Do you think it's appropriate for a school district to own a house that the students in no way benefit from?

Question

I just found out my children's tiny little run-down country school owns a house nearby. The high school principle was living there until last year (for free I'm assuming). His daughter moved in after he moved out and then 2 months later, the superintendent told the principle's daughter to move out so that HIS daughter could move in. This really p*sses me off! Here my kids are going to a school that has nasty carpet in the rooms and hallways, lockers that are falling off the hinges, a gradeschool and gym that leaks every time it rains, and several other things I could easily mention. And they own a house that could be sold to pay for the needed repairs and upgrades. I'm just furious. I'm going to go to the next school board meeting. But I'm just wondering if anyone thinks this is appropriate and if the state (Oklahoma) could legally allow them to charge tax payers to keep a home that none of the children even come close to benefiting from.

In response to ecolink:

Yes, many churches DO provide houses for their clergy. But churches are a totally different entity than schools. Churches are non-profit and set their own rules. Schools should NOT be allowed to own real estate that does not DIRECTLY benefit that students in my opinion.

Answer 1

Before you go the the school board, find out for sure if the people in question have been living there for free. If the district allows administrators to live there instead of having higher pay (many churches do this), then the administrators are actually paying part of their salary for the privilege. If the school district makes money from the house, then it benefits the students. The whole situation sounds like it should be looked into.

Answer 2

of coarse not if they cant sell it they sould use it for some classrooms!! and isnt it not legal for people to live in it and not pay.