Andrea Keck

About once a week someone comments on social media that only parents with children currently attending school in the Scottsdale Unified School District should serve on its Governing Board. They say people who don’t have children in SUSD schools “don’t have any skin in the game.”

Every single adult in the SUSD community, no matter their age or family status, has an obligation to the youth of our community — to see that they graduate with the academic and life skills needed to be successful in the next step on their path to becoming happy, productive, self-supporting members of our society.

It is our collective moral obligation as members of society. And therefore by this most important criteria, every adult in the Scottsdale school district — even those whose children are grown — certainly has “skin in the game” of our public education system.

Approximately 85% of the households in Scottsdale do not have children age 6-17. That’s approximately 16,000 households with K-12 children, and almost 100,000 households without. (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey S1101 Households and Families 2019: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables).

Yet all of these people (except those not part of SUSD) pay property taxes — directly as homeowners or indirectly as renters — to support SUSD schools. This includes the increased property taxes levied through bonds and overrides, the proceeds of which also go to SUSD.

In 2019, 77% of per pupil revenues in SUSD came from local, not state or federal, sources. So these 85% of households clearly have significant amounts of “skin in the game.” As the major funders they are certainly entitled to a voice in and oversight of the district’s operations, not to mention a decent return on their investment by graduating students proficient in the skills needed to succeed (English, Math, Science, etc.).

Based on these numbers, one could argue that in fact the opposite should be true — parents without children in the district should have more representation on the board than those with school-age children. After all, they outnumber them roughly 6 to 1. I’m clearly not advocating for this, but it is a logical rebuttal to the “only parents” mentality.

Those who advocate cutting out empty-nesters are essentially saying “We want your money, but we don’t want you to have a voice.” This certainly seems more than a little disingenuous. By this logic, perhaps then only households with school-age children should pay for the schools. How would that go over?

Again, I’m clearly not advocating for this, but it is a logical progression of the “only parents” argument.

Something mysterious doesn’t happen to a parent’s ability to understand the needs of and advocate for young people once their last child graduates from high school. In fact, one could argue that as they watch their children/grandchildren move through college, first-jobs, careers, etc. they gain a better understanding of what their elementary and secondary schools did well and what the schools could have done to better serve their children. This perspective is important. The strongest teams are made up of people of differing backgrounds, expertise, and viewpoints; not all from the same situation.

There is no doubt that parents with school age children have the biggest personal stake during the vital K-12 years. That said, however, discounting the value of the remaining 85% of Scottsdale’s population disregards the passion, expertise, breadth of knowledge, and available time many of these individuals can offer to SUSD.

These residents most certainly do have significant “skin in the game.” And thus certainly do deserve representation on the SUSD Governing Board.

Learn more about my platform and qualifications to serve on the SUSD Governing Board at VoteAndreaSUSD.com.

Editor’s Note: Andrea Keck is a Scottsdale resident; she has filed paperwork to campaign to be a candidate for the Scottsdale Schools Governing Board race next November.