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 the ADL in classrooms  
• School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
• School board authority across the 50 states series (Week 5): How statewide curriculum prohibitions affect school board authority
• University of Oregon review finds the four-day school week has mixed to negative effects on student outcomes
• Extracurricular: education news from around the web
• Candidate Connection survey

Reply to this email to share reactions or story ideas!

On the issues: The debate over the Anti-Defamation League in classrooms

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.

Members of the National Education Association’s (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers union, voted in early July to recommend the organization “not use, endorse or publicize materials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).” On July 18, NEA President Becky Pringle announced the board of directors and executives had voted against adopting the resolution.

The ADL says its mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” The ADL provides materials to teachers and administrators, including its schoolwide No Place for Hate program. 

Rebecca Kotok and Brenda Green write that the ADL’s No Place for Hate program has been successful in helping to prevent hate and bias in schools. They say the NEA’s vote hurts students and teachers, and sends a message that Jewish voices are less important than others. 

Marcy Winograd writes that the ADL’s materials promote pro-Israel propaganda, equating disapproval of Israel’s actions in Gaza with antisemitism. Winograd says schools should reject the ADL’s one-size-fits-all program and work with their own communities to develop activities and material to combat hate and structural racism.  

We’re Jewish schoolteachers — our union’s vote against the ADL attacks us too | Rebecca Kotok and Brenda Green, New York Post

“That’s why we were appalled by the NEA’s recent decision to adopt a measure that would prohibit use of educational materials from the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL’s ‘No Place for Hate’ program, a student-led program aimed at fostering schools free from hate and bias, has been implemented in more than 2,000 schools across the country. It has made a measurable, positive impact on school climate. As educators, we often speak about fostering ‘safe learning environments.’ The ADL is actually providing a framework for teachers, students, and administrators to do that work. Let’s be clear: The ADL is not merely an organization that combats antisemitism — though that alone would be reason enough to support its work. It is an organization that stands against all forms of hate: racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia and more. … Instead, this decision to boycott a group that has supported educators and students for decades is a distraction that divides us and weakens our collective moral clarity.”

Schools Are No Place for the ADL | Marcy Winograd, Common Dreams

“For all its political correctness—the curriculum’s emphasis on pronouns and respect for non-binary identities—at the end of the school day No Place for Hate personifies the mythical character of the shapeshifter as it lures school districts into checking off the anti-bias box while surrendering authority to the controversial Anti-Defamation League. Sure, the program offers banners draped across hallways, pledges and to-do lists, even sage advice now and then, but the pretty package turns ugly once fully opened and scrutinized for its pro-Israel indoctrination. … Educators must consider the actual cost of a free program like “No Place for Hate,” whose sponsor conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism, files civil rights complaints against schools, and promotes Israel propaganda in the classroom. The answer to creating a positive school climate is not ‘out there’—in the hands of an organization with a distinct political agenda—but in here, in the school and in the school-to-community relationship.”

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.    

• Aug. 5—Kansas, Washington
• Aug. 12—Minnesota, Utah
• Aug. 26—Alabama
• Sept. 16—New Hampshire

School board authority across the 50 states series (Week 5): How statewide curriculum prohibitions affect school board authority

Last week, we dug into what it looks like when school boards are given the authority to schedule election dates. This week, we explore state-level restrictions on school board curriculum authority.

In most states, school boards play a central role in shaping district curriculum decisions within the boundaries established by state law. State officials typically establish minimum standards and then allow school boards, along with stakeholders like school officials and teachers, to select and devise curriculum that meet these requirements. 

Every state places constraints—such as requirements or prohibitions—around what schools may teach. For example, a state might require instruction on good citizenship or sex education, or it may prohibit the teaching of certain concepts, such as critical race theory (CRT) or the three-cueing method of reading instruction. 

Four common curricular constraints are:

• Prohibiting certain curricular topics
  • CRT is the most prohibited topic in K-12 public education in the United States— only four states have not banned or attempted to ban the topic. CRT prohibitions vary, with some restricting it outright and others regulating the way it is taught. 
• Allowing parents and students to opt out of certain lessons or instruction
  • Many states allow parents to opt their students out of sex education or instruction regarding sexuality or gender.
• Allowing parents to review curricula
  • Many states require school boards to allow parents to review curricula, either by publishing it or by allowing them to request review.
• Prohibiting school boards from excluding topics on certain grounds
  • In Washington, as in other states, curriculum cannot be prohibited on the grounds that it relates to or includes the study of protected classes of individuals or groups.

Read more about curriculum restrictions by visiting our school board authority project hub and selecting a state of interest. See you next week for a rundown of K-12 cellphone bans and how they affect school board authority.

University of Oregon review finds the four-day school week has mixed to negative effects on student outcomes

Since at least the 20th century, most K-12 public school students have attended classes Monday through Friday, a schedule that aligns with the modern workweek. Yet over the last few decades, a growing number of districts have reconsidered that schedule in favor of a shorter one—the four-day school week. 

As interest in the condensed schedule has increased, so too has the number of academic studies on it. Nevertheless, much about the schedule’s effect on student outcomes and other measures remains uncertain. A recent University of Oregon analysis of 11 studies adds to our understanding of the four-day school week. 

What follows is a summary of the report’s findings and additional context on the four-day school week. We provided a primer on it in the March 27, 2024, edition of this newsletter. 

The review found mixed results for rural districts and mostly negative results for those in suburban and urban areas

The report looked at 11 peer-reviewed studies that evaluated how the four-day school week affected student achievement, attendance, graduation, and other factors in rural and non-rural districts in fifteen states. The majority of the schools in the studies were in Oregon, Oklahoma, and Colorado. 

According to University of Oregon Professor Elizabeth Day, who helped write the review, “the key takeaway is that we’re really just not seeing large benefits around these student outcomes and, if anything, we’re seeing negative outcomes.” 

Rural districts: 

• The review suggests the four-day school week may decrease math and reading scores for students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
• However, for high school students, the review suggests the four-day school week may increase math scores and graduation rates, while exacerbating chronic absenteeism and decreasing on-time progression through grade levels. 

Non-rural districts: 

• The review suggests the four-day school week had no meaningful effect on achievement for students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
• The review found negative effects from the four-day school week on math scores, graduation rates, and attendance. 

Studies that included both rural and non-rural districts suggest largely negative effects on student achievement, attendance, and graduation rates across all grade levels.

The researchers looked at the average effect the studies found, while acknowledging that the evidence on the four-day school week is mixed. For example, the review notes that a study in Colorado suggested reading and math proficiency increased for fourth and fifth grade students under a four-day schedule, while three other studies found the opposite for students in kindergarten through eighth grade.  

The review did not look into two questions that likely affect learning outcomes 

The authors of the review note that the studies they looked at left two questions unanswered. The first has to do with how much time students spend learning under the four-day school week and the second has to do with what students do on their off-day. 

Studies generally find that more instructional time is associated with increases in student achievement. 

Because the four-day school week eliminates an entire day of instruction, districts using that schedule must extend daily class hours to meet minimum instructional time requirements or risk losing state funding. Districts on a four-day school week schedule tend to start the school day earlier than other districts and keep students in school longer. 

According to a 2021 study by researchers Paul Thompson and Emily Morton, “students on four-day weeks spend about 85 fewer hours per year at school. Some of that time is likely to be lost instructional time, but a portion of it is also non-instructional time, like lunch, recess, and hallway passing time.”

What are students doing with their day off? That depends in part on what districts do on the fifth day. Thompson and Morton found that nearly 50% of districts closed school facilities entirely on the off-day. However, 30% said they provided remedial classes or other enrichment activities to students. 

The review notes: “Maintaining activities that foster healthy youth development on the fifth

day is important for minimizing other negative impacts.”

More districts have been adopting a four-day school week, especially in rural areas

Around 100 districts used the four-day school week in 1999. That number had risen to roughly 2,000 by 2024. There are around 13,000 districts in the country. 

Interest in the four-day school week expanded during the 2008 financial crisis, as states reduced education funding. Rural districts, ​​which tend to have higher operating costs and lower funding than their urban counterparts, led the charge. According to the Education Commission of the States, more than half the districts using a four-day school week were in Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, and Oregon as of 2023. 

Many districts in Idaho and Missouri have also joined in. In 2024, 76 of Idaho’s 115 school districts used the shortened schedule. That includes the Nampa School District, the state’s fourth-largest by enrollment. During the 2023-24 school year, 173 Missouri districts—about one in three—adopted the schedule. 

District officials have cited several reasons for switching to the four-day school week, most related to saving money, boosting teacher recruitment and retention, and reducing absences. For example, Thompson and Morton found that 65% of district officials mentioned cost savings when asked why they adopted a four-day school week. 

A 2024 EdWeek survey found that 70% of 924 teachers said they support shifting to a four-day schedule. Sixty-six percent of teachers, principals, and district leaders said they’d be slightly or much more willing to accept a job at a district with a four-day school week (26% said it would make no difference in their decision).  

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! 

• Why Students and Families Don’t Use Their School Choice Scholarships | The 74
• Superintendent’s key advisor is backing school board candidates | The Charlotte Ledger
• Florida Expands Charter Program for Struggling Public School Districts | City Journal
• A political row between 2 central Vermont school districts foreshadows challenges ahead for new redistricting task force | VTDigger
• Are School Board Meetings Really Getting More Heated? What a New Study Says | Education Week
• Republicans on Cobb school board vote to end broadcast of public comments | Axios Atlanta
• What Indiana’s new absenteeism law actually does — and doesn’t do — to attendance policies | News from the States
• Court rules schools not liable for student safety off campus | Arizona Capitol Times

Take our Candidate Connection survey to reach voters in your district

Today, we’re looking at survey responses from the three candidates running in the Aug. 5 primary for District 3 on the Lake Washington School District school board. Lake Washington is the second largest district in the state, with roughly 31,000 students. The district is located northeast of Seattle and includes Redmond. 

Susan Hughes, Aiya Kravi, and Angela Meekhof are running. The seat is open, as incumbent Leah Choi, who was first elected in 2021, did not file to defend her seat. 

Here’s how Hughes answered the question, “What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?”

“Fully Funding our schools

In the state constitution for Washington State, it states the state’s responsibility it to fully fund the education of its children from the age of 7 through the 12 grade.”

Click here to read the rest of Hughes’ responses. 

Here’s how Kravi answered the question, “What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?”

“I will focus on students’ wellbeing, whether physical or mental health, with three top priorities:

– Healthier food options during school

– More accessible after school athletics and clubs – overcoming barriers of language, cost, transportation, gender and special needs

– Diverse paths to success in higher education – My experience in career counseling provides insight into helping individuals navigate their next steps. We should help students discover paths that reflect their strengths, and guide parents in supporting their kids

By focusing on nutrition, inclusive activities, and diverse paths to success, we can ensure that students in our district have the tools to achieve success as they define it.”

Click here to read the rest of Hughes’ responses.

Here’s how Meekhof answered the question, “What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?”

“I think my top interests are in the education and social policy areas. We need to be adequately funding education and providing relevant services that help kids and families be successful AND feel a sense of belonging.

In partnership with this, addressing social inequities (which deeply impacts education) is very important. This includes supporting affordable housing, continuing to address and acknowledge the impact of systemic oppression, and providing quality community mental health.”

Click here to read the rest of Hughes’ responses.

If you’re a school board candidate or incumbent, click here to take the survey.