It's not, and it's just starting. Arizona likes to see itself as the maverick state, but business is business and it's all about the bottom line.

Apparently the boycott is spreading - to girls basketball teams.

That's a great way to gain support and protest the AZ law. :rolleyes:

What I like especially about the BBC online news is that they have sections in their articles that explain things. Like if it's a story about Arizona's new law, there will sometimes be a box in the article titled "What is the new Arizona law?" and they'll give you 101 intro to it. I like that.

Reason #263 that the phrase "Texas State Board of Education" is an oxymoron: Texas school board member Dunbar, who home-schools her children and says sending them to local schools would be like “throwing them in the enemy’s flames"...

source

Shouldn't it be mandatory that a board member have a child in the public system?

There's some awful stuff in that article, but this jumped out at me.

Wow.

They're usually a position that's voted on so if the public wants someone in who's kid isn't in the school that's up to them.

My hometown I think two of the school board members had kids who went to a private christian school. They voted to segregate sex ed - because you know what'll happen if you teach boys and girls about sex in the same room? They had to hire more teachers it was lame.

Mandatory? No. But as a general qualification for who I might prefer people vote into the office I'd put, "Not a self-professed enemy of the very institution they are campaigning to lead," high on my list. I can certainly understand someone who homeschools their kid, but would want to improve the public system. But that is clearly not board member Dunbar's goal.

From her point of view it seems to be. She's keeping her kids out of it until it has been changed into an institution more to here approval.

And no, being a parent of a child in a district should not be a requirement. Being a parent does not grant magic insight into the task of education. In fact, I could see it being viewed as a conflict of interest. Kind of like saying you have to own an oil well before you can be on a mineral resources board.

I see it more as having a stake in the success of the schools.

Sure, it creates that. But so does owning an oil well. Having a more personal stake does not inherently make your intentions (or capabilities) better. Why not require principals to have a child in the same school?

What is unique about education that having a personal stake in policy making would be a good thing where we consider it, at best, a neutral thing and frequently a bad thing in pretty much all other areas of policy making.

I'd be much happier if Texas elected E.O. Wilson to establish a biology curriculum than the local pastor who has 14 kids in the various public schools.