education

HB 1040: Grab Bag of Educational Grievances

January 5, 2022 by Doug Masson 9 Comments

There is some irony in requiring public schools with free busing to instruct kids that socialism will lead to the destruction of our way of life.

Rep. Prescott has introduced HB 1040 which has a little bit of everything: red-baiting, CRT panic, pro-COVID measures, sex. All in a school setting! This has at least elements that show up in other bills that are circulating through the General Assembly. So, even if this bill doesn’t advance, the likelihood is that you’ll see at least pieces of it moving in other legislation.

It repeals IC 20-19-5 which requires the Department of Education in cooperation with the Department of Child Services, Department of Correction, and the Division of Mental Health to develop and coordinate the children’s social, emotional, and behavioral health plan that is to provide recommendations concerning (A) comprehensive mental health services; (B) early intervention; and (C) treatment services. The plan is supposed to include, among other things:(1) procedures for the identification and assessment of social, emotional, and mental health issues; (2) procedures to assist a child and the child’s family in obtaining necessary services to treat social, emotional, and mental health issues; (3) procedures to coordinate provider services and interagency referral networks for an individual from birth through twenty-two (22) years of age; (4) guidelines for incorporating social, emotional, and behavioral development into school learning standards and education programs; and (5) that social, emotional, and mental health screening be included as a part of routine examinations in schools and by health care providers. The cynical part of me says he wants to get rid of this because “social, emotional, and mental health aren’t *real* issues.” Hopefully I’m doing the Representative a disservice and there’s something more innocuous and sensible going on with this repeal.

Next, we’re on to the Critical Race Theory part of the bill. (The Wikipedia entry makes it clear that the definition of CRT is pretty fuzzy. That entry has it as a cross-disciplinary and intellectual movement based on critical legal studies holding that, among other things, “racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.” In common discourse, the definition can get even fuzzier. But as I discuss a little below, I don’t think the debate club objections to the definition or lack thereof end up being very persuasive.) In any case, the bill prohibits schools from promoting the following concepts:

(1) One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.

(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.

(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex.

(4) Members of one (1) race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.

(5) An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex.

(6) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.

(7) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, or anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.

(8) Meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex.

(9) Indiana or the United States was founded as a racist or sexist state or nation and is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.

However, notwithstanding the above, this legislation dictates that it does not prohibit instruction of the history of an ethnic group; the impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history; or the impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region.

First of all, I don’t like the General Assembly dictating curriculum. Second, it contains a private enforcement mechanism which creates a bounty in the amount of $5,000 plus attorney fees for successful prosecution. Regardless of the merits or lack of merit of the substance of the law, it creates incentives that will be an absolute shit show and will very much disincentivize schools from teaching, for example, historical oppression of a particular group even though the law specifically permits such instruction. The boundaries between the permissible and impermissible will be permeable enough to lead to expensive litigation.

As to the substance of these provisions, I don’t want to #BothSides the issue, but I’m gonna #BothSides the issue. I think politicians and policymakers on the right-wing are cynically exploiting fears people have about their kids by turning a molehill into a mountain. I think the left-wing commentariat is disingenuously trying to tell people that the molehill doesn’t exist. When this came up in the context of the Virginia elections, folks on the left often responded by adopting a very technical definition of what constitutes Critical Race Theory and saying it wasn’t taught anywhere and/or claiming that this was an effort to, for example, eliminate teaching that slavery was part of American history. There was little effort to grapple with the notion that curriculum informed by Critical Race Theory or Critical Theories generally might be making its way into course work, school support services, or other aspects of the educational system — even if Critical Race Theory itself was not taught. (As it happens, in West Lafayette an anti-racist advocacy group has presented the school board with a demand to “add a course in critical race theory to the core curriculum.” The demand, presented in the Summer of 2020, predated the Virginia election campaigns.) On the right, there seems to be a deliberate effort to misunderstand how racism in the past can lead to structural inequality in the present. Caught in the middle are people who don’t have any particular interest in the power struggle but who are open to working with others to make things more equitable. As with so many things these days, there are some fairly loud people demonizing people on the other side, so it is easy to ignore people of good will quietly trying to figure out the best way to make things better. This bill will absolutely not be productive to people of good will. But, maybe it will help people screaming at each other to get elected.

And then we move on to the pro-COVID provisions. Basically, it lets anyone – student or teacher – opt out of a mask requirement. It also prohibits requiring a student or school employee to be vaccinated against COVID as a condition of attendance. The traditional move is to characterize this as a pro-liberty move. But, as Jeremy Bentham observed, “rights and obligations, though distinct and opposite in their nature, are simultaneous in their origin, and inseparable in their existence. According to the nature of things, the law cannot grant a benefit to any, without, at the same time, imposing a burden on some one else[.]” In this case, the right to be mask-free necessarily requires others to breathe more of the virus-laden air expelled by the person exercising that right. There’s always going to be tension when balancing individual rights with the well-being of the community. In the middle of a pandemic, this is not the right balance to strike. For the most part, we should leave these decisions in the hands of our public health officers who can respond in a manner that’s both better informed and more agile than what can be done by the legislature.

But, Doug, you may ask — does this bill fight communism? Yes, dear reader. Of course it does. This bill is a floor wax *and* a dessert topping. Students must receive instruction that socialism is incompatible with the principles of freedom upon which the United States was founded and that if it were to replace our current form of government, “the government of the United States would be overthrown and existing freedoms under the Constitution would no longer exist.” Never mind that most Americans wouldn’t know socialism if it deposited a social security check into their FDIC-insured bank accounts. This instruction isn’t limited to socialism but also applies to “Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems.” Not sure if this totalitarianism or ‘similar political systems’ would encompass fascist or nationalist ideologies.

Onto sex. A school has to get parental consent before providing instruction on (1) abortion; (2) birth control or contraceptives; (3) sexual activity; (4) sexual orientation; (5) transgenderism; or (6) gender identity. (Is being transgender an ‘ism’?) This is well-trodden area in the culture wars. I’ll just mention that the best way to reduce the need for abortions is to provide good sex education and access to contraception.

And now “transparency.” There’s an incredibly burdensome online posting requirement for books, lectures, and “all materials presented to students in connection with an educational activity.” This will require a great deal of effort on the part of the school, and very little of the material will be reviewed. Of the material reviewed, I suspect a good chunk of that will be associated more with political axe grinding than any real effort to engage with the school on improving the quality of instruction received by students. The cost/benefit analysis of these provisions is heavy on the “cost” side and light on the “benefit” side.

Finally, there is a prohibition on providing students with mental health services without parental consent. The legislation singles out counseling with respect to abortion and gender identity for special attention but seems to require consent even for behavioral evaluations, personality analyses, mental health surveys, and assessments for the purpose of providing multi-tiered systems of support and positive behavior interventions. Seems like this will hamstring schools seeking to adjust educational approaches based on particular behavioral needs of the students.

SB 83: Mandatory Public Comment at School Board Meetings

December 27, 2021 by Doug Masson Leave a Comment

Sen. Leising (the quixotic cursive crusader) has introduced SB 83 which mandates the opportunity for public comment at school board meetings. This is a reaction to the measures taken by school boards to deal with pro-COVID parents who objected to the idea of having to work with the community to limit the spread of COVID. Some members of the public not only disagreed with mask policies, they turned abusive and belligerent. When the Public Access Counselor was asked about how public bodies could comply with the Open Door Law and still get business done when civility broke down, the PAC observed that public comment was not required by the Open Door Law and eliminating the public comment period was one tool that boards could use when necessary.

[N]othing in the Indiana Open Door Law guarantees or even mentions the right to participate in the proceedings of a governing body much less interrupt…[G]overning bodies can choose whether to extend the courtesy of a comment forum, and therefore revoke it if misused. Tumult, disorder, and disturbance on the part of the audience should not be tolerated by a board, council, or commission. This office does, and will always, advocate for a meaningful public comment opportunity at public meetings, if practical. Ultimately, however, a public comment forum during a meeting is a privilege and a courtesy extended by a governing body to the public.

Sen. Leising’s bill does not have much to say about the public comment period she would require school boards to provide. Certainly, it does not give schools any tools to deal with interruption, tumult, disorder, or disturbances. This legislation could be read as a sanction for using such tactics as a means by which to influence public policy. By the same token, however, the legislation says nothing about rules the school board could use to regulate the public comment period. “You have ten seconds and comment must be germane to agenda items. Go!” Any rules on public comment used to ensure order is maintained will no doubt be decried as tyranny. But, I suppose once everything is tyranny, then nothing is tyranny.

No Prosecutions Yet for $86 Million Charter School Debacle

February 8, 2021 by Doug Masson 4 Comments

Steve Hinnefeld has an update on the Indiana Virtual School / Indiana Virtual Pathways situation. The update seems to be that nothing has yet happened (at least publicly) in terms of prosecuting those responsible. The Indiana State Board of Accounts issued a special report on the “Indiana Virtual Education Foundation, Inc. d/b/a Indiana Virtual School and Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy” reflecting its findings that (as Steve summarizes it): “state funds were misappropriated through ‘malfeasance, misfeasance, and/or nonfeasance.’ It said Indiana Virtual School and Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy inappropriately received more than $68.7 million by misrepresenting the number of students who were enrolled in the virtual schools. They spent more than $85.7 million with vendors who were connected with school officers or employees but failed to provide appropriate paperwork, according to the audit.”

Of some of the shenanigans involved, Indiana Chalkbeat reported:

Five years after two students moved to Florida, they reappeared on enrollment records for Indiana Virtual School and its sister school.

And nearly every one of the more than 900 students kicked out of Indiana Virtual School and its sister school in the 2017-18 school year for being inactive were re-enrolled the next school year, included in per-pupil funding calculations that netted the two online schools more than $34 million in public dollars last year.

These were among the ways that Indiana Virtual School and Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy allegedly inflated their enrollment to at least twice its actual size, according to the findings of a state examiner’s investigation released Monday.

Jonathan Weinzapfel, the unsuccessful candidate for Attorney General had pledged a criminal investigation. Todd Rokita, the successful candidate, has been more non-committal. His office stated, ““We are thoroughly reviewing the report and performing the necessary investigation to diligently pursue the charged parties.” The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office indicated that this would be a federal matter (which strikes me as a little odd, but maybe I don’t know the nuances.) The feds won’t confirm or deny anything. So, it could be that the shit will be hitting the fan eventually but the gears of justice are grinding slowly.

Meanwhile, the Indiana General Assembly remains bullish on charter schools. Per Steve, “Speaker Todd Huston said he expects legislators to change the law so virtual schools get just as much state funding as schools that provide instruction in person.” When it comes to “school choice,” the Indiana General Assembly is like a quack doctor. Having diagnosed traditional public schools as sick, it’s prescribing leeches. And when the leeches don’t seem to do anything good, its conclusion is that it simply hasn’t applied enough leeches.

HB 1546: “We Really Hate Teacher’s Unions”

February 2, 2021 by Doug Masson 6 Comments

HB 1546, introduced by Rep. Goodrich and co-authored by Rep. Behning, would remove the requirement that, at a teacher’s request, schools withhold union dues from a teacher’s paycheck and would, instead, prohibit schools from withholding such dues from the paycheck. Keep in mind that, per IC 22-2-6, employers can — at an employee’s request — withhold money from a paycheck that an employee wants to send to a nonprofit, use as dues for other types of unions, purchase goods from the employer, repay an employer loan, and a number of other things. So, this prohibition on withholding union dues looks to be nothing more than mean-spirited. Oh, and “an emergency is declared for this act.” Because, of course it is.

Hinnefeld on HB 1005: School Voucher Expansion and Educational Savings Accounts

January 15, 2021 by Doug Masson 4 Comments

Steve Hinnefeld, who you should follow if you are interested in education matters, has a good run down of HB 1005, introduced by Rep. Behning — the primary architect of Indiana’s school privatization efforts over the last decade or more. The short version: a family of five making $172k or less could be eligible for school voucher money. Educational Savings Accounts would be permitted as a vehicle for certain classes of students — a limitation which probably doesn’t matter much, since we’ve seen the M.O. of school privatization in Indiana has been to get the camel’s nose under the tent in one session, then invite him in during the next — to get state funding and deposit tax advantaged donations for the purpose of paying for “private school tuition, mentoring and tutoring services, college and university fees, online courses, career education and other education-related costs.”

But, definitely go read Steve’s post for a better explanation.

HB 1107 – Collaborative Response Graphics System

January 5, 2021 by Doug Masson 1 Comment

I’ll admit that I looked at this bill primarily because I had no idea what a “Collaborative Response Graphics System” was. Fortunately the bill provides a definition:

“Collaborative response graphics system” refers to a mapping solution that includes standardized, site-specific, and geo-rectified common operating pictures that combine facility floor plans and high resolution imagery with a grid overlay into one (1) map that will be used by law enforcement agencies in the area of a school building in a life threatening emergency.

(I’m picturing the prosecuting attorney from “My Cousin Vinny” saying “geo – [claps hands and spreads them]- RECTIFIED.”)

The bill generally provides that schools (including charters and nonpublic schools) along with their county Sheriff may apply for a grant from the Indiana secured school fund for the initial set up costs for a collaborative response graphics system. Requires guidelines published by the department of homeland security to include information about implementing access to the collaborative graphics mapping solutions to be used in an emergency situation.

State Teacher Compensation Report

December 14, 2020 by Doug Masson 9 Comments

The Next Level Teacher Compensation Commission released its report (pdf) on Indiana’s teacher compensation. Take anything I write here with a grain of salt — I’m just summarizing it as I go and might be making some mistakes. The Commission says that average teacher compensation should be raised to $60k to be competitive. (I don’t know if that’s inclusive of benefits or if that’s just straight salary). The report says that the $41k Indiana teachers averaged in 2000 would now be about $62k if it had held pace with inflation. (It did not). We’re at about $51,000.

To find the funding to increase teacher compensation to these levels, the Commission recommends:

Forcing working spouses off of teacher health benefits packages and make them use their own company’s benefits (assuming, I guess, that their companies will offer something comparable.)
Forcing Medicare-eligible retirees off of teacher health benefits package.
Adopting the State’s pharmacy benefit plan.
Centralized procurement.
Joining liability risk pools.
Firing surplus teachers and using their old salaries to supplement existing teachers’ salaries.
Privatize non-teacher positions (e.g. custodians, etc.)
Pass operating referendums.
Set up an Education Foundation to receive charitable contributions.
Increase salaries in areas where teacher demand is higher and/or where students need more attention.

On the state level, the Commission recommends, among other things:

Paying down pension liability costs,
Establishing an “efficiency division” in State government to help schools become more efficient and set efficiency standards.
Have School Districts consider consolidation when their superintendent announces a retirement or resignation.
Exempt schools from the mandatory $1 sale of public school buildings to charter schools if the public school consolidates with another district.
Eliminate the 529 plan tax credit for households making over $150,000 and divert the resulting tax revenue to teacher compensation.
Allow townships to fund school capital projects.
Modify requirements for TIF districts.
Allow schools with large cash reserves to deficit finance teacher compensation.
Provide a tax credit for donations to programs that fund teacher pay.
Allow operating referendum to stay in place until repealed rather than expiring every seven years.
Implement a teacher pay “check off” on tax returns. (In other words, you can elect to donate $5 of your tax return to support teacher pay.)
Require residential developers to pay impact fees to offset a need for school facilities created by the residential developments.
Tax increase.
Establish a minimum salary of $40,000.
Limit the use of stipends (and make them part of base salaries) and set a compensation funding floor which would discourage schools from pocketing the savings when higher salaried teachers retire – instead making them plow that money back into the compensation pool.
Require teacher compensation equal 45% of the State’s funding support amount.
Increase the complexity funding component.
Require districts to provide individual teachers with a financial breakdown of their total salary, retirement, and health benefits.
Increase funding for recruitment of minority teachers.
Establish a formal initiative to improve teacher recruitment and job satisfaction beyond compensation, including but not limited to promoting teacher residencies and reducing regulations affecting teachers.

Looks like they kind of threw the kitchen sink into these recommendations, so there is some good and bad. Because it’s so broad, I imagine the legislature can more or less do what it wants with the recommendation.

Maybe more later.

Steve Hinnefeld on Board of Education’s “Accountability” Framework

November 17, 2020 by Doug Masson Leave a Comment

Check out Steve Hinnefeld’s post on the State Board of Education’s accountability framework recommendations. A couple of quick thoughts:

Board staff says that the recommendations aren’t set in stone. So they’re almost certainly set in stone.
Steve notes that the recommendations use the term “Hoosier values” six times in a 14 page document. In the context of noting the conflict between the State “A-F” framework and the federal government’s Every Student Succeeds Act, the recommendations say, ““Indiana should design a state accountability system that prioritizes Hoosier values and strive to use the same indicators for the state and federal models as is allowable under law.” I might be wrong, but I’m getting a “Common Core” vibe here. Indiana abandoned Common Core out of a reflexive anti-Obama sentiment then rebuilt its own system for reasons.
We could ditch the whole A-F machinery and just rank schools by median income in their districts. There wouldn’t be a big change in the rankings.

West Lafayette School Board: Who Else Should I Vote For?

October 8, 2020 by Doug Masson Leave a Comment

(General programming note for blog readers in the West Lafayette school district: I am a candidate in the 2020 West Lafayette School Board election. There are four seats open, and I would like to fill one of them. If you want to know more about my campaign, ask questions, request a yard sign, please go to https://masson.us/schoolboard.)

So, if you are in the West Lafayette School District, there are fifteen people on the ballot for four open spots on the school board. Who should you vote for? After a month of campaigning, my reflexive first response is “Vote Masson. Tell Your Friends!” I think I’ve made a decent case that I would be a good addition to the board. Among other things, I’ve demonstrated a commitment to the school that goes beyond running for school board, I have a legal background in municipal law, and I balance some board experience with a fresh perspective and energy from having been off the board for a few years.

My second response is that if you know a candidate and strongly believe their presence on the school board would make it better, vote for them. If that still doesn’t get you to four candidates, I’ll suggest that you “rely on the teachers.” In other words, the West Lafayette Education Association – the teacher’s union – has endorsed me, Amy Austin, Brad Marley, and Tom Schott.

Obviously, there is an element of self-interest in that I’m one of the WLEA endorsed candidates. But, if you have been part of the West Lafayette community, you know that our schools are excellent and a big part of this is attributable to our teachers. They have every interest in seeing that our schools remain outstanding; they interviewed the candidates; and they know the schools, what they need, and how they operate. Their endorsement should carry some weight — particularly if you’re in the dark on who the candidates are and what the school board does.

Brad and Tom have long experience on the Board. That shouldn’t be discounted. One of them said that it takes a full term to really understand the job, and I think that’s pretty accurate. I had two years on the board plus more than a decade practicing municipal government law, and I still had a fair amount to learn when my term ended in 2016. On top of experience, Brad’s financial background is something the school will need as the impact of COVID on municipal finance sinks in. Tom knows the school up and down, has great communication skills, and deep connections to Purdue.

Amy is, full disclosure, a close family friend. More significant to a prospective voter would be that she has put a lot of time and effort to working with the school. Those of you who have had students in the district in the last several years might recognize her as “Newsletter Amy” sending out parent council letters. Or maybe you’ve seen her on field trips, volunteering with the backpack program, working to supplement the school breakfast and lunch program when COVID caused some disruptions, organizing class parties, participating in the parent council, or doing any of the other countless things that show a dedication to the school. She’s also terribly smart, and her compassion is seemingly boundless.

Beyond those four, I’ve also come to know Melissa Prochnau reasonably well. If one of the four I’ve already mentioned isn’t your cup of tea for some reason, definitely give Melissa a look. She beat me by four votes in 2016. I’m not going to pretend that a narrow loss didn’t sting a little bit on a personal level, but I can’t say the school has been any worse off for it. I’m President of the West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation and, in that position, I’ve had the pleasure of working with Melissa who is one of the school board appointees to the WLSEF board. In addition, she has four years of experience from having been on the school board and is very active with the schools generally.

Brian Bittner is an incumbent on the board who is on the ballot but has made the decision to withdraw from campaigning. So, I think he’d agree that you shouldn’t vote for him.

As for the remaining nine candidates, I can’t say I know any of them very well if at all. I’m certainly not inclined to disparage any of them, their abilities, or their motives. I will say that I get the sense that the COVID reopening process created a lot of the energy that led to some of the school board runs.

I think the ultimate result of the school’s COVID plan has been pretty good under the circumstances. The initial plan suggested by the school board was met with some anxiety because, as I recall, it did not provide for a virtual option unless there was a health concern and did not mandate masks. The plan came out during the filing window for school board candidates. Communication about the plan and the planning process definitely could have been better, and the initial plan had its deficiencies. But that was never set in stone, and the COVID measures the school ultimately put in place (including virtual classes taught by West Side teachers and masks in the school) seem to be working. In the school’s defense, I think it’s important to note that it wasn’t working in a vacuum. Our knowledge of COVID itself has been a work in progress and the school had to work with or around other federal, state, and local decision makers. So, with respect to that initial plan, the school may be taking heat for issues that were beyond its control at the time.

In any event, I’d caution you not to take my characterization of these issues as complete or necessarily representative of any particular candidate. Check out their websites for more information. But, if you’re looking for my opinion: vote Masson, Austin, Marley, and Schott!

Public Schools and Community

October 2, 2020 by Doug Masson 1 Comment

I’ve written a number of times that I think public schools are important for reasons that are in addition to the education our kids receive. I usually say something like, “they turn us from a collection of individuals into a community.” I think this is true of traditional public schools generally, but maybe more so in the two school systems with which I have the most experience: West Lafayette and Richmond. Basically you have one school corporation for the city that pretty much everyone goes to. (Though, you can make a decent argument that the relevant community is “Tippecanoe County” and there are several different school systems.) In any event, the systems in West Lafayette & Richmond struck me as binding the community together more tightly than in places (like Ohio where I went to college) with high numbers of students going to private schools.

In the abstract, this sense of community comes from the age old tradition of a tribe banding together to provide for its young and, by extension, for its future. We all — whether we have kids or not — pay taxes into the system that are, in turn, used to build schools, pay teachers, run buses, and do everything else that goes into education. We do this because we all have a stake in the education of the community’s children. Back in 1846, Caleb Mills – the father of Indiana education – began his series of “Read, Circulate, Discuss” pamphlets which were ultimately instrumental in persuading the General Assembly to adopt a program of general education for the State. Part of his argument had to do with the benefit to the community at large. He argued that “the rich land-holder [is] interested, to the full amount of his property, in the intellectual and moral character of the community in which it is located” and that the value of the property is enhanced by “the intelligence and virtue,” and lessened by the “ignorance and vice of the surrounding neighborhood.” The merchant and the manufacturer benefit from operating in an “intelligent and virtuous” community rather than in one that is comprised of “ignorant and vicious” people. “We can better meet the expense of the proper education of the rising generation, than endure the consequences resulting from the neglect of it.” Self-interest aside, Mills also argued that the mere fact that we all would be paying for schools would cause us, whether we have children or not, to take an interest in them. In his second address published in 1847, Mills advocated:

Awaken the public mind, and concentrate it on the question, “Am I not interested in the proper education of all that are socially and politically connected with me?“ The bearings of such a question have not been duly considered. It needs to be discussed and examined. We are a shrewd people where dollars and cents are concerned. Many have never taken that view of their duty, and when it has been presented to them have frankly acknowledged that they have never thought of it in that light. Does not the Farmer derive as large a percent upon what he expends in the education of his children, as from any investment he can make of his funds? Does the amount which he pays to sustain a good school for the instruction of all the children in the district or township in which he lives, never find its way back again to him in the improved character of the community for intelligence, enterprise, and morals? Is not real estate in such a community more valuable, capital more productive, and enterprise more intelligent and successful? Would not the general thrift and prosperity caused by this intellectual and moral elevation, lighten public burdens, increase social enjoyments, enhance the value of property, multiply the facilities for its acquisition, and increase the security of its possession? Such cultivation could not fail to diminish pauperism and crime, lessen poverty and suffering, throw around the gardens, orchards, and the products of the field, an enclosure that would never be passed, improve the highways, and materially increase the substantial comforts and conveniences of the house, the farm, and the implements of husbandry.

All of that’s true, and I’m certainly not going to try to second guess Caleb Mills. But the way I experience the community created by our schools is a little more direct. For me, it’s also high-fiving the people next to me (or complaining together about a blown call) at the football and basketball games. It’s talking to neighbors while we sit in the yard watching the Homecoming Parade. Back when the kids were younger, it was chatting with other parents outside the school to walk the kids home and getting to know the younger siblings or maybe the dogs; driving to and from field trips with those other parents. It’s the band events, it’s watching the kids I coached in the rec leagues play on the high school soccer team. Hosting a bunch of my kids’ friends for movie night. Eating lo mein and strudel at “One Community, Many Cultures” after listening to kids rapping in French or playing a Spanish horn number. Being a practice judge with other parents for the “We the People” civics competition. Reading in the paper about your how your friend’s kid did at the volleyball match. Maybe a night at the theater watching the school play. And I know my experiences are just the tip of the iceberg. Before COVID, I was taken by how much the high school, in particular, was a hive of activity for something like 16 hours a day. Clearly there is way more going on than even the long list of things I was experiencing.

Seeing that kids get a solid education is obviously first and foremost on my mind when I think of the schools. And, the abstract public good of the type Mills talks about is vitally important. But schools also provide that “third place” where members of the community can get together, share experiences, and form a common bond. That makes West Lafayette a better place to live. If I am elected to the school board, I will be mindful of this aspect of our school and work to preserve and promote its value as a source of community.