Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #163

By

Ballotpedia staff

Welcome to Hall Pass, a newsletter written to keep you plugged into the conversations driving  school board governance, the politics surrounding it, and education policy. 

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues: The debate over partisan school board elections 
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • School board authority across the 50 states series (Week 2): What constrains school board authority?
  • U.S. Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of Maryland parents who wished to opt their children out of elementary school lessons with LGBTQ themes
  • Extracurricular: education news and numbers from around the web
  • Candidate Connection survey

Reply to this email to share reactions or story ideas!

On the issues: The debate over partisan school board elections

In this section, we curate reporting, analysis, and commentary on the issues school board members deliberate when they set out to offer the best education possible in their district. Missed an issue? Click here to see the previous education debates we’ve covered.

Indiana Senate Bill 287 took effect July 1. The new law requires school board candidates to list a party affiliation—Republican, Democrat, Independent, or nonpartisan—on the general election ballot. We covered SB 287 in detail in the June 11 edition of Hall Pass. 

Indiana is the fifth state to require candidates for school board to run in partisan elections, along with Alabama, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. Five states—Georgia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee—allow for both partisan and nonpartisan elections, depending on the district.

James Briggs writes that partisan school board elections will attract aspiring politicians who will have priorities outside of routine budgeting, administration, and governance. Briggs says partisan school board elections will politicize schools, creating unnecessary controversies.

Jonathan Bechtle writes that political affiliations help voters make more informed decisions. Bechtle says nonpartisan elections hide partisanship, mislead voters, and fail to ensure ideological neutrality. 

Indiana is turning school boards into a farm system for wannabe politicians | Opinion | James Briggs, Indianapolis Star

“Indiana appears to be on a path toward adopting partisan school board elections. In doing so, we’re creating a new farm system for wannabe career politicians to train for higher offices. That’s going to be good for their careers — and bad for schools. … [T]here is no evidence that declared party affiliation has improved school governance in other states that have adopted it. Instead, it has made school boards more attractive career opportunities for ambitious political junkies set on trolling their way to the top. Those candidates aren’t likely to be satiated by routine school board business, so they’ll have to create drama and controversies. … Partisan school boards aren’t a sky-is-falling moment for public education in Indiana. But they will lead to cases in which people with relevant subject matter expertise are replaced with unqualified political hacks who’ve trusted internet articles about furries in schools. As with all things touched by politics, our school boards are going to get dumber.”

Partisan school board elections boost turnout and are popular with voters | Jonathan Bechtle, The Center Square

“[I]t’s not always easy to see who the best choice would be to lead my kids’ district. Part of the reason is that Indiana school board races have been deemed non-partisan, meaning that party affiliations are removed from the ballot for candidates for school board. … Non-partisan elections do not remove politics from local elections. Rather, they mislead and silence voters, as non-partisan candidates are not apolitical. In fact, many of them are often more politically polarized than candidates who declare their party affiliation. Voters have just been kept in the dark about their political beliefs. Very few voters have the time or the energy to do extensive research on the candidates they will see on their ballot, especially those at the bottom of the ballot. In fact, selecting a candidate for governor is much easier for most voters than selecting a school board candidate simply because they can look at the ballot, see the candidates’ party affiliations, and select the candidate that most closely aligns with their own worldview. All too often, voters skip voting in school board races simply because this critical information is hidden from them.”

School board update: filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications

In 2025, Ballotpedia will cover elections for more than 30,000 school board seats. We’re expanding our coverage each year with our eye on covering the country’s more than 80,000 school board seats.    

School board authority across the 50 states series (Week 2): What constrains school board authority?

Welcome back to our eight-week series on the scope of school board authority. Last week, we introduced you to the research project that inspired and informs this series and outlined the schedule for the next seven weeks. This week, we will discuss more generally the limits that school boards face when establishing district policy and where those limits originate.

The K-12 public school system comprises more than 13,000 districts and 80,000 school board members. State constitutions and statutes establish school boards and broadly define their authority. Court rulings, union agreements, and other sources further limit school board policy-making authority. 

Though school board powers and responsibilities vary from state to state, and sometimes district to district, school board members generally establish district policy, manage and approve the district budget, hire and evaluate the superintendent, advocate for students, meet with the community, establish the vision for the district, and provide metrics for accountability. 

A list of common constraints on school board policy-making authority includes: 

  • State laws commonly restrict or mandate school board policies on certain topics. These include Parents’ Bills of Rights, versions of which are law in least 26 states. These laws limit the policies school boards are allowed to pass. Most state statutes include curricular topic requirements, including for math and reading. Requirements can vary by state, though. In Idaho, state law requires districts to offer computer science classes to high school students. Districts in Oklahoma are required to offer mental health instruction to students.
  • State rules, guidance, and funding incentives can constrain, mandate, or influence school board policies. These include regulations from state education commissions and superintendents, executive orders from governors, or grant conditions.
  • Federal and state court rulings can dictate whether school district policies are compatible with state or federal law. Rulings such as Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) require districts to allow parents to opt their children out of certain instruction.
  • The federal government, largely through Congress or the U.S. Department of Education, can put forward regulations or guidance that influence district policy or make funding contingent on certain policies. President Donald Trump (R) has issued at least 13 executive orders related to education since taking office in January. Some of those orders reversed ones that President Joe Biden (D) signed while he was in office. 
  • Collective bargaining agreements between school districts and teacher unions can create contractual constraints on the policies school boards can pass. They can require certain teacher salaries or mandate certain aspects of the school calendar. 
  • State school board associations can influence school board policy or, in some cases. enter into contracts with school boards that can limit school board policy.

Tune in next week to read about how school board authority over charter schools differs by state. Click here to explore our research project hub.

U.S. Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of Maryland parents who wished to opt their children out of elementary school lessons with LGBTQ themes

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) released its final set of rulings for the 2024-25 term, including in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Mahmoud, SCOTUS’ final K-12 education-related case of the term, concerns religious exercise rights and elementary school education on gender and sexuality. 

SCOTUS decided four cases this term that directly affected K-12 public schools. You can learn more about those cases at the end of this story. 

Here’s what happened

In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS sided with a group of Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents within the Montgomery County Public Schools district who had sued the board of education over its policies of declining to notify elementary school parents of upcoming lessons with LGBTQ themes and allow students to opt out of class during those periods. The majority ruled the policies violated the parents’ right to the free exercise of their religion. 

History of the case

In 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools, seeking instructional material that reflected the backgrounds of more students in the district, added several books with LGBTQ themes to its English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum for kindergarten through fifth grade. The additions included titles such as Pride Puppy and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope. 

Initially, the board stated parents would receive notifications about any lessons featuring the books and could choose to opt their students out of those discussions. However, the board later reversed course, stating teachers could not accommodate opt-out requests without disrupting the learning environment. The board also said the opt-out requests could stigmatize LGBTQ students or their families. 

A group of Maryland families sued the district in March 2023, arguing the board’s elimination of notification and opt-out options violated state and federal law.

Maryland law requires districts to allow students to opt out of sexual education classes. The board said the law did not apply because the books with LGBTQ+ themes are part of the ELA curriculum—not health education. 

In 2024, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the parents had not demonstrated that the “storybooks are being implemented in a way that directly or indirectly coerces the parents or their children to believe or act contrary to their religious faith.”

SCOTUS agreed to hear the case on Jan. 17. 

What the majority ruled

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which Justices John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh signed onto. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.

Alito said that the families were likely to succeed in demonstrating that the board’s policy not to allow opt-outs and parental notifications placed a substantial burden on their right to the free exercise of religion. Alito wrote that so long as the board maintained the policy, the families would “continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services.” 

Alito disagreed with the board’s claim that the books simply exposed students to gay, lesbian, and transgender characters, pointing to questions used in the selection process that included ones like “Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?” Alito said the books advanced a perspective that “certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

Alito drew heavily on SCOTUS’ 1972 case Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the court ruled that the state of Wisconsin could not compel Amish children to attend school beyond the 8th grade. The court found that the state’s compulsory attendance laws unduly burdened the Amish parents’ right to the free exercise of religion, which included directing their children’s religious upbringing. 

What the dissent said

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Elena Kagan and Kantanji Brown Jackson joined. 

Sotomayor said the majority’s ruling strikes at the heart of the public school system: “[T]hat children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.”

Sotomayor argued that SCOTUS has never held that exposure to ideas or materials with which one disagrees constitutes a First Amendment violation. In response to the majority’s reliance on Yoder, Sotomayor reasoned the problem in that case was that the law “compelled Amish parents to do what their religion forbade: send their children away rather than integrate them into the Amish community at home.” Yoder, according to Sotomayor, had nothing to do with exposing Amish children to beliefs contrary to their religion, rendering the majority’s argument immaterial to the Mahmoud case. 

Faulting the majority for articulating no principle that would allow districts or courts to determine if school material burdens a family’s religious beliefs, Sotomayor wrote that Mahmoud will “impose impossible administrative burdens on schools” and encourage districts to “censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections.”

Reactions

  • Interfaith Alliance President and CEO Paul Brandeis Raushenbush said, “Simply allowing children to learn the fundamental reality that LGBTQ people exist in the world, and to learn about their perspectives and experiences does not infringe on anyone’s First Amendment rights. True religious freedom is about diversity and tolerance – communities learning to live peacefully and respectfully alongside each other despite our differences.” 
  • Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said, “In line with American history, tradition, and judicial precedent, the court affirmed that school officials cannot act like their job is to replace parents and their beliefs. Our Constitution forbids schools from indoctrinating children with uniform views on sexuality and gender—hotly debated topics—in conflict with their families’ religious beliefs. We applaud the court’s protection of parents’ right to choose what’s best for their children’s education.”

What happens next

SCOTUS returned the case to the 4th Circuit and required ​​Montgomery County Public Schools to provide opt-out options and advance notifications to parents while litigation continues in the case.

Other K-12 education cases this term

Along with Mahmoud, the other K-12 education cases the court ruled on this term are:

Click here to learn more about SCOTUS’ October 2024-2025 term. 

Extracurricular: education news from around the web

This section contains links to recent education-related articles from around the internet. If you know of a story we should be reading, reply to this email to share it with us! 

Take our Candidate Connection survey to reach voters in your district

Today, we’re looking at survey responses from two candidates running in August school board elections. 

Susan Hughes is running in the Aug. 5 primary for Lake Washington School District school board District 3, alongside Aiya Kravi and Angela Meekhof. As of this writing, only Hughes has completed the survey. The two candidates with the most votes will advance to a Nov. 4 general election.

The Lake Washington School District, located northeast of Seattle, is the second largest in the state, with approximately 30,000 students.

Sarah McMillen is running in the Aug. 5 primary for Wichita Public Schools Board of Education District 1. Incumbent Diane Albert, Mackenzi Truelove, and Kyle Wiseman are also running. McMillen is the only candidate who has completed the survey. The two candidates with the most votes will advance to a Nov. 4 general election.

Wichita Public Schools is the largest district in Kansas, with roughly 46,000 students. 

Here’s how Hughes answered the question, “What strategies or plans would you advance to ensure the schools are properly funded?”

“If the state continues not to wholly fund education, levies or bonds are used. I think the community does not feel informed. Part of this lands on the individuals in the community and part lands on the school district to reach the stakeholders who vote to approve the levies. It is extremely important to get buy-in from the voting public and you can only do this through communication methods such as media. An informed public is a strong public.”

Click here to read the rest of McMillen’s responses. 

Here’s how McMillen answered the question, “What strategies or plans would you advance to ensure the schools are properly funded?”

“I will advocate at the state and federal level. Whether it is through networking, offering opportunities for the community to learn why bonds are essential, providing testimony at committee hearings, pushing for funding that is already allotted for the schools, or through amicus briefs, I would advocate at all levels for school funding. I would also initiate conversations on why fully funded schools benefit everyone in society with those at the community and legislative levels to help obtain their support.”

Click here to read the rest of McMillen’s responses.