Congratulations to those in charge of San Francisco schools. Through massive incompetence, irresponsibility, greed, corruption, and duplicity, they have made the case for choice in education far more eloquently than even Milton Friedman and William Bennett.

San Francisco education bosses—the term “leaders” is hardly appropriate—have proved that the public education system is not just broken but unreformable. And they did so in a way that proved truly enlightening.

They made the case that San Francisco schools needed fixing through four voter-approved bond and tax measures since 1988, and raised $337 million, more than a quarter billion dollars. That is a lot of money by any standard.

As it was presented to voters, it was all for the kids, who need good, safe schools. The trouble is, local school bosses spent about $100 million of it on other projects, including non-teaching salaries, travel, and equipment. In a meaningful sense, they spent it on themselves.

Some of the projects for which the bond money was earmarked were not finished or even started. Those in charge at the time are long gone, including superintendents Ramon Cortines, now chancellor of New York City Schools, and Waldemar “Bill” Rojas, now plying his trade in Dallas. A superb, Pulitzer-quality investigative series in the San Francisco Chronicle provided the only true oversight of this travesty. The reporters have crunched the numbers and detailed the squads of cronies and fast-buck artists, some of whom are under investigation for fraud.

Though technically in charge, the San Francisco Board of Education proved unable to prevent this massive rip-off. When even a cover-up campaign and missing or destroyed documents could not prevent the awful truth from emerging, the board came up with statements full of trap doors and escape hatches. “I was not aware that there was significant overspending,” board vice-president Dan Kelly told reporters.

When she learned of the facts, Delaine Eastin, California’s superintendent of education, told reporters that “this is a grave injustice against the children of San Francisco.” While true, Eastin and her vaunted Department of Education, supposedly the guardians of educational quality in California, proved incapable of preventing any of the injustice. Equally ineffective was John Mockler, executive director of the State Board of Education, which makes sense because he is an embodiment of the system.

While in the legislature, Mockler wrote much of the state’s current education code. Later, as a lobbyist, he represented key players in the education industry. Then he conveniently moved to the other side of the table, to his current position. Truly, the government education monopoly is a cozy and profitable place for a select few, as the San Francisco quagmire confirms. Consider, for example, the $1,000-a-day consulting contract, paid out of bond funds, under which Timothy Tronson served as head of the SFUSD’s facilities division.

Unlike Delaine Eastin, Mr. Mockler issued no condemnation of what had transpired in San Francisco. But he warned that voters might be wary of trusting the San Francisco district again. They should indeed be wary. Current superintendent Arlene Ackerman believes that more money will fix the problems, and wants the voters to approve yet another bond issue. But this district does not deserve more money, which would not fix the problems and only invites more corruption.

The root cause is a rigid system that transfers billions in tax dollars directly to a bureaucracy, which decides how and where to spend the money, and where children will attend school. Under this system, reform boils down to single idea. Whatever the problem, more money will fix it. As San Francisco shows, they have had the money, plenty of it, but it hasn’t fixed anything. But it has lined plenty of pockets.

Every time there is a ballot measure for school choice, the education establishment reacts with fevered claims that if choice prevails, the children will fall victim to educational con artists. San Francisco shows that when choice is rejected, children fall victim to those for whom the status quo is a for-profit system. Only when the dollars follow the scholars, rather than the dictates of self-interested and bureaucrats, will any meaningful change come about.

Meanwhile, the missing $100 million must be fully tracked down and law enforcement should prosecute all misconduct to the full extent of the law. As a matter of simple decency, all members of the San Francisco Board of Education on whose watch this happened should resign. And the voters, especially those whose children go to school here, also have a role to play.

If voters like the waste, irresponsibility, and fraud of the government system, they should demand and approve another bond issue. If instead they want true reform, voters should refuse to spend more money on failure and demand full parental choice in education as a matter of basic civil rights. Until they do, grand theft education will continue fleecing taxpayers and robbing San Francisco’s children of their future.

Examiner columnist Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.