近距离内射合集

Tom Besson argues in a June 21 Sunday Journal op-ed that Albuquerque Public Schools should drop the word 鈥減ublic鈥� from its name because members of the public cannot freely access school tracks and athletic facilities. While his frustration is understandable, his argument overlooks the primary purpose of public schools and suggests a standard that is not applied to other publicly funded educational institutions in our community.

Taxpayers fund APS to educate children, not to operate public recreation facilities. The mission of APS is to provide educational opportunities for students. School buildings, athletic fields, tracks, playgrounds and other facilities exist to support that mission. While community access can be a worthwhile secondary benefit, it is not the primary reason these facilities were built.

APS also has an ethical and fiduciary responsibility to good stewardship of limited educational resources. Every dollar spent managing public recreational access 鈥� including staffing, scheduling, security, liability coverage and maintenance 鈥� is a dollar that cannot be spent in classrooms on teachers, instructional materials, student support services or school programs. The cost of vandalism cited in the column 鈥� upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars 鈥� demonstrates the real costs associated with maintaining safe learning spaces for our students. Even if runners and walkers were not responsible for the damage, APS is beholden to our students to establish policies that are practical, enforceable and fiscally responsible for the tens of thousands of students who should be prioritized.

Besson鈥檚 argument also overlooks the primary purpose of public schools and applies a standard that is rarely imposed on other publicly funded educational institutions in our community. If taxpayer funding alone creates an obligation for unrestricted public access, then the same expectation should apply to the University of New Mexico and Central New Mexico Community College. Yet few would argue that local running clubs are entitled to open access to university tracks, athletic facilities or student recreation centers simply because taxpayers helped fund them.

Like universities and colleges, APS facilities exist first and foremost to support an educational mission. These institutions routinely establish rules governing who may use their facilities, when they may be used and under what conditions. Such policies are generally accepted as reasonable stewardship of educational resources. APS is doing the same. If the case is to be made that public school tracks and athletic facilities must be freely available for community recreational use, then his argument should include all publicly funded educational institutions 鈥� not just APS.

Finally, the word 鈥減ublic鈥� in public schools refers to whom the institution serves and how it is governed 鈥� not whether every facility is open for unrestricted public access. APS is public because it is funded by taxpayers, governed by elected officials and open to all eligible students. It does not cease being public because it limits access to facilities that are primarily intended to support student learning and school activities.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether APS should create designated community access hours for tracks and fields. That conversation is worth having. But the question is not whether community members would enjoy access to school facilities. The question is whether a school district鈥檚 primary responsibility is to provide recreational opportunities for the general public or to educate children.

APS appears to have answered that question correctly. While community access may be desirable when circumstances permit, the district鈥檚 first obligation is to students, educational outcomes and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

H.C. Meyer is an educator and data analyst with graduate degrees in educational psychology and public administration from the University of New Mexico.