Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #155

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 Mahmoud v. Taylor   
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • A roundup of K-12 education policy news
  • 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

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case April 22. The case is about whether public schools can require elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality without giving parents the ability to opt-out their kids. Read our earlier in-depth coverage of the case here.

A decision is expected in June. 

Outside perspectives on the case

Alleigh Marré writes that parents should be able to opt their children out of gender and sexuality instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Marré says such instruction is too ideological, and parents have the best interests of their children in mind.

Schuyler Mitchell writes that parents should not be able to opt their children out of gender and sexuality instruction. Mitchell says people who claim to support parents’ rights want to increase government control over education and only support the rights of parents who share their political views.

Read on

Parental Rights Are Not Optional | Alleigh Marré, RealClearEducation

“Parental rights do not end the moment a child walks onto the school bus or through the classroom doors. … Policies that undermine parents’ rights to know what their child is learning have no place in the American education system. Parents are fed up with political activists whose top priority is to overwhelm classrooms with radical gender ideology and deny parents’ consent regarding sensitive details of their children’s lives. The clear message from parents is that it should be up to a parent to decide what content their children are subjected to, and that children should not be subjected to radical ideology at the hands of the state. … Parents everywhere should have a right to opt their children out of any kind of classroom instruction but especially material that pushes specific ideologies on children. These fundamental parental rights should be a priority for schools, educators, and our institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has immense power to restore parental rights to parents who desire nothing but the very best education for their children.”

The “Parental Rights” Movement Takes Its Anti-LGBTQ Agenda to SCOTUS | Schuyler Mitchell, Truthout

“[T]he case would notch a major win for the so-called ‘parental rights’ movement — a pernicious right-wing crusade to undermine public education, church-state separation and children’s autonomy under the guise of fighting for individual civil liberties. … While these groups decry government intervention on the level of public health, they simultaneously advocate for increased state control over education — banning books, cracking down on inclusive teachers and lesson plans, and pushing to undo diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Because, of course, Moms for Liberty and its allies are not fighting for the rights of parents who wish to support their children’s access to gender-affirming care. Nor are they supporting parents who help their children obtain abortions. And the parental rights movement makes no mention of the rights of parents whose children are forcibly taken away from them by the state, in a family policing system that disproportionately targets low-income families and Black mothers. Instead, the parental rights movement is focused on expanding conservative parents’ control in the public sphere and suppressing the representation of any ideologies or identities with which they personally disagree.”

In your district:  Religious charter schools

We recently asked readers the following question: In what ways do you think religious charter schools could enrich or threaten the mission of public education?

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 in North Carolina wrote:

I welcome the competition – that is what made our country strong – people willing to stand up and put forth their best effort to accomplish a mission/task.  There is an obvious reason people would send their children to religious charter schools – and there is an excellent reason people would send their children to a public school. Let’s all work to make the parent’s choice very hard to make.

A school board member in Illinois wrote:

Injecting religion into public education is harmful in that it closes off critical thinking. Subjects such as evolution, biology and history are taught through a skewed lens based on religious beliefs and not necessarily truth.

A school board member in Illinois wrote: 

Religious charter schools could allow parents to decide what they want or don’t want their children learning. It could help public school districts to realize that what they’re teaching may not be the best for the students’ futures. 

An anonymous reader wrote:

Religious charter schools should not receive public dollars to operate, unless these organizations pay taxes, which they don’t. They are private schools that charge tuition to families and many require the family to join the parent church in order to receive voucher dollars. That isn’t fair to other families who may believe differently. Religious schools do not have to report test scores, discipline issues or educate all students. They can remove them where public schools must accept all kids. Education funding is a mess and has been for decades. I oppose having my tax dollars going to schools who do not contribute to fire protection taxes or municipal taxes yet expect to be protected by them. So this will weaken the mission of public education because they can pick and choose whom to educate. They do not have to help special education students or English language learners. That goes against the public mission to educate everyone. 

A school board member in California wrote:

Just as in economics, “competition” through school choice (including religious schools) challenges public education to improve and deliver results.

A community member in Florida wrote:

Religious schools promote a belief system not based in reality and a violation of the separation of church and state.

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.    

Upcoming school board elections

  • May 13—Arkansas and Delaware
  • May 20—New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon
  • June 10—California (special election)
  • June 15—Texas (runoff elections)

Click here to learn more about this year’s school board elections. 

A roundup of K-12 education policy news

It was a busy week in the world of state and federal K-12 education news. We’ll walk you through the following stories:

  • State lawmakers grapple with partisan school board elections
  • More states expand private school choice, while a Utah judge rules against the state’s education savings account program
  • President Trump (R) signs executive orders related to K-12 education

School board partisan/nonpartisan elections

A version of this story ran in the May 5 edition of Ballotpedia’s daily politics newsletter, the Daily Brew. Click here to subscribe. 

So far this year, legislators in 11 states have introduced 13 bills on candidates using party labels in school board elections. All but one would require that school board candidates run in partisan elections. Republicans sponsored all 13 bills. Eleven bills are in states with Republican trifectas, and the remaining two are in states with divided governments. Legislators introduced seven bills on party labels in school board elections 2024 and three in 2023.

  • On April 10, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed HB1724, which adds school board members to the list of offices elected in nonpartisan elections. School board elections in Arkansas were already nonpartisan, but the bill also made changes to school board election dates, among other things. 
  • On April 18, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed SB1441, which would have required school board candidates to have their party affiliation listed on the ballot based on their voter registration 150 days before a primary election instead of appearing without a party designation. School board elections are currently nonpartisan in Arizona.
  • On April 24, the Indiana Senate passed SB0287 26-24, which would require school board candidates to list their political party affiliation when they file to run, with these affiliations appearing on the ballot. Currently, Indiana holds nonpartisan school board elections. The bill passed the House in March and now awaits a decision from Gov. Mike Braun (R).
  • On March 27, the New Hampshire House passed HB356 which would allow school districts to choose between nonpartisan and partisan election systems. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate. Currently, New Hampshire holds nonpartisan school board elections.

About 90% of the country’s 13,187 public school districts require nonpartisan school board elections. Candidates in Alabama, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania run in partisan elections. In Rhode Island, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the law allows for both partisan and nonpartisan elections. 

Private school choice

  • Indiana: Gov. Mike Braun (R) signed the state budget bill on May 6, which included a provision that eliminates income eligibility requirements from the state’s Choice Scholarship voucher program. 
  • Texas: On May 3, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 2, establishing a $1 billion Education Savings Account (ESA) program. The program, which will provide participating students roughly $10,000 to use toward private educational expenses, is scheduled to begin operating during the 2026-27 school year. Students with disabilities could receive up to $30,000 in additional funding. The program also provides homeschooling families with $2,000 per student per year. Read our in-depth coverage of SB 2 here. 
  • Utah: On April 18, Third Judicial District Judge Laura Scott ruled that Utah’s universal ESA program, Utah Fits All, violated the Utah Constitution because its funding source—income and property tax dollars—is designated for nonsectarian public education. On April 23, Scott ruled the program could continue to operate while the state appeals her ruling to the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Education Association (UEA), the state’s largest teachers union, sued the state in 2024.  
  • North Dakota: On April 23, Gov. Kelly Armstrong (R) vetoed HB 1450, an ESA bill, saying it did not benefit enough students. The bill would have established accounts for students enrolled in private schools, but it would have excluded public school or homeschooled students. Armstrong, however, backed SB 2400, an ESA bill that would include public school and homeschooled students. North Dakota and Nebraska are the only two states with Republican trifectas that do not have any private school choice programs. 

Federal news

President Donald Trump (R) signed seven new executive orders related to K-12 and higher education on April 23. Here’s a look at three with relevance to K-12 public schools. 

  • Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth: This order states that it is the policy of the U.S. to “promote AI literacy and proficiency among Americans by promoting the appropriate integration of AI into education.” The order establishes the White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education, and directs the task force to create a 90-day Presidential AI Challenge to “encourage and highlight student and educator achievements in AI, promote wide geographic adoption of technological advancement, and foster collaboration between government, academia, philanthropy, and industry to address national challenges with AI solutions.” The order also directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to prioritize grants for training teachers on AI.
  • Reinstating Common Sense School Discipline Policies: This order directs McMahon to issue new disciplinary guidance to schools within 30 days. The order states that, under President Barack Obama (D), the U.S. Department of Education said schools could be in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if their disciplinary policies resulted in “members of any racial groups [being] suspended, expelled, or referred to law enforcement at higher rates than others.” The order directs McMahon and other cabinet officials to submit a report to the president within 120 days “regarding the status of discriminatory-equity-ideology-based school discipline and behavior modification techniques in American public education.” 
  • Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future: This order directs the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Education to work together to streamline workforce development programs and expand apprenticeships. The order tasks McMahon, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer with writing a report on how the federal government can help upskill workers on new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and find and support new alternatives to the four-year college degree. They must also submit a plan to the President for reaching one million active apprentices.

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 of the three candidates running in the May 20 election for Beaverton School District school board Zone 1. Four seats on the seven-member board are up for election this year. The Beaverton School District, located just west of Portland, is the third-largest in Oregon, with roughly 38,000 students. 

Andrew De Mars and Karin Stark completed the survey. Van Truong had not completed the survey at the time of this writing. 

Here’s how De Mars answered the question, “What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”

  • “I’m running as an independent, as an involved parent and volunteer, who wants to enact change for our students, not political parties, outside groups or my own political aspirations. This is, and always should be about the kids!
  • I have proven many times that cooler heads, common sense, mutual respect and diplomacy prevail.
  • We’re spending more and more money, and continuously achieving worse outcomes. We have lower math and reading readiness, declining enrollment with families fleeing to private, charter and online schools, and a widening gender learning gap. This is not sustainable.”

Click here to read the rest of De Mars’ responses. 

Here’s how Stark answered the question, “What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”

  • “Public schools belong to all of us. Students, families, and educators deserve transparency and accountability when it comes to decisions being made for our schools and communities. For example: The 2022 bond materials did not include the intended plan to close several schools, rebuild Raleigh Hills k-8 to fit 800 elementary students, displace special education students, and leave newly renovated schools vacant.
  • For School board members to make informed decisions, they need to be visiting schools often and to counsel with current educators and other school staff to create policies that work. Each school is its own microcosm. The classroom teachers, special education staff, crossing guards, secretaries, nurses, counselors, etc. who work there are experts not only in their field, but in the community they serve. When administrators make decisions for our schools from afar, they do so without vital information.
  • We need to stand up against pressures to: close schools and end diversity and equity programs. Rather, our schools need to be places of abundance where students, educators, and staff thrive. We need school board members who are willing to publicly discuss ways we are failing our students, who will seek and present research-based solutions rather than rubber stamping and accepting fear-based decisions.”

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

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

The survey contains more than 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 appear in 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!