The Butler School Board made a mistake in its tacit endorsement of one driver's education program over another. The district said its reason for replacing the D.I.A.N.A. (Driving in a New America) driving school with the Elias Driving School as the driver's education program that is allowed to rent space for the classroom portion of its program was a cost-saving move.

But by not evaluating the effectiveness of the two competing driver's education schools and talking with past customers of the schools, the board performed a disservice to the young drivers and parents of the district. The $10 cost difference involved should not have been the deciding factor as to which driver's education program is allowed to rent classroom space from the district.

While it's true that young drivers and their parents can still seek out and do business with D.I.A.N.A., the displaced instructional program, the district's plan to allow only the Elias program to rent classroom space can be seen as an endorsement of one driver's education program over the other.

One board member's comment that the overriding concern was to save parents and students money, when the price difference is just $10, sounds absurd.

The cost argument is not plausible because $10 is not a significant cost difference, and because the Butler School Board has recently acted as if costs to taxpayers do not matter.

This is the same school board that earlier this year approved an early bird contract with teachers, awarding annual pay increases far more generous than most taxpayers will see in their paychecks. This also is the board that did not ask teachers to increase their contributions for health care coverage — from a meager $20 per month for individuals and $30 per month for families.

Trimming those raises by 50 percent and doubling or tripling the health care contributions would have represented real cost savings, and still left teachers with a generous package compared with most other workers.

And now the school board takes action to save $10 — not even for every taxpayer, but just parents or students who contract with a driver's education program that happens to rent classroom space from the district.

The classroom space currently is at the intermediate high school but, according to Michael Strutt, a district assistant superintendent, there's the possibility that might change once Elias takes over at the start of the 2009-10 school year.

The classroom instruction might take place at the senior high school, continue at the intermediate building, or move between the buildings.

When looking at this issue, it must be acknowledged that both D.I.A.N.A. and Elias are businesses. And neither is operating as part of the school curriculum under the district's control.

The move by the Elias program to displace D.I.A.N.A. was motivated by business concerns. And, because Elias has decades-long connections to the district, the board's move raises the issue of favoritism.

But, for many parents who came to the school board's meeting Monday, and others who wrote letters to the editor supporting D.I.A.N.A., the issue is more emotional. They argued that driver's education is about quality of instruction and the safety of young people behind the wheel. In the case of D.I.A.N.A. and its creator and owner, Kevin Lenz, there is the added factor or passion for teen driving safety that comes from the death of Lenz's daughter, Diana, in a 1999 traffic accident.

Letter writers supporting Lenz made a good point in suggesting that the school district offer to rent classrooms to both driving schools, and let parents and their young prospective drivers decide which program they think is best. In response, the district's solicitor said that the law does not permit the district to rent space to both programs.

If true, that makes little sense, and deserves to be challenged.

Parents and young drivers still can choose D.I.A.N.A., but having a driving school's classroom work offered at the district's senior high or intermediate high school campus by Elias is certainly a convenience and can be seen as a competitive advantage.

The school board should have given this issue more consideration and found a way to allow both driver's education programs to rent space, and allow parents and their young drivers the chance to pick the program they prefer. The two competing programs should operate on equal competitive footing as far as the school district is concerned.

Favoring one program over the other because of a $10 price difference is questionable. The district should have found a way for each program to be equally accessible.