Posted on 05/07/2013 12:36:01 PM PDT by MichCapCon
School boards are sometimes held as shining examples of democracy at its finest — where constituents’ and children’s best interests are truly represented.
This is in contrast to the simplistic narrative of what happens in Lansing and Washington, D.C., where rich lobbyists and power-hungry politicians rule the day. A recent story from a mid-sized Michigan school district, however, demonstrates that even at the local level, political self-interest can and does drive decision-making.
The Oakland Press reported that the board of the Brandon School District decided to demolish a vacant school to prevent a local group of residents from buying the facility and opening a new public charter school there. The school board fears that although the district would profit from selling the building, it ultimately would lose money because state aid once destined for its coffers would wind up going to this new charter school instead.
Of course, for this to happen, parents in the district would have to choose to enroll their children in the charter school over schools run by the Brandon school board. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the school board is attempting to protect its own self-interest (i.e., revenue stream), but doing so at the expense of preventing Brandon children from accessing different public school opportunities.
To be fair, a Brandon school district official says that the local charter school group is only offering one-sixth of the value of the facility. And demolishing the building instead of offering it up to a competitor is not necessarily "wrong" either: The school board is protecting the bottom line of a school district that serves thousands of students and parents.
But this action raises several questions from the perspective of taxpayers in Brandon and those statewide. For example, should the Brandon school board use taxpayer resources to intentionally deprive children the opportunity to attend a different public school? Why should taxpayers pay to protect the school district’s virtual monopoly of publicly funded school services?
This example from Brandon illustrates that school boards face and act on a set of incentives to protect and expand their power — similar to those so clearly displayed in Lansing and Washington, D.C.
Not all school boards behave the same way Brandon is here, but nevertheless, realpolitik is a powerful force even in our local public schools.
Why not? It’s not their money.
What a pathetic joke.
The value of a thing is what it’s worth on the open market. It is not what some School District mouth breather decides it should be.
Universal Axiom:
If you give an elected politician any power that is remotely connected to revenue that will sustain them, he will inevitably vote to maintain that revenue flow (or prevent the disruption), period.
"The next day, He created a school board." -- Mark Twain
In the end, this Schoold District will see the Charter School established with its competition, AND lose the revenue they could have gotten from the sale of the vacant building.
Now, they will pay to have it demolished, AND give the tax payers there in that area another reason to support the Charter school.
When Giant Eagle closes a supermarket here they tie the building up in endless restrictive covenants to ensure that another grocer will never, ever set up shop in there. So what’s the difference?
Of course a better question is, "What can we do to provide more attractive educational opportunities than charter schools?" Or even further out of the box, "What is the best thing we can do to improve the educational opportunities for children within our district boundaries?" For many districts, the best thing they could do for the children would be to close down the district-- but that's not going to happen.
As a homeschooler for the past 12 years i know that liberals only want freedom of choice and alternative lifestyles that they approve of... homeschoolers live an alternative lifestyle that most libs look down on...
I do not favor the charter school concept.
I know that it is often very politically manipulated, and if you saw the education “mission” of some charter schools in New York (Marxist political agendas) you’d understand my concern.
A charter school is simply given a grant to use public money to operate a school that any child can apply to enter but only a limited number of classroom seats are available.
While some charter schools do obtain very good academic standards political ideology can be more directly at work in the charter school’s academic mission, of SOME charter schools, than might be found in public schools.
I do not favor charter schools because I do not favor their automatic draw on the public purse.
I prefer vouchers, and would prefer vouchers for every student to an amount equal to the per-student total local-state-and-federal money allocated to their school district for their parents to use with ANY school of their choice - public, private, religious or otherwise.
If it’s really about “education” and not about protecting the “public” education industrial complex, then let the parents decide where they want to take the public’s school voucher for their kid. Period.
Full disclosure - I make that offer on the basis that I believe it is NOT the “best” solution, but the best solution possible at this time.
The best solution would be lower federal, state and local taxes, eliminating the entire government education edifice, and only “safety-net” vouchers to help only the very poorest to get into the totally private schools.
AMEN! I also do not support charter schools for the same reasons you listed.
charters are still public in most respects
I don't favor the "public school" concept.
I particularly hate "head start" which is essentially a gimmie for black and other minority parents, many of whom don't work. I also don't favor public colleges. They should all be privatized at this point, there are plenty of colleges in the USA, in fact we graduate a lot of useless college grads from fourth rate schools. And even the ubiquitous K-12 doesn't seem particularly important to me. Parents should raise their kids, it's not the taxpayers job.
My own experience in public schools was truly horrifying, I'd like to see them abolished. I say let everyone keep their own money: parents do not need "stipends". Mine never had any and managed to get me through (mostly private) school.
Umm, it's their money?
The school building was built using TAX dollars and therefore belongs to the TAXPAYERS. The Giant Eagle building was built with PRIVATE dollars and therefore Giant Eagle can do anything they want with it.
Do you really not understand the difference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.