‘Who Needs School Boards?’

As a school board member, I eagerly read Neal Peirce’s article (Editorial Pages, Nov. 9), “Who Needs School Boards?” While Peirce described the need for educational excellence and the effects of changing demographics on school politics, he failed to answer his question.

Peirce noted the lack of interest in school board elections, stating “ballot-box retaliation against delinquent boards is demonstrably unworkable when few citizens turn out for board elections.” City council elections and even statewide elections also draw poor voter turnouts. This argument cannot be directed only at school boards.

School boards remain the “bulwark of lay responsibility for the community’s schools” to those who truly care about public education. Through our elected boards, the voters control the professionals who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of public education. A lack of interest in school elections might not represent apathy; in some cases, it represents satisfaction with both schools and their school boards.

Peirce mentioned operational bankruptcy of school systems, which would occur when educational services are not satisfactory. Under this concept, a state agency would have the authority to depose an elected school board and assume control of local schools. If valid for school districts, operational bankruptcy should be equally valid for other local governments. If a state agency could remove an elected school board for unsatisfactory educational services, should not such an agency also remove a city council or mayor for unsatisfactory municipal services? (But should a state bureaucracy have authority to overturn the voters’ election of local officials?)

Tied to the concept of operational bankruptcy is a demand for verifying the competency of school board members. Peirce cited “training, orientation courses, and independent evaluations.” The California School Boards Assn. already provides peer training. The voters evaluate me thoroughly every four years; they also stop me in the market and call me at home with interim evaluations. (Our school system is periodically evaluated by outside auditors, accreditation agencies, and the county grand jury.) However, we must not create a class of professional school board members; otherwise, we defeat the principle of lay control over professional educators.

Parallel to my objection to operational bankruptcy, I ask: Why not demand verified competence and nonvoter evaluations for members of the Legislature, city councils, or water district boards? After all, good services are important at all government levels.

Peirce concluded by asserting competition is needed to improve public education. I am willing to compete with any private school that abides by the constraints imposed on public schools. Competing on an equal footing means that the private school must accept any local child who applies even if there is no room for that student. A student must be accepted even if he or she is unmotivated and has parents who refuse to participate in the education of their child. And if a child has a learning disability, the school must educate that student without charging extra tuition. My public schools operate within these constraints (and more) and still develop excellent, innovative educational programs. Of course, we cannot compete with private schools, which do not carry the same legal handicaps that we carry. Peirce’s call for competition is meaningless.

DAVID E. ROSS

Agoura

Ross is vice president of the Oak Park Unified School District School Board.