this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
825 points (99.2% liked)
Not The Onion
21182 readers
1321 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thats what you get when you choose your leaders by popularity contest. That wouldn't be appropriate even if she was an adult.
how else are you suppose to select school board members? should they be appointed by the town/county or something?
In a sane world, by ability and competence
As defined by our able and competent political leaders? Ha ha ha.
How do you assess that exactly? What are the qualifications or objective measurements of competence as a school board member?
And furthermore, according to whom? your personal assessment in particular?
There isn't a single right answer to that and I'm not going to suggest there is.
How any organisation operates, be that public or private, is down to the culture of the organisation, and culture comes from people, process, motivation, legislation, and a whole bunch of factors.
If an organisation has a clear mission, is held organisationally accountable in appropriate ways to that mission and makes people feel professionally enriched and valuable, it will attract competent people. And importantly, an organisation full of competent and principled individuals will attract other competent individuals.
On the flip side, if an organisation is subject to decades of mismanagement, has very poor oversight, doesn't reward people for being good at their jobs and in fact rewards the wrong behaviours then exactly the opposite will happen. People who are competent at what they do will either leave or be crushed down, while those who know how to play the bootlicking game will be raised up, and this type of organisation again becomes self-perpetuating.
None of this happens overnight, in either direction. Failure can take years or decades, and so can the reverse.
The issue is that it's self-referential. The org itself gets to define what is good management or bad. Outsides parties, have no say.
And that's how local school boars work. They are local politics and they have very little external oversight, if any at all. Sort of criminal acts, like a board member embezzling school funds, that violate state law, there isn't really much criteria over which they can be held accountable, other than winning votes from their local voters.
I live in Boston. I can harp all I want about a local school board in TN, but the only power I have is over my own local school board here, where I can vote. And man the candidates we have... are usually a mix of nutbags and slightly less nutbags. School board elections tend to attract weirdos more than sensible people, IME.
Better that people vote for metrics than candidates I would suggest, and measure against those. If we gotta vote for questions too, so be it.
By merit??
who judges that merit? how is it defined?
In typical fediverse fashion, the users responding to you have no answer so they get stuck on semantics and counter arguing your question rather than the intent.
I genuinely would like a well thought out response to this too. Would merit be someone with many years of teaching experience? Maybe school administration?
Do those things make that person capable of performing board responsibilities? Do those things preclude them from making creepy remarks (I highly suspect they don't)
For the record, the dude here has been on the board for 12 years, which should be more than enough time to learn the necessary skill set to do the job. Doesn't make him less creepy though.
Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.
But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:
It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.
Get a grip.
Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.
The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.
A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.
But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.
If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.
Since you went generic instead of specific to the circumstance: this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?
It's not like he did this in his first year, or even first few years... At least not that we know of.
The answer is generic ....which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.
Here is an example, as the answer to your question :
Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:
If you want to know if he's the most qualified for the job you also need to:
and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.
If you're going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.
Outside of that example, it can vary.
I shouldn't have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.
My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn't impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.
As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don't think it is.
I hear schools are pretty good at giving people these funny things called "tests" to assess an individual's knowledge on a certain subject. Not only are schools good at testing, I hear there is a WHOLE INDUSTRY built on creating and running them.
You know, they could give those to other people too I'll bet! In fact, I'll bet you can use them to qualify doctors, lawyers, barbers, auto mechanics and all sorts of people!
Oh wait, these are politicians. We shouldn't do that to them. I don't know why, but it just feels wrong. Never mind.
Absolutely! It's just a complete coincidence that the people who the school system is failing are barred from fixing it because in order to pass the test you have to have done well in school. It makes perfect sense.
It's not like the US has a history of refusing to educate people, and then refusing to let them participate in civic matters by gating that access behind tests. The US certainly has never, say, made passing a test a requirement to vote to disenfranchise people.
And we all know that, of course, that any test would be super effective at preventing the abuse the above article is about. You just put the question "are you sexually attracted to children," on the test. That way you'd keep out creeps. And no one would ever lie on a test. That'd be ridiculous.
I don't know why people are disagreeing. It's a perfect system!
How about a polygraph test/examination. I understand they are known to be inaccurate sometimes. I doubt someone could suppress their deeply held lifelong urges enough to fool one with a question about their sexual desires.
Setting aside the fact that polygraphs are pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that don't work in any meaningful capacity, and the results of which are really just the vibes of the person running it (with all of their bigotry/biases on full display.)
The bigger issue is that there are over thirteen thousand school districts in the US. If each school board is four people on average, that's over fifty thousand people you'd have to do polygraphs for. And that's if all you wanted to do was school boards.
Trying to get all of those people polygraphs would be an absolute logistical nightmare. There aren't that many polygraphers out there.
And we shouldn't be legitimizing polygraphs anyway. They have time and time again been shown to be absolute bunk, and to discriminate against people with issues like anxiety (or really, anyone who gets agitated when you accuse them of something). The only people who can reliably pass polygraphs are sociopaths, which feels like the opposite of what you want to be selecting for here.
So your general point is a concern. Who can you trust to make the judgement. But that doesn't mean you should just toss up your hands either. As was pointed out, tests of various sorts could be done and the results presented to the voters so that they have more to go on than the number of lawn signd they have seen for a person. The write ups in the guides are nearly pointless. They can say anything they want in there. For a person running for reelection, their voting record would be nice to give voters easy access to. There are lots of ways to present the voters with objective information so that they can choose based on thier preferences. But none of that happens today.
it's a democratically elected position.
the judgement is the judgement voters of that district.
do you vote in your own local school board elections? I do, and yeah you vote based on the person's policy stated positions. however, just because I do that, doesn't mean lots of candidates I don't vote for, don't get elected and push policies I don't agree with... because they get more votes than the candidates I vote for did.
Also, why do you assume that the voters in this school district, don't want this guy? He may very well be who they think is best for the job. If you don't live in this district... you don't get to vote for the school board there.
As a voter, I have found that there is a significant lacking of useful information to make a decision on. I put in a fair bit of effort and often feel like I have nowhere near enough. And that is how the politicians want it. That way the majority of voters to have very little information of substance to go on. That way they can win on charisma. And they don't have to do anything positive for the voters to move up. They just have to please the political powers in the area to get endorsements, campaign help, and straight up donations so they can move to the next level. But when it comes to school boards. Most won't move to the next level. But they take advantage of the way the system is set up to get elected. They probably even believe that their opinions are the will of the voter, when the voter barely knows anything about their real opinions.