Let Elected School Boards Live!

With so much criticism aimed at elected school board officials, why even bother with elected school boards?

The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in another wave of doubt in an elected school board’s ability to serve its students adequately. Scholars, practitioners, and many voters placed blame for closed schools, low test scores, and social-emotional dysfunction squarely at school boards’ feet. Moreover, critics allege that the pandemic, as well as long standing teacher’s union influence, have rendered the elected school board ineffective and overgrown, a bloated political appendage that prioritizes money and power over student achievement. 

I’m sympathetic to these critiques. It’s difficult to deny that school boards aren’t functioning as well as they could be, and it’s the next generation of Americans who suffer most from school boards’ failures and deficiencies. We can and should do better for kids. As most districts tend to be satisfied with the performance of unelected or appointed leadership, it’s arguable that all school boards should be appointed. 

That said, ripping centuries of predominantly elected school boards apart won’t save kids — if anything, such institutional destruction will only create an even more chaotic learning environment. Each American in every community is a stakeholder in education. Not only do elected school boards have intrinsic value insofar as they directly represent community interests in the school system, but they also allow school boards to reflect the communities they serve.

Elected School Boards and Community Buy-In

Schools, at least in the American tradition, have always been considered community cornerstones. Communities in Puritan Massachusetts were required to support a teacher or a school for the town’s children; schools in small, west Texas towns in the early 20th century hosted a variety of community functions; even today, a high school football game is often a community’s big event for the week. 

Part of the reason why Americans fervently embrace schools as community institutions is because they have a direct voice in school administration. Reformists assume, often implicitly, that the public’s support for their schools will transfer over after a shift in institutional arrangement. But this is not the case. People are more likely to accept a tax if they receive a concomitant say in how their tax dollars will be used. 

Chicago, which has appointed its school board members since 1872, is a prime example of this phenomenon. Though a competent urban district in its early years, community apathy, brought upon by the city’s balkanized neighborhoods, led to Chicago Public Schools being considered one of the worst school districts in the country by the late 1980s. The city began to decentralize its schools in 1990, which facilitated increased community engagement at the neighborhood level. 

This engagement, however, came at a cost for the city government. Chicago’s citizens kept pushing for greater representation, and grassroots pressure eventually forced the state to intervene. Beginning in 2025, Chicago, the exemplar of an appointed school board, will have an elected school board for the first time in its history, despite opposition from the outgoing mayor and numerous educational leaders. 

If we want Americans — parents and non-parents alike — to care about their neighborhood schools, it is necessary that they vote on who runs their neighborhood schools. Otherwise, distrust, frustration, and alienation will cause them to withdraw from the institution entirely, leaving schools bereft of the buy-in required to educate children. 

Normativity and the American Public School

Why is representation so critical to obtaining community buy-in? The reason is that schools, even at a pedagogical level, do much more than simply teach reading and math. 

Reformists often assert that school board voters should make their decisions based on quantitative metrics — test scores, accountability ratings, and long-term student outcomes among them. They contend that because voters generally fail to prioritize measurable academic achievement, we should topple the status quo in favor of a system that prioritizes educational efficiency and efficacy over all else. 

That would be a fair argument if schools existed solely for academic reasons. But throughout history, education has immersed children in their community’s norms, ideals, and culture. If those appointed to a school board have a particular moral framework they wish to impose, marginalized communities have little recourse. That was the case in the late 19th century, as appointed Protestant/Anglo-Saxon school boards used their institutional power to discriminate against Irish Catholic immigrants. 

More recently, we have asked schools to spur children’s social-emotional development, tackle serious issues relating to race, gender, and sexuality, and provide therapeutic services to those in need — all pursuits which hinge on particular normative standpoints that may vary from community to community.

Elected school boards, in their purest form (housing segregation and gerrymandering are legitimate concerns), can reflect all moral standpoints within the education system. Though adults are not public education’s primary beneficiaries, their role in determining a community’s, and therefore a school’s, moral and ethical direction still matters. It’s much easier for an average citizen to reach a school board member than a mayor or governor. As such, elected school boards give citizens a voice they would not otherwise receive. 

Conclusion

There’s no denying that school board elections are imperfect and contentious and often fail to prioritize the students’ best interests. But in a liberal democracy like the United States, the ability to choose who will administer your child’s school is arguably the most important choice of all. 

It’s often claimed that a healthy public education system is vital to democracy’s preservation. If this is so, then we must be willing to allow democracy within public education — even if voters then make choices that are undesirable. Otherwise, the public will not support the system that is meant to prepare them and their children for citizenship.