I hate to ask because it will sound like splitting hairs, but was the flag burning indoors or outdoors? Makes a difference, though in no way is it arson as far as I understand that word. Isn't arson burning down a structure? If inside I can understand the charge if the school caught on fire and trucks were needed, but as far as I know that isn't the case.
It's public school property, where a fishstick is a gun, an aspirin is cocaine, and arson means whatever they want it to.
The demographics as I know 'em make the story a little confusing to me...
Outdoors.
Arson is defined as follows (please keep in mind that various jurisdictions DO modify this definition):
The crime of maliciously, voluntarily, and willfully setting fire to the building, buildings, or other property of another person or of burning one's own property for an improper purpose, as to collect insurance.
Hope this is of some use to you, and FReegards! Whether or not the school district had to expend funds to put out the fire will not matter one whit as to whether charges of ''arson'' might or might not be filed. In any case, if some unlawful burning has occurred, the proper action at law would be for the property owner (the school district, aka the taxpayers? Who owned said flag?) to file a tort claim against the person(s) who destroyed their property, in which action they would be able to (attempt to) claim incidental damages also.
It wasn't his flag to burn, I would guess.
I thought "arson" was just intentionally setting a fire - indoors - outdoors doesn't matter.