At the June 1^st meeting of the Plano school board, a private citizen, Rev. Timothy Soh, presented some information comparing PISD’s per pupil spending to that of other large districts in Texas. Plano’s spending topped the list. Consequently, Trustee Gary Base challenged Soh's credibility, questioned his sources, and dismissed his conclusions with something less than the courtesy called for by the board's own operating protocol.

Soh’s source was the Performance Reporting Division of the Texas Education Agency. This agency makes available on its website the annual "Snapshot," based on information submitted by the districts themselves. Despite that, Base continued to insist, in a follow-up e-mail, that it is up to private citizens like Soh to verify whether or not the government is being dishonest or inaccurate. That’s a bizarre point of view, especially coming from a man elected to do the job he now demands of his constituents.

Also claiming that the numbers were inaccurate, Associate Superintendent Jim Damm nevertheless offered this defense of Soh: it was TEA’s fault. Damm’s assertion, reported in the Plano Star-Courier, has been disputed by TEA, which states that it publishes all data exactly as submitted by the districts.

The number in dispute was per pupil operational spending, reported at $6,198 by the TEA. Damm claims that overstates actual spending by about $500, because it includes Recapture (Robin Hood), which is not included in other district’s reports. Base leapt on the discrepancy, concluding that this must account for the $470 by which Plano’s instructional spending exceeds the statewide average for large districts.

Yet a closer examination of available figures confirms Soh’s basic point. Regardless of the source used, Plano’s instructional spending remains well above the statewide average for districts with more than 25,000 students. Even Jim Damm has not disputed that PISD’s total operational spending, per pupil, exceeds that of every other large district in the state.

Focusing on PISD’s reporting deficiencies, or blaming discrepancies on the citizens who make the mistake of believing school district reports, is easier than answering the indisputable substance of Soh’s presentation. In business, one would expect PISD’s size to result in certain efficiencies, economies of scale, that would lower our per pupil spending, without compromising quality. No such economies are apparent, and school board members should be asking why, not lashing out at citizens who ask the question for them.

Despite Gary Base’s contention that it is up to individual citizens to verify government reports, we ought to be able to rely on our elected representatives for that. In PISD, we’ve got seven elected representatives. Seven people who are supposed to represent the people, not rebuke them. Seven people who are supposed to understand budget details, not issue blanket denials. Seven people who are supposed to care more about doing what’s right than proving us wrong.