Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #176

By

Samuel Wonacott

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 Illinois’ universal mental health screening requirement in schools 
  • In your district: reader responses to open enrollment policies
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • School board incumbents won by larger margins in 2024 than in their previous races
  • 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 Illinois’ universal mental health screening requirement in schools

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.

On July 31, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed SB 1560, directing the State Board of Education to work with districts to develop and administer annual mental health screenings for students in grades 3-12 beginning in 2026. The law makes Illinois the first state to require districts to provide mental health screenings to all students. 

The law allows parents to opt their children out of the screenings.  

The Illinois Senate approved the bill 52-0. The House approved the measure 72-36. Illinois has a Democratic trifecta. Democrats have a 40-19 majority in the Senate and a 78-40 majority in the House. 

Author Abigail Shrier argues Illinois’ law will accelerate a growing trend of mental health professionals overdiagnosing kids with mental illnesses. Shrier says mental health screenings can be inaccurate, leading school officials to mistake the ordinary temperamental emotions associated with childhood for clinical depression or some other weighty illness. Shrier says the consequences of misdiagnosing students with mental illnesses are serious, and recommends that schools provide students with more meaning in their lives by holding them to high academic standards and giving them more independence.

State Sen. Sara Feigenholtz (D), who sponsored SB 1560, argues children are facing a mental health crisis, and says screenings can help schools identify and work with struggling students. She says it is critical to intervene early, and that the everyday challenges kids face, such as breakups or family issues, can sometimes lead to suicide if not addressed. Feigenholtz says the law gives schools time to communicate with families about what to expect from the screenings. 

Stop Asking Kids If They’re Depressed | Abigail Shrier, The Free Press

“A certain amount of anxiety and low mood is not only a normal part of every life, they are almost a signal feature of adolescence, reflecting dramatic periods of psychosocial and psychosexual change. What might look like depression in an adult is very often just a phase in a teenager. But informing a teen that he has shown signs of ‘depression’ is no neutral act.

“Handing a mental diagnosis to a child or teen—even if accurate—is an enormously consequential event. It can change the way a young person sees himself, create limitations for what he believes he can achieve, encourage treatment dependency on a therapist, and empty out his sense of agency—that he can, on his own, achieve his goals and improve his life. And unlike the alleged benefits of mental health screeners, there is solid evidence on the harms produced by receiving a mental diagnosis, harms that are pure tragedy in the case of misdiagnosis.”

Screening kids for mental health struggles connects intervention to prevention | State Sen. Sara Feigenholtz (D), The Chicago Tribune

“While the [Aug. 19 Chicago Tribune] editorial cites statistics around false positives in screenings, the benefits of identifying mental health issues on the front end far outweigh any reason to delay. Divorce, family dysfunction, substance abuse, changes in friendships, romantic breakups, social isolation and bullying are examples of what could be seen as ‘false positives’ that are also among the leading causes of child and teenage suicide. 

“Mental health is mission critical when it comes to the overall well-being of our young people. They deserve to get a jump-start on that early in life just like they would with getting a vaccination or a checkup at the pediatrician. Illinois will be the first state in the nation to implement universal mental health screenings for kids and teenagers, and it’s the right thing to do. This will help us set up our kids for success in life so they can reach their full potential — empowering them and their families to identify their mental health needs at a time in their lives when they’re going to need support the most.”

In your district: reader responses to open enrollment policies

We recently asked readers the following question: What is your position on open enrollment policies in your district and state? 

Thank you to all who responded. Today, we’re sharing a handful of those responses. We’ll return next month with another reader question. Click here to see all responses to this question, as well as to view older surveys. 

A school board member from North Carolina wrote:

Open enrollment at our school has been used as a money-grab. This has led to classrooms being over capacity, causing parents and teachers to be frustrated. The School Board has refused to acknowledge this problem and revise their current policies. As of now, kindergarten classes are being filled to capacity without regard to future community growth. 

A parent and community member from California wrote:

It should be allowed. Some students deal with aggressive forms of bullying and parents should have more options to remove them from that situation. Bullying affects academic performance and attendance which doesn’t benefit the school either. Open enrollment is an effective option for bullied students to gain access to a safe learning environment. Open enrollment also provides opportunities for students to attend schools with better funding. Students shouldn’t be forced to stay at a school they are unhappy with, their success and happiness matter most, so administrators should figure out how to make open enrollment work.

A community member from Ohio wrote: 

I think open enrollment isn’t a good thing. I pay taxes for one in the district I live in, that is why we moved here when we first came to Ohio. Good schools—why should people who live in other districts benefit from my school district?

A school board member from California wrote:

I support open enrollment because it upholds parental authority and promotes the kind of competition that continuously challenges public education to improve.  

A school board vice president in Michigan wrote:

Michigan has open enrollment, called ‘school of choice.’ I absolutely support state policies that allow families to choose.

A school board member from California wrote:

Students should have unfettered access to all local-, state-, and federally-funded programs districts have to offer. Where families live, their lack of money, or social standing should not limit potential. Our job, as Board Members, is to develop policy that fosters equity and provides opportunity for all. 

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 incumbents won by larger margins in 2024 than in their previous races

This story appeared in the Sept. 29 edition of Ballotpedia’s Daily Brew newsletter. Subscribe to receive our top three political stories each weekday morning—including our upcoming stories on the top races and ballot measures to watch this November. 

Tens of thousands of school board elections take place each year, and in many of those races, incumbents are running for re-election. Let’s take a look at a sample of elections in 2024 to see how school board incumbents fared in their re-election bids.

In this analysis, we looked at 421 incumbents who ran in 2024 general elections in 362 school districts that fall within the 200 largest districts by student enrollment and the districts that overlap the 100 largest cities by population. While 727 incumbents ran in these districts, 306 lost, withdrew, or won outright in primaries.

Of the 421 incumbents in this analysis, 337 (80%) ran in contested general elections, meaning they faced one or more opponents, while 84 (20%) faced no competition and were automatically re-elected. Roughly half of the contested elections in this analysis were decided by 10 percentage points or fewer, showing how close many of these contests can be. 

Incumbents who were re-elected in contested general elections won by larger margins in 2024 than in their most recent previous races. 

In the 337 contested races, 247 incumbents won re-election. On average, those incumbents had an average margin of victory (MOV) of 16.1 percentage points—up from 13.9 percentage points in those same incumbents’ previous races.

For the purposes of this analysis, in multi-seat races, the MOV for individual winning candidates is the difference between each winner’s share of the vote and that of the top-placing losing candidate. About 30% of the incumbents in this analysis ran in multi-seat elections in which some number of at-large seats were on the ballot.

School board races featuring incumbents were generally more competitive than elections for other major U.S. offices

School board winners in the 337 contested elections—including both incumbents and challengers—won by narrower margins compared to those running in state legislative, U.S. House, and U.S. Senate elections.

  • U.S. Senate: 16.9 percentage points for 34 seats
  • U.S. House: 27.3 percentage points for 435 seats
  • State legislatures: 27.3 percentage points for 5,807 seats
  • School boards: 14.7 percentage points for 649 seats

In contested races with incumbents, margins grew in 18 states and shrank in seven compared to incumbents’ past wins

In 18 states, contested elections including incumbents were decided by larger margins than those incumbents’ previous races, regardless of whether incumbents held their seats or were defeated. In Oklahoma, for example, average margins rose from 25 percentage points in incumbents’ previous victories to 40 percentage points for all contested general elections in 2024.

In seven states, winning candidates’ margins were smaller than incumbents’ previous wins. In Virginia, average margins fell from 15 percentage points in incumbents’ previous elections to 2.75 percentage points for all contested general elections in 2024.

Roughly half of contested races were decided by 10 percentage points or fewer in 2024

We consider competitive races to be those with a MOV of less than 10 percentage points. In 2024, 171 of the 337 contested races—or 51%—met this criterion. In the 421 incumbents’ previous elections, 52% were decided by 10 percentage points or fewer. 

In the 247 contested races that incumbents won in 2024:

  • Thirty-five percent were decided by 10 percentage points or fewer. The average MOV in those races was 4.3 percentage points.
  • In those candidates’ most recent elections, ranging from 2016 to 2023, the average MOV was 7.3 percentage points. 

In the 90 contested races that challengers won in 2024, 16% were decided by 10 percentage points or fewer. The average MOV in those races was 4.3 percentage points. 

The most and least competitive races

Below, you’ll find the three elections in 2024 with the smallest MOVs:

Below, you’ll find the three elections with the largest MOVs:

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 the Nov. 4 general election for Douglas County School District Board of Directors District E, in Colorado. Douglas County is the third-largest district in the state, with roughly 61,500 students. It is located south of Denver. 

Clark Callahan earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado in 2003, a graduate degree from Fairfield University in 2005, and a graduate degree from Columbia University in 2009. His career experience includes working as an educator and administrator. 

Dede Kramer graduated from the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 2013. Her career experience includes working in finance.

Here’s how Callahan answered the question, “What role should artificial intelligence have in your school district?”

“Artificial intelligence should be a tool that enhances teaching and learning, not a replacement for critical thinking. Students should learn how to use AI effectively and ethically, applying it to research, problem-solving, and real-world projects. At the same time, educators should be supported in integrating AI into instruction in ways that promote creativity, collaboration, and higher-order thinking skills.”

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

Here’s how Kramer answered the question, “What role should artificial intelligence have in your school district?” 

“Should be a limited tool used to support academics. Not a replacement for teachers, parents or classical learning. Must always be used with safeguards and transparency in place.”

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

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

The survey contains over 30 questions, and you can choose the ones you feel will best represent your views to voters. If you complete the survey, a box with your answers will display on your Ballotpedia profile. Your responses will also appear in our sample ballot.

And if you’re not running for school board, but there is an election in your community this year, share the link with the candidates and urge them to take the survey!

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