Scholastic Publishing has been accused of pushing the liberal agenda by Eric Bolling on the Fox News network. The problem with Eric Boling’s rant isn’t that he’s wrong, but that he uses the wrong argument.

The analogy of “distributing the wealth” was clearly meant to explain the situation. But there are two problems here:

- Scholastic’s analogy fails
- Eric Bolling doesn’t know that the analogy fails

Scholastic should be on the hook here, but less for indoctrination and more for obscuring mathematics!

### What IS the distributive property?

The distributive property allows us to “distribute” a ** scaling** number. For example, my cookie recipe calls for

- 1 pound butter
- 1 1/2 cups sugar
- 4 1/2 cups flour

This means my cookies will be made from this addition:

1 pound butter + 1 1/2 cups sugar + 4 1/2 cups flour

Suppose I need to **triple** this recipe, I have to **triple everything**. That’s what the distributed property does – it allows you to ** scale** it.

3 x (1 pound butter + 1 1/2 cups sugar + 4 1/2 cups flour)

3 x 1 pound butter + 3 x 1 1/2 cups sugar + 3 x 4 1/2 cups flour

You’re not distributing anything real, but you’re distributing the * scale*!

### How would this look for money?

You don’t distribute money, because money is something ** real**. (Remember you can only distribute the

**.)**

*scale*If money were to be involved in an example it could look like this (liberal indoctrination included for entertainment value):

Every year Karen, the rich girl, donates $500 to the Salvation Army, $250 to her local food bank, and $1200 to her church.

$500 + $250 + $1200

This year she got a big fat raise, because the rich get richer, and she wants to triple all her donations. So this looks like:

3 x ($500 + $250 + $1200)

3 x $500 + 3 x $250 + 3 x $1200

### Scholastic attempts an analogy – and fails.

The image and title of the scholastic worksheet implies that money can be distributed in the manipulation of algebra. This is not just misleading, but completely wrong.

And since the subheading is “understanding the distributive property,” it’s also offensive.

### Eric Bolling was making the wrong point.

Eric Bolling’s argument should have been:

“The distributive property distributes the scale, it can’t distribute money. Therefore either scholastic developers don’t know what they’re doing, or they are specifically inserting liberal indoctrination.”

I sincerely believe that the developers of scholastic use the “distribute the wealth” as an attempt of an analogy. Unfortunately the analogy fails mathematically and it also frustrates the politically conservative.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments!

*Note: I purchased this worksheet from Scholastic for the purposes of commenting here.*

###### You might also like:

- The Opportunity to Learn
- The Distributive Property – What Is It, Anyway?
- Distributive Property Gets Destroyed by the Lattice Method
- Scalar Factors of Scalar Ratios

This post may contain affiliate links. When you use them, you support us so we can continue to provide free content!

Very good point. I’m so used to just making sure that math works that I didn’t consider what the actual heading implied. Both Politically, and Conceptually.

Lastly, looking at the definition, even that seems weird if technically correct. What does multiplying by two numbers have to do with distribution? Not only should it have been worded in the other direction, I don’t understand anything more about the distributive property, and it is implying that there is something special about 2.

It is an awkward definition, isn’t it, Gerard.