Should only people with kids or who had kids be on the school committee?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

I have always believed that if you run for a board in a municipality that oversees a certain service for a town, you should be an advocate for it. If you run for the parks department, you should care about trying to get a level of funding appropriate to maintaining those parks.

So why should people who clearly hate the schools and have no vested interest in their success be on the school board? We currently have a member who has no children (her husband is also on the budget committee, they are both teabag types) and she is all about cutting, cutting, cutting. She has even suggested we shut down the high school and regionalize. The parents in town have successfully rallied against her and her "concerned citizens" group, but what purpose does she have being on the school board? She clearly doesn't care about them, beyond how it affects her pocketbook. It seems to me she and her husband's only interest is keeping their taxes to the bare minimum and don't want to pay for public education.

[elleng]

1. No vested interest?

It takes a village; EVERYONE has such.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. It's a nice thought.....

....but clearly some people don't buy into it. A lot actually. Which is sort of my point here.

[uppityperson]

32. Only people with kids will ever need a doctor, dentist, or any other type educated person

See? It's that simple! No kids means you never ever ever will need the services or help of anyone who needs any sort of education.

[elleng]

33. right!

:sarcasm:

[leeroysphitz]

3. Yes. Those without children cannot hope to understand the complexities and demands of child rearing.

The welfare of children should trump all other interests so only parents are really qualified to choose what is best for our children.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. The news reports are full of parents who clearly don't understand the demands of their jobs either.

What a stupid thing to say.

[uncle ray]

13. yes we can.

that's why we chose not to have any children. that doesn't mean we don't know what may be good for them. the non-parent on this board is an idiot teabagger though.

[The Straight Story]

21. and only women should have a say on abortion (nt)

[Iris]

25. Rearing children and educating them are 2 differen things.

And besides, public schools are funded by taxpayer dollars. The assumption is everyone benefits by an educated population.

[bluestateguy]

4. That would be a consideration for me as to who to vote for

But I don't think you could legally disqualify someone with no kids from running. Such a rule would surely be struck down by the courts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Some of our best school board members have no children.

So no.

However, teabaggers should never be allowed to hold any public office. Hopefully they are remaining childless because that gene pool needs to be curtailed.

[Metryguy]

6. I'm all for it.

If I'm also not responsible for the tax burden. You can't have taxation without representation.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Some of the stingiest most anti-taxation people I've ever met have been parents.

Plenty of teabaggers are parents. And I personally know several childless people serving on school boards who are excellent progressive advocates for the schools.

Try this on for size: Should only people who have not procreated be allowed to participate in environmental groups? Would anyone who made such a suggestion on DU be flamed to a fare-thee-well?

[stray cat]

8. How about making everyone undergo a in house inspection to make sure they qualify as "good" parents?

[JVS]

10. If the people vote for them

[kiva]

11. Yes, because people without children are useless parasites

who should be punished for their selfishness. In fact, maybe childless people should be banned from running for any political office - after all, they have no vested interest in anything beyond their personal interests, unlike parents who have no vested interest beyond...well, their family's interest, which is far more important.

In case it's necessary:
:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I'm willing to bet that most of them never even consider giving a shit about a school committee

in fact, most of the ones in this thread wouldn't give a flying fuck, except that someone dared suggest they not be allowed to do it.

Then, shit, Katie Bar The Door, we must not discriminate against the "childfree" when it comes to the local school boards!

[kiva]

29. OK, so will just any parents do?

Should their children be school aged? Should a parent whose youngest child is out of grade school be allowed to have an opinion about building a new elementary school? After all, their child won't be using it, so they don't have a vested interest.

What about parents who have children in private schools? Can parents of children without special needs be trusted to look after the interests of children that are special need?

My future is dependent on the next generation, and damn right I want them to be educated.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I think the parents of the kids attending are probably the best pool for selection, honestly.

Just my take.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. By the way......I don't have kids and don't plan to

Before you get haughty about it.

[Lisa0825]

12. I have a vested interest in having good schools because it affects the value

of my biggest asset, my home. Having a good school is good for kids, and this attracts families to buy in this neighborhood (or scares them away).

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Best answer in the thread

:thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

14. Having children does not ensure that a board member will really be an advocate.

And having no children could disqualify very able potential members.

But I see your point.

:P

[marybourg]

15. Her interest in her pocketbook *is* a vested interest. nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Yes.

There are way too many people without kids who don't get it, too many fundamentalists with an agenda, etc.

[defendandprotect]

17. Think perhaps ONLY people who currently have kids in the schools ....

--

but when so much budgetary support for schools comes from private property

taxes, perhaps we should ONLY have people who currently own homes on the boads?


:evilgrin:


Btw, right now, would I want Obama on any school board? -- Nooooooooo!!

Obama is supporting Charter schools vs public education --

and sending oodles of our tax dollars off to "faith-based" religious groups --

most of them belonging to the RCC.

[Gormy Cuss]

19. The LAST thing we need are school boards made up only of parents.

Parents may be just as bad as teabaggers if they don't look at the whole picture rather than focusing on the issues affecting the schools where their children attend.

The good thing about elected school committees is that people who fail to look at the system's needs as a whole can be voted off the board by the residents.

[SheilaT]

22. At first glance that

sounds like a good idea. But as various others have pointed out, it's not the simple fact of having kids or not having kids that makes a person a good or a bad school board member.

Even those who have giant families, wind up not having kids in the public schools (as if all children attend public schools only) at some point. I had two kids. I wound up switching them for a very good public school to an even better independent school for reasons that were specific to my children only. What I learned in the switch is that we simply are not funding our schools adequately. And I was often very unpopular at the private school because I always said that I should not be exempt from dollar one of taxes just because my kids weren't in the public school. All of us, whether or not we ever have kids in public schools, have a greater vested interest in good schools than many realize.

Every so often I'll hear the story of someone who bought a house because the taxes in that location were really low, and some years later have trouble selling because it's in a crappy school district.

Oh. And if all of our schools are so terrible, and so many kids are being so badly educated, why is it that so many colleges turn away thousands of fully qualified students every year? And many of them come from public schools, I must add.

[hack89]

23. Any one who pay taxes that fund schools can run for school committee.

That is their vested interest.

[ProudDad]

24. Not only should they

but there should be MANY more people who have had NO children...

The Earth is too damn overpopulated as it is!

[Iris]

26. You are focusing on the wrong thing. Obviously this woman is bad for the schools, but that's not

because she doesn't have kids.

It's been a right-wing strategy for some time to get people who think like them into local gov't. positions in order to further their ideas. Some of them, like Sarah Palin, move on up the political ladder.

There are plenty of people who don't' have kids who care about education, despite what it means for their pocketbooks.

[krispos42]

27. Her property taxes are at work; she had a right to be involved in the process.

If she chooses. And if she gets elected on the platform, presumebly she represents a certain self-destructive segment of the town. Unfortunately.

[whistler162]

30. I believe this was in part covered in the period from

1776 to 1783 when we had a minor kerfuffle with Great Britian over taxation without representation!

If the property owner pays school taxes they have a right to run for the board of education, or whatever it is called in that area.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. Only if they will deduct out of my taxes

the amount collected for public schools. Not my desire, of course, but the question is hardly valid. We've all seen childless people who are wonderful with children and we've all seen people with children who are terrible with them.

[marshall]

35. How about restricting to only people who have been kids?

If they've been there, done that, they have an understanding of the process.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Gee, what about those who have been students?

Is it not possible in your world view that a student having attended a public school system might grow up to feel that that experience motivates and informs a need to serve on the board? Or must the student experience be second hand only through parents?
A person who attended that system for 12 years, 4 years back vs a parent who moved here last week. You pick the parent?
Don't get the thinking at all. Not at all.