School board authority

The Ledger’s recent profiles of school board candidates reminded me of one thing I learned during a career working for and with Plains’ school board -- if you ain’t educated when elected, you sure will be by the time you give it up.

It’s a strange and complicated task, and candidates tend to go into it with varied motives, perceptions, and goals which quite possibly will never actually fit the issues which crop up. For instance, take the common idea that a school trustee has some authority over school operations.

Turns out that’s a fallacy.

School boards are sometimes referred to as pure democracy. That’s because they are strictly local, functioning as if a night-sweeper employee’s thoughts are as valid as those of a zillionaire business owner. Democracy requires working in some degree of unity, not only to represent a variety of constituents, but to curb the power of individuals. Thus, the individual trustee, whether sweeper or owner, is granted zero authority alone. Only as a board member within a board quorum in a formal public meeting does a member have authority. Some never do understand this and become frustrated because they can’t get their own way. Fact is, that’s exactly the way it’s supposed to be.

Furthermore, board members don’t “run the school.” Boards set the boundaries known as “policies.” Administrators carry out the school’s functions within those boundaries. An opinionated board member who tells a teacher what to do is making him/herself look foolish. Legally, he/she can no more do that than can a passing traveler who’s having a brain freeze. This comes as a surprise to some newer trustees.

Another idea that doesn’t work so well is that parents always know best. Turns out, sometimes that is true because (embarrassingly) the parents truly are more knowledgeable, or have better motives, than does the teacher or administrator (or policies and practices) of the moment.

But other times nobody truly knows what a particular child needs. And still other times (too frequently in fact) parents themselves are the problem, being ignorant, selfish, or abusive. That’s not a politically-correct thing to say but it is the truth. In these cases, educators and school boards become the buffer between parent and child, legally and ethically. Thus, board responsibilities can become much trickier than simply carrying out the wishes of familiar or vocal parents. It’s a real tightrope performance.

Though the school board’s first duty is to the local community, the board also has a duty to promote education for an entire society. A lot of us never agree, for instance, that the courses we are required to take actually fit with what we want. But education is bigger than us individuals. A stable society needs schools that train for that society’s definition of good citizenship and occupational competence as much as it needs self-satisfied individualists. To make that happen, everyone involved needs to bend just a bit. Inevitably, this bending causes friction.

Finally, there are occasional candidates who see the school board as a place to promote their own political or religious preferences. But knowledge needs to be handled from an objective, neutral platform. It is, after all, a seeking for truth, either as something trustworthy and useable, or as a satisfying end in itself. Both religion and politics enter with persuasive rather than objective motives. Trustees who indulge their own leanings in either realm do a disservice to their constituents as well as to the ideals of learning.

School board service done well is honorable work. It looks simple, but it is complex, and not just anyone can do it well.

Ron Rude, Plains