Survival instinct

The natural tendency of a bureaucracy, notes Auburn professor Paul M. Johnson in his “Glossary of Political Economic Terms,” is to “protect or extend its operating autonomy and discretion in decision-making in the area of its assigned responsibilities.”

In other words, to protect its turf and expand its domain. For a local example of this phenomenon, look no further than the Clark County School Board.

On Wednesday, the seven-member board voted unanimously to urge policymakers to tap the brakes on a district reorganization plan intended to transfer more authority to principals and decentralize the administration. The vote was no surprise — the proposal, passed during the 2016 Legislature, would erode the board’s power.

“There are,” the board’s position statement reads, “significant educational, financial and legal issues that must be addressed prior to the proposed plan being finalized and implemented.”

This is a revelation? Of course there are major issues that need to be addressed for the plan to become reality. That’s true of any ambitious reform.

Lawmakers have been pushing to fracture the nation’s fifth largest school district for more than a year. Where has the School Board been on the matter?

The board’s reluctance to embrace change flies in the face of reality. District test scores remain abysmal when it come to English and math proficiency. Recently released ACT results reveal that fewer than 10 percent of local high school juniors have the reading, math, English and science skills necessary to handle college-level work.

The status quo is simply unacceptable.

“I’m dismayed, to say the least, that this process has been going since October, [but] we have not heard if trustees have opposition,” Stephen Augspurger, head of the school administrators union, told the panel. “You unfortunately — and I say this with all due respect — have chosen to remain on the sidelines. Your input was valuable. You didn’t come forward with it.”

The board’s paralysis notwithstanding, member skepticism over the restructuring is nothing more than a survival mechanism. After all, a good case can be made that once the reorganization has been implemented, the board as it now exists should be eliminated and replaced with multiple panels each serving the smaller, autonomous subdistricts.