established its legal standing unambiguously.
Most egregiously, Goldman suggests that parents don’t want choice, because exercising choice is hard. But Goldman himself notes that the kind of educational pluralism he envisions is “common around the world.” Are U.S. parents uniquely lazy and/or stupid, incapable of doing what parents routinely do in the other countries Goldman mentions?
Still, the article is definitely worth your time if you’re interested in a close look at what doesn’t work to change education, and why.
OCPA carries my latest, on the rumblings in Oklahoma about holding school choice programs “accountable”:
This concern-trolling about data is almost always the first step toward demanding new restrictions on parents’ control of the education of their own children. State Rep. Mark McBride commented on the new data collection, for which he led the push: “We wanted to make sure there’s no disparities and it’s fair.” So the goal is not something like monitoring compliance with nondiscrimination laws, which would be legitimate, but to take away parents’ control of education if the decisions they make for their own children produce any aggregate pattern that can be framed and presented as “unfair” in any possible respect, or as containing anything that can be used to create a narrative about “disparities.” It is, of course, literally impossible for parental choices to produce any aggregate pattern that will not be presented as “unfair” and “inequitable” by the special interests who line their own pockets by destroying children’s lives.
The new data collection on one Oklahoma choice program is payback for the recently enacted huge expansion of its other program. The special interests can’t stand to lose – it reveals too clearly how powerless they have become, and the perception of power is power – so we can expect more of the same in the coming year.
Limits on schools in the program are, of course, actually limits on how parents are permitted by the state to educate their children. You can have accountability to parents or to politicians, but not both.
Thankfully, efforts to impose substantive regulations on choice programs after they’re created are a losing proposition:
Any effort of this kind in Oklahoma should be expected to fail. Despite enormous effort over the last 30 years, the special interests have never succeeded in imposing curricular restrictions on existing choice programs, nor have they managed to exert serious increased influence on school policy. At an earlier period in the choice movement’s history, before the steep decline of the special interests’ political power over the past decade and the dramatic increase in popular support for choice since the pandemic, there were occasional minor setbacks in this fight. But the track record on the whole, and especially in the past decade, is one of stunning and consistent defeat for efforts to impose fake accountability on choice programs.
Why? Simple: After a program is created, the parents in the program will show up and fight to defend it. Contrary to the ideological claptrap of the special interests, parents are not stupid, and they are not easily cowed by “experts” and “leaders” when it comes to the education of their own children. Where I live, in Wisconsin, when our very anti-choice governor tried to impose modest reductions in the size of our choice programs, the state Capitol building was flooded with children holding signs that said things like: “Please don’t take away my school!” The effort was crushed, and the governor found other issues to busy himself with. That story has been repeated time and again across the country.
Recent events, including lawless new “guidance” from the US Education Department attempting to bully colleges and universities into adopting the government’s official ideology on human sexuality, demonstrate that choice policies don’t create the danger of government attempting to control private schools; what choice policies create is a constituency that fights back.
Shout-out to my amazing friends at a certain small but truly outstanding Christian university in Seattle, which is currently fighting off a lawsuit attempting to impose the new orthodoxy on their community!
Robert Pondiscio apparently wants to make it as hard as possible for him to accomplish his own goals. In a new article for AEI, he attacks school choice for the unforgiveable crime of being something other than a campaign to fight CRT in the government monopoly school system.
In doing so, he alienates hisown allies. He says he’s a choice supporter. Choice supporters are also, overwhelmingly, opponents of CRT. (My own views on CRT are available here.) So why Pondiscio has decided he wants to alienate the people whose support he could definitely use in the fight for his own cause by gratuitously sneering at their cause is not clear.
“Your thing is bad, even though I support it, because your thing is not the same thing as my thing!”
Sorry, you’ll have to give me a minute – my eyes rolled back so far, they fell out.
More importantly, by attacking school choice, Pondiscio attacks the only policy that can actually force the government school monopoly to make the kind of changes Pondiscio himself wants, nationally and at scale. Pondiscio goes on at great length making the point that it isn’t enough to save individual students, we need to have a systemic impact at the national level. What is the only education policy that has succeeded in having a systemic impact at the national level?
EdChoice, even though they use a more restrictive counting method than I favor, counts 27 studies on the systemic impact of school choice; 25 are positive.
This finding’s been replicated more often than Picard’s earl grey.
What other political strategy for making change happen in the government school monopoly even comes close to this track record?
The feds spent $6 billion on Reading First, with all the weight of the federal government to support the effort, and got zilch to show for it. Bill Gates spent comparably huge amounts assembling an enormous political effort for Common Core, and got zilch to show for it.
What resources or advantages does Pondiscio have at his disposal that these efforts didn’t have?
Especially if he’s decided to gratuitously poke a stick in the eye of the only people who might be reliable allies?
Sure, you can pass legislation attempting to influence the content of what gets taught in the classroom. You know what other efforts did that? Reading First, Common Core, No Child Left Behind, etc.
Not all the anti-CRT laws are bad laws, as far as they go. But none of them will have the real-world effect of implementing the changes Pondiscio wants.
I will gladly give you a viable political strategy Tuesday for your costly support today!
It’s a long-proven fact that when government monopoly schools don’t do a good job of teaching math and reading, the only thing that reliably forces them to start doing a good job of teaching math and reading is parents walking out the door using school choice.
What do you think schools will do when parents walk out the door not over reading and math, but over political indoctrination of their children?
After all, there are a lot more parents upset about CRT than there are parents who are upset about the teaching of math and reading in their own children’s government schools!
(I’m sure someone out there wants to raise the canard that private schools have all gone woke now. Actually, a representative “typical” private school might be either an urban Catholic school or an exurban evangelical school. A tiny handful of stories coming out of an even tinier number of woke progressive academies have made a big splash in click-hungry social media, but are not representative – especially not of what would happen to the composition of private schools if the option to attend them were extended universally, instead of being available only to those who can afford it.)
Update: I should also have addressed Pondiscio’s hand-waving placeholder for an argument that “the percentage of families with ready access to more than a small handful of quality options is probably quite modest.” Of course, to the extent that this is even true, which Pondiscio seems to be aware is a problematic question, the only reason we don’t have more and better private schools is precisely because of the government monopoly on schooling. This is like saying Mexico couldn’t possibly privatize its national oil monopoly because there aren’t enough private oil companies in Mexico to do the work.
Pondiscio is free to pound the table and demand that we need to fight CRT in the government school monopoly all he wants. I agree! I agree so much, I even have a political strategy for doing it that might actually work: let parents choose, thus creating real accountability pressure on schools.
What is Pondiscio’s political strategy to force the government school monopoly to make the changes he wants, if not by creating pressure for change by allowing parents who don’t want CRT to walk out the door?
Have fun storming the castle! Let us know when you’re tired of all the winning.
Posted by Greg Forster 
Jay P. Greene's Blog 