Is Local Control Really Represented on “Elected” School Boards?
There was a time in American democracy when people knew each other in small towns and rural communities, while candidates for public office tended to be the most respected and capable people available. Representatives were the best and brightest.
This type of democracy doesn’t work today. Only marginal people, those with the fewest options, tend to be attracted to public office. No one really knows them. Yard signs and campaign slogans hardly serve to identify. Most candidates are “middle of the roaders” hoping to attract votes regardless of principle.
Controversial positions are quickly demagogued by the media, so candidates typically stand for nothing. Candidates get the idea of running by working on someone else’s campaign. They learn the ropes. This is true at every level.
Once in office, the extra income and vanity attention are enough to make sure that the status quo applecart isn’t upset. Local school boards, for example, are little more than “advisory” committees to the superintendent. They don’t challenge the guy in charge.
Who’s got time, especially in retirement, to do all the online research necessary to form an independent judgment? Who wants to be unseated next election by evoking some “principle” that no one else seems to support? By definition, mavericks are on the fringe, not team players at all.
What school board member would dare to go public with things that could be cut from bloated budgets, including unnecessary administrative positions? Is that “diversity officer” really needed? Sure, the superintendent will use scare tactics about band or art programs being cut. Should teaching positions simply protect jobs even if teaching French isn’t needed, but Chinese and Arabic are?
What school board member would dare suggest that schools don’t need sports programs beyond physical exercise or calisthenics? Should schools be “farm teams” for major-league sports teams, now indistinguishable from billion dollar franchises and business advertising?
What school board member would have the gumption to argue that schools need not waste millions preparing students to be computer consumers or work in computer-demanding jobs? A few students might benefit, but not most.
Anything wrong with self-education? Shouldn’t the general population be responsible for getting themselves up-to-speed with computer stuff, as they now do with cell phones? Let computer companies do the educating at home, for those who are self-motivated.
Omnipresent online tutorials, not schools, can be adapted to all blue collar lives. Butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers need not be further groomed to consumer electronics within school systems.
Better yet, students need more book-based education. Teachers need to be supplied with freely chosen supplemental book budgets. Overall, paper-and-pencil approaches to teaching can promote more learning than electronic tablets and trendy iPads. Perhaps students who can’t be motived without expensive computer budget outlays shouldn’t be in school in the first place.
