Author

Samuel Wonacott

Samuel Wonacott is a staff writer at Ballotpedia. Contact us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #63

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

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues: The debate over automatic deductions for teacher’s union dues
  • In your district: partisan elections
  • Share candidate endorsements with us!  
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • A comprehensive analysis of Wisconsin’s April 4 school board elections
  • Extracurricular: education news from around the web
  • Candidate Connection survey

Email us at editor@ballotpedia.org to share reactions or story ideas!


On the issues: The debate over automatic deductions for teacher’s union dues

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.


Whether unions should be able to automatically deduct dues from teacher paychecks has been a recent topic of debate. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill May 9 increasing regulations on teacher’s unions and prohibiting automatic dues deductions.

Bonita Osowsky writes that unions were already weak in Florida and the new law further impedes the ability of unions to negotiate and bargain with the state. Osowsky says unions are stronger when they are less regulated and can automatically deduct dues. She also says strong unions improve teacher quality and retention.

Skylar Zander writes that teacher’s unions are not as important today as they were 100 years ago but still have many of the same powers and privileges that make it hard for teachers to leave the union. Zander says the increased regulation and the end of automatic paycheck deductions will increase transparency and allow teachers to decide whether union membership and regular payments make sense for them.  

Florida teachers are not ‘shackled’ to unions | Bonita Osowsky, South Florida Sun Sentinel

“It was appalling to read Skylar Zander’s disgusting opinion piece (Feb. 27) pretending to support teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. … The last thing teachers need is the death of unions, which are notoriously weak in this “right to work” state. I was a member of four teacher associations in New Jersey. I began in 1968 earning $6,100 a year and retired in 2004 at nearly six figures. Our union got us full family insurance coverage, eyeglass and dental benefits, longevity, protected us from unfair allegations and provided legal services when needed. It negotiated fair compensation for extra duties and payment for class coverage. In 1977, I was turned down for a sabbatical and the union secured my leave the following year to complete the requirements for my certification as a school psychologist. I always had dues deducted from my salary. Zander wants to disallow automatic deductions to discourage union membership to bust unions. I’ve read of a shortage of 10,000 teachers in Florida. It will get worse if teachers can’t join unions, with our governor interfering with what can be taught in schools.”

Give Florida teachers the freedom to not assemble | Skylar Zander, South Florida Sun Sentinel

“But more recently, a growing number of workers have found themselves shackled to labor unions, seeing money yanked out of their paychecks for membership in unions they want nothing to do with. That’s why Gov. Ron DeSantis is exactly on target with his proposed Teacher’s Bill of Rights, an unprecedented legislative proposal to establish greater accountability for teachers’ unions and other public sector unions. [T]eachers unions in Florida will no longer enjoy the privilege of automatically deducting dues from paychecks and would need to obtain specific permission from teachers each year to keep them on their membership roster. The unions would have to be the choice of at least 60% of employees eligible for representation, rather than the current 50% requirement, and would be subject to stricter scrutiny to prevent fraud, waste and abuse. For too long, teachers’ unions have held too much sway over the education of Florida’s children, gradually but unmistakably supplanting the role of parents and dedicated educators. The governor’s proposal would return a proper balance to the equation.”


In your district: partisan elections

School districts face diverse issues and challenges. We want to hear what’s happening in your school district. Please complete the very brief survey below—anonymously, if you prefer—and we may share your response with fellow subscribers in an upcoming newsletter.

Should the law allow school districts to hold partisan elections?

Click here to respond!


Share candidate endorsements with us! 

As part of our goal to solve the ballot information problem, Ballotpedia is gathering information about school board candidate endorsements. The ballot information gap widens the further down the ballot you go, and is worst for the more than 500,000 local offices nationwide, such as school boards or special districts. Endorsements can help voters know more about their candidates and what they stand for. 

Do you know of an individual or group that has endorsed a candidate in your district? 

Click here to let us know.


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

Ballotpedia has historically covered school board elections in about 500 of the country’s largest districts. This year, Ballotpedia is covering elections for approximately 8,750 seats in 3,211 school districts across 28 states—or about 36% of all school board elections this year. Click here to read more about our 2023 school board coverage.


Upcoming school board elections

We covered school board general elections in Texas on May 22. In Texas, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the top-two vote-getters in the general advance to a runoff. 

We’re covering runoff elections for the following districts on June 10:

Washington

Washington is holding school board primary elections on Aug. 1. We’re covering elections in the following districts:


A comprehensive analysis of Wisconsin’s April 4 school board elections

We’ve mentioned before that this year, in addition to school board elections in the 200 largest school districts and any overlapping the 100 largest cities, we’re comprehensively covering all elections in 10 states: Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. You can find out more about this project here

Today, we’re bringing you our full analysis of Wisconsin’s April 4 school board elections. A version of this analysis ran last week in our Daily Brew newsletter. Next week, we’ll look at the next part—a comprehensive look at Oklahoma’s April 4 elections. 

All 421 school districts in Wisconsin held at least one election on April 4. In total, 954 of the state’s 2,794 school board seats, around 35%, were on the ballot. 

We’ll begin our analysis by looking at how incumbents performed in the elections. Lastly, we’ll look at the state and national organizations that endorsed candidates—and how those candidates fared. Here’s a summary of what we found:

  • Open seats and incumbent defeats mirrored historical averages.
  • Top liberal endorsers had 73% win rate compared to 48% for top conservative groups

Open seats and incumbents

Of the 954 school board seats up for election in Wisconsin, 690 incumbents (72%) ran for re-election, leaving 264 seats (28%) open. Open seats are guaranteed to newcomers. 

Of the 690 incumbents who ran for re-election, 615 (89%) won, and 75 (11%) lost. Three incumbents lost in primaries held on Feb. 21, and the remaining 72 incumbents lost in the general election. Wisconsin’s 11% incumbent loss rate was below the five-year average of 16% we’ve observed nationwide.

The number of open seat races in Wisconsin was similar to what we’ve noted in our nationwide school board election coverage. The difference in Wisconsin is that slightly more incumbents ran for re-election than we’ve seen nationally. Between 2018 and 2022, an average of 71% of incumbents ran for re-election, leaving 29% of seats open.

One reason so many incumbents won re-election is that 60% ran unopposed, guaranteeing their victory. This is almost double the 36% rate of unopposed incumbents we typically see nationwide for school board elections.

Only 278 incumbents faced challengers. When looking only at contested elections, the loss rate increases from 11% to 27%, mirroring the historical average of 26%.

Endorsements

Most school board elections are nonpartisan, but that hasn’t stopped local, state, and national organizations, many of which are explicitly ideological or aligned with political parties, from endorsing school board candidates. As part of our school board coverage, we are gathering descriptive endorsements, those that help describe the stances or policy positions of a candidate. This is based on the assumption that endorsers tend to endorse candidates with whom they align. 

Our endorsements research process starts with analyzing news stories, conducting outreach, and talking with candidates. When we find an endorsement, we tag it as either liberal or conservative based on whether it comes from an organization affiliated with a major party or one that supports education policies associated with a major party.

The top liberal endorsers in Wisconsin were:

  • Local affiliates of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, a teacher’s union;
  • The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO and its affiliates;
  • The Democratic Party of Wisconsin and its affiliates;
  • Blue Sky Waukesha, a group in Waukesha County; and
  • Fair Wisconsin, an LGBTQ advocacy group.

The top conservative endorsers in Wisconsin were:

  • The Republican Party of Wisconsin and its affiliates;
  • Moms for Liberty and its affiliates;
  • Get Involved Wisconsin, a voter mobilization group;
  • 1776 Project PAC; and,
  • WisRed PAC, a group in Waukesha County.

Among the liberal endorsers, all but Blue Sky Waukesha had win rates greater than 50%. For conservative endorsers, only WisRed PAC had a win rate greater than 50%. 

All 10 endorsers made endorsements in uncontested races. For the state GOP and Moms for Liberty, those uncontested endorsements resulted in overall win rates greater than 50%.

While these 10 groups made a total of 627 endorsements, many of those endorsements crossed ideological lines. These endorsements all went to 286 candidates in 114 races, around 55% of all contested elections and 20% of all elections, overall. Of those 286 candidates, 166 (58%) received endorsements from more than one of the top 10 endorsers.

You can see more of this analysis here. We’ll be back next week with a look at Oklahoma’s school board elections. 


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

Everyone deserves to know their candidates. However, we know it can be hard for voters to find information about their candidates, especially for local offices such as school boards. That’s why we created Candidate Connection—a survey designed to help candidates tell voters about their campaigns, their issues, and so much more. 

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

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 mobile app, My Vote Ballotpedia.

In the 2020 election cycle, 4,745 candidates completed the survey.



An early look at the 2024 primary election calendar

Welcome to the Wednesday, May 31, Brew. 

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. Taking stock of 2024 presidential and statewide primary dates
  2. Explore how A.I. could affect political news on the latest episode of On the Ballot, our weekly podcast
  3. 17 state legislatures are still in session

Taking stock of 2024 election dates 

Although this year’s elections are in full swing (one week until New Jersey’s statewide primary), let’s take a look at what we know so far about 2024. 

As of May 26, 23 states have confirmed the dates for their 2024 presidential preference primaries through the release of an official election calendar, candidate filing instructions, or an announcement from a state political party. The remaining 27 states have not formally or officially confirmed their dates.

In some states, presidential preference primary elections are scheduled at the same time as statewide primaries for other offices. In others, states choose to schedule two separate primary elections. Of the 23 states that have confirmed presidential preference primary dates for 2024, seven—Alabama, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Texas—will hold their statewide primaries for other offices on the same day.

The graphic below shows all 23 confirmed presidential preference primary dates for 2024.

  • South Carolina has the earliest confirmed 2024 presidential preference primary date on Feb. 3, according to the South Carolina Democratic Party. 
  • New Mexico and South Dakota share the latest confirmed date—June 4. 
  • Twelve other states share the most popular confirmed date, March 5, which is commonly known as Super Tuesday: Alabama, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia.

Iowa and New Hampshire held the first presidential preference contests in the nation in 2020, with the former holding its caucuses on Feb. 3 and the latter holding its primary on Feb. 11. As of this writing, neither state has confirmed the date for its 2024 presidential preference contest. On Feb. 4, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to make South Carolina’s primary the first in the country, prompting the New Hampshire State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot that would direct the secretary of state to “ensure that the presidential primary election be held seven or more days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election.” 

Puerto Rico held the latest presidential primary in 2020 on July 12. In 2020, Super Tuesday occurred on March 3, with 15 states holding their presidential preference primaries.

States are also scheduling their statewide primary dates, which, as we discussed above, may overlap with presidential primaries. As of May 26, 22 states have confirmed the dates for their 2024 statewide primaries through the release of either an official election calendar or candidate filing instructions. 

The graphic below shows all 22 confirmed statewide primary dates for 2024.

March 5 is the earliest and most popular confirmed 2024 statewide primary date. Alabama, California, North Carolina, and Texas have scheduled their statewide primaries on that day. Louisiana’s unique majority-vote system gives it the latest confirmed statewide primary date—Nov. 5.   

For more information on 2024 election dates, click here. 

Keep reading


Explore how A.I. could affect political news on the latest episode of On the Ballot, our weekly podcast

With the prevalence of artificial intelligence (A.I.) in the news in recent months, we wanted to explore how the rapidly evolving tools and world of A.I. will affect political news and elections.  

To help us answer that question, host Victoria Rose sat down with Joe Amditis, assistant director of products and events at the Center for Cooperative Media at Montclair State University, for a wide-ranging conversation about how A.I. might affect news, misinformation, and our political media ecosystem. Along the way, Victoria and Joe discuss A.I.’s capabilities and limitations, the alternative A.I. tools that have arisen since ChatGPT became widely known last November, and Joe’s recent ebook, “Beginner’s prompt handbook: ChatGPT for local news publishers.”

This is the first in what will be a series of episodes exploring how A.I. will affect the media and politics. Subscribe today to listen to our most recent episode and stay up to date on future releases!

Keep reading 


17 state legislatures are still in session

Summer is quickly approaching, and state legislative sessions are winding down. Let’s check in on where lawmakers are still meeting to draft and vote on legislation and set state policy. 

As of May 30, according to the latest data from the 2023 MultiState Insider Resource, 17 state legislatures are still in session, 28 legislatures have adjourned, four legislatures are in special session, and one legislature is in recess.

Several legislative sessions will end within the next 30 days.

  • Connecticut’s legislative session is scheduled to end on June 7. 
  • Louisiana’s and New York’s are scheduled to end on June 8. 
  • Nebraska’s is scheduled to end on June 9. 
  • Sessions in Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are scheduled to end on June 30.

Legislative sessions vary from state to state. Forty-six state legislatures hold regular sessions every year, while the other four states—Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas—legislatures meet only in odd-numbered years. The length of these sessions ranges from about two months in states like Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana to almost a year in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Click below to learn more about this year’s state legislative sessions. 

Keep reading 



More bills introduced in 2023 than in 2022 that would make ballot access more difficult for political parties

Welcome to the Friday, May 26, Brew. 

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. More bills introduced in 2023 than in 2022 that would make ballot access more difficult for political parties
  2. Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis join Republican presidential primary field
  3. A look at the age demographics of Oklahoma school board candidates

More bills introduced in 2023 than in 2022 that would make ballot access more difficult for political parties

Lately, we’ve been bringing you deep dives into recent trends in election-related legislation. We’ve reported that states are enacting more election administration bills than in 2022 and that Utah, for the second year running, is enacting more of those bills than other states. We’ve also looked at the increase this year in bills regulating absentee ballot drop box availability and security. 

Let’s take a look at another topic that falls under election administration—ballot access. 

Compared to last year, lawmakers in 2023 have introduced more bills that would make it more difficult for political parties to qualify for the ballot.

We’ve tracked 25 ballot access bills since January. We’ve determined nine bills would make it more difficult for parties to qualify for ballot access,introduced in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, and Texas.  Seven bills would do the opposite and decrease ballot access difficulty. The other nine ballot access bills we’re tracking would not affect the difficulty of ballot access. 

Democrats and Republicans sponsored bills in both categories on a fairly even basis. 

How parties get their candidates on the ballot varies from state to state. Some states require parties to file petitions to qualify for the ballot. Others require party candidates to win a certain percentage of the vote, and others require a party to register a certain number of voters.

In our analysis, we counted bills that would raise petition, vote, or registration requirements or restrict timelines as increasing difficulty, and bills that would lower requirements or expand timelines as decreasing difficulty. 

Here’s a look at some of ballot access bills that would have made it more difficult for parties to qualify candidates for the ballot:

  • Minnesota SF1827: This bill would have doubled the vote threshold to meet the definition of a “major political party,” requiring parties to have run a candidate who received at least 10% of the vote in the last election for certain offices (up from 5%). SF1827 did not pass the Senate before the end of the legislative session on May 22. Minnesota HF1830, an omnibus bill with a similar provision—changing the major political party vote requirement from 5% to 8%—was enacted on May 24In Minnesota, major party candidates are nominated in primaries, with the winner qualifying for the general election without having to file nominating petitions. According to Ballot Access News publisher Richard Winger, Minnesota’s current 5% requirement is one of the most difficult in the country, with 2% being the median requirement. Virginia and New Jersey have a 10% requirement, while Alabama’s is 20%. A House omnibus bill an omnibus bill with a similar provision—changing the major political party vote requirement from 5% to 8%—was enacted on May 24.
  • Montana SB565. This bill, which died in committee, would have increased minor party petition requirements from either (1) 5,000 signatures to 15,000 signatures, or (2) from 5% of the number of votes cast for the successful candidate in the last gubernatorial election to 5% of voter turnout in the last general election. 
Here’s an example of a ballot access bill enacted this year that eases access requirements:
  • Arkansas SB277: This law lowers the petition signature requirement for new political parties from 3% of the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to 10,000 signatures (38% of the former requirement as of the 2022 election). The law also lengthens the time parties may collect signatures.

In 2022, we tracked 29 ballot access bills, three of which were enacted. Two made ballot access easier for political parties, while one made minor administrative changes. Of the bills that were introduced in 2022, we determined that 17 would have eased ballot access requirements. Three bills, a set of companion bills in Iowa, would have increased requirements for non-party political organizations (political organizations not meeting the conditions to be a political party) to nominate a candidate at a convention. The other bills would either have had no effect on ballot access difficulty or their effects were unclear. 

To view the current status of ballot access for political parties in each state, click here.

We cover stories like these in even greater detail in the Ballot Bulletin, our weekly newsletter on legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news in election policy. Click here to subscribe.  

Our comprehensive Election Administration Legislation Tracker is the basis for the data and analysis in this report. This user-friendly tracker covers thousands of election-related bills in state legislatures, and organizes them by topic with neutral, expert analysis from Ballotpedia’s election administration researchers.

Explore the tracker for yourself at the link below!

Keep reading


Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis join Republican presidential primary field 

The 2024 race to the White House is speeding up—and adding a few new names to the roster. Let’s check in on the latest presidential election news. 

This week, two new noteworthy candidates announced campaigns for the 2024 presidential election—Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). Scott announced May 22, while DeSantis announced May 24. That brings our tally of noteworthy presidential candidates to 11 candidates—three Democrats and eight Republicans. That’s less than half the 26 candidates who were running at this time four years ago.  

Below is a summary of each candidate’s campaign activity from May 19 to May 26.

  • Joe Biden (D) spoke about firearms policy at a memorial for the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting in Washington, D.C., on May 24. That day, Biden also released an online ad criticizing DeSantis.
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D) spoke at the Bitcoin 2023 conference on May 19.
  • Marianne Williamson (D) released the text of her economic policy, titled “An Economic Bill of Rights: A Vision for a Moral Economy,” on May 23. Williamson’s campaign manager, Peter Daou, and deputy campaign manager, Jason Call, resigned from her campaign on May 20 and May 19 respectively.
  • Ron DeSantis (R) announced his presidential candidacy on May 24 in a live-streamed conversation with Elon Musk and David Sacks on Twitter.
  • Larry Elder (R) published an op-ed in The Washington Times titled “President Biden at Howard University: The great White savior” on May 22.
  • Nikki Haley (R) campaigned in Iowa on May 19, and in New Hampshire on May 23 and May 24 respectively. Haley wrote an op-ed for Seacoastonline titled “Nikki Haley: Force Congress to fix veterans’ healthcare” on May 24.
  • Asa Hutchinson (R) campaigned in South Carolina from May 22 to May 23.
  • Vivek Ramaswamy (R) held campaign events in Chicago, Illinois, on May 19. He also spoke at the Bitcoin 2023 conference on May 20. Ramaswamy is scheduled to campaign in Iowa today. 
  • Tim Scott (R) announced his presidential candidacy on May 22 at a rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. On May 23, Scott began a $5.5 million ad campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire. Scott campaigned in Iowa on May 24, and in New Hampshire on May 25.
  • Donald Trump (R) was endorsed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) on May 22. Trump released an online ad on May 24 criticizing DeSantis.

We did not identify any specific campaign activity from Corey Stapleton (R) during this time frame.

At this point in the 2020 cycle, 26 noteworthy candidates were running for president. Twenty-four were seeking the Democratic nomination, and two (Trump and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld) were seeking the Republican nomination.

Notable stories at the time included eight Democratic presidential candidates appearing at demonstrations opposing anti-abortion laws in Alabama and Georgia on May 21, 2019, and reporting that said Trump had spent $5 million on Facebook ads targeting older Americans and women from January to May 2019. 

In the 2016 election, eight noteworthy candidates had announced their campaigns as of May 26, 2015. There were two Democrats (Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders) and five Republicans. 

Keep up to date with the latest 2024 presidential election news at the link below.

Keep reading 


A look at the age demographics of Oklahoma school board candidates 

In case you missed it, the Wednesday and Thursday Brew issues this week focused on in-depth analysis of Wisconsin and Oklahoma school board elections. As we’ve scoured local government websites, mined candidate filing lists and voter files, and combed through mountains of local news stories and social media posts to bring you this coverage, we’ve also unearthed some unique demographic data about the school board candidates themselves.

Let’s take a look at one fun example from Oklahoma—school board candidate ages. We gathered this data from filing lists and publicly-available voter files.

Here’s what we found.

  • Both the average school board candidate and average election winner were 50 years old.
  • The average incumbent who ran for re-election was 51 years old.
  • The average non-incumbent was 46 years old
  • The youngest candidates were 20 years old. There were two of them, and they both lost in their respective primaries. 
  • The oldest candidates were 86 years old. There were also two of them, and they both lost in general elections.
  • The youngest election winner was 27. The oldest was 84.


The chart below shows the age range of election winners and losers.  

You can find more demographic data on Oklahoma candidates at the link below. 

Keep reading 

Editor’s note: a previous version of this story erroneously stated that Arkansas SB277 was the only enacted ballot access bill that eases access requirements. This story has been updated to reflect that MN HF1830 passed on May 24.



Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #62

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

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues: The debate over social and emotional learning in public schools 
  • Share candidate endorsements with us! 
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • Montana becomes the 46th state to authorize charter schools
  • Extracurricular: education news from around the web
  • Candidate Connection survey

Email us at editor@ballotpedia.org to share reactions or story ideas!


On the issues: The debate over social and emotional learning in public 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.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), social-emotional learning “refers to a wide range of skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can affect student success in school and life,” including “critical thinking, emotion management, conflict resolution, decision making, teamwork.” How SEL is used varies. Over the last few years, legislatures have considered bills that would prohibit or restrict SEL in schools. 

Natalia Mehlman Petrzela writes that the goal of SEL is helping students learn how to manage their moods and emotions, be happy, and become socially and academically self-sufficient. Petrelza says SEL shouldn’t be controversial and it could “be the beginning of an era of repair, in which children learn the critical thinking skills integral to understanding themselves and the world – and engage each other on the thornier curricular questions of race and sex that adults keep failing to figure out.”

Daniel Buck writes that SEL involves more than teaching children strategies for emotional regulation and managing their moods and social interactions. Buck says SEL demands student involvement with progressive advocacy and that the term has become a euphemism  justifying progressive educational policies. Buck writes that conservatives were not the first to politicize SEL in education and says progressives made the topic one of debate and controversy by injecting ideology into the approach.

SEL doesn’t have to be a classroom culture war | Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, CNN

“To understand why these fights are so intense, it is crucial to grasp a longer, messier history of progressive efforts to educate ‘the whole child’ and of conservative resistance to these programs that explicitly address children’s emotions, attitudes and values – especially when they challenge dominant ideas about power and identity. … As long as such programs have existed, the right has consistently attacked them, especially when they openly acknowledge the aim of addressing the needs of minority children ill served by public schools and society. … As a parent, a teacher, a scholar and a citizen, I am confident that most educators, parents and children agree that children deserve to be academically competent, kind, happy and self-sufficient and that the school should play a role in achieving those goals. Given our lamentably acrimonious environment, SEL could very well be our next educational classroom war, but it need not be. It could be the beginning of an era of repair, in which children learn the critical thinking skills integral to understanding themselves and the world – and engage each other on the thornier curricular questions of race and sex that adults keep failing to figure out.”

Conservatives Are Right to Be Skeptical of SEL | Daniel Buck, National Review

“In reality, SEL was once a questionably effective — albeit rather benign — educational fad, a sort of secular character education, but it has since become another means of injecting progressive politics into the classroom. And as always, it’s conservatives’ fault for noticing. … In short, this new iteration of SEL extends beyond mere emotional regulation into encouraging activism in the classroom. “Action research,” wherein students research social issues and advocate for change, is one recommended practical approach. All of this talk of community change and collective projects hearkens to a radical theory of education called critical pedagogy, first proposed by Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire. Within this theory, schools become not institutions of academic learning but of advocacy. And lest you think “action research” just means building a community garden, a set of webinar slides confirms that an “antiracist” mindset in both teachers and students is essential. Everything from mathematics to SEL becomes another means to leverage collective progressive social action. … In other words, SEL becomes a feel-good term that applies a stamp of approval to a host of progressive wish-list items. … And I return to my original question: How did SEL become controversial? Progressives made it so.”


Share candidate endorsements with us! 

As part of our goal to solve the ballot information problem, Ballotpedia is gathering information about school board candidate endorsements. The ballot information gap widens the further down the ballot you go, and is worst for the more than 500,000 local offices nationwide, such as school boards or special districts. Endorsements can help voters know more about their candidates and what they stand for. 

Do you know of an individual or group that has endorsed a candidate in your district? 

Click here to let us know.


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

Ballotpedia has historically covered school board elections in about 500 of the country’s largest districts. This year, Ballotpedia is covering elections for approximately 8,750 seats in 3,211 school districts across 28 states—or about 36% of all school board elections this year. Click here to read more about our 2023 school board coverage.


Upcoming school board elections

We covered school board general elections in Texas on May 22. In Texas, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the top-two vote-getters in the general advance to a runoff. 

We’re covering runoff elections for the following districts on June 10:


Montana becomes the 46th state to authorize charter schools

On May 18, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed two bills authorizing the creation of charter schools. Previously, Montana was one of five states without laws allowing for charter schools.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a charter school is “a publicly funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a legislative contract—a charter—with the state, district, or other entity. The charter exempts the school from certain state or local rules and regulations. In return for flexibility and autonomy, the charter school must meet the accountability standards outlined in its charter.”

Charter schools generally receive a percentage of the per-pupil funds from the state and local school districts for operational costs based on enrollment. In most states, charter schools do not receive funds for facilities or start-up costs, and usually rely to some extent on private donations. The federal government also provides special grants for charter schools.

Gianforte signed House Bill 549 (HB 549) and House Bill 562 (HB 562), both of which provide for charter schools but differ on which government bodies are authorized to submit and approve charter applications. HB 549 puts the authority in the hands of local school boards, which can submit applications for public charter schools to the Montana Board of Public Education. HB 562, on the other hand, creates a new, seven-member appointed commission with the authority to review applications and authorize qualified school districts to do the same. 

Additionally, under HB 549, charter schools would be subject to the same state and federal regulations as all other public schools in the state. Under HB 562, a different set of state rules would regulate charter schools.

According to the Montana Free Press’s Alex Sakariassen, “The simultaneous passage of HB 549 and HB 562 into law raises a number of questions, including whether the two systems will ultimately conflict. Advocates of both bills believe that they can coexist peacefully, as each sets out a distinct path for parents seeking establishment of a charter school to follow.”

Lance Melton, executive director of the Montana School Boards Association said HB 549 “embraces that accountability and provides a focused means by which school districts and other applicants can focus in on and provide innovative educational programing – something, again, that’s maybe different than the average.”

House Majority Leader Sue Vinton (R), who sponsored HB 562, said, “The one-size-fits-all approach of traditional public schools does not work for every student. This bill provides for independence – and likewise provides for ample oversight.”

Both bills passed the House but died in the Senate before being revived. Republicans hold a 68-32 majority in the House and a 34-16 majority in the Senate. 

In the first go-around on April 26, the Senate rejected HB 549 in an 8-42 vote and HB 562 in a 23-27 vote. One Democrat joined seven Republicans in supporting HB 549, while 11 Republicans joined 16 Democrats in opposing HB 562. However, a few days later, Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick (R) brought the bills back for a second vote. Referring specifically to HB 562, Fitzpatrick said, “We need to get these issues resolved. We should pass this bill and let the courts decide if it’s valid or not.” The Legislative Services Division, an agency within the state legislature, had earlier suggested parts of HB 562 could conflict with the state constitution. 

The second time, the Senate voted 27-23 to advance HB 549 and 28-22 to advance HB 562. 

Gianforte said, “We’re empowering Montana parents to choose what’s best for their family and their kids. We’re putting students and parents first in education.”

The Montana Quality Education Coalition, which includes the Montana School Boards Association, released a statement on May 19 promising litigation over HB 562: “Legislators from both parties recognized HB 562 and HB 393 as both unconstitutional and terrible policy. We’ll bring the necessary lawsuits to clean up these constitutional mistakes.” HB 393, which Gianforte also signed, establishes an education savings account (ESA) program for students with disabilities. 

Minnesota was the first state to pass a law authorizing charter schools in 1991. 

Nationally, charter school enrollment was estimated at 3,695,769 students—or about 7.5% of all public school students—in the 2020-2021 school year, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, an organization that describes itself as the “the leading national nonprofit organization committed to advancing the public charter school movement.” Charter school enrollment has grown steadily over time. In 2000, the National Center for Education Statistics estimated that 448,343 students were enrolled in charter schools. By the 2021-2022 school year, the most recent year for which data are available, that number had grown to more than 3.6 million.

Only Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont do not have laws authorizing charter schools. West Virginia became the 45th state to authorize charter schools in 2019, when Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed House Bill 206. The state’s first charter schools were approved in November 2021. 

Kentucky authorizes charter schools but does not currently have any in operation. 


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

Everyone deserves to know their candidates. However, we know it can be hard for voters to find information about their candidates, especially for local offices such as school boards. That’s why we created Candidate Connection—a survey designed to help candidates tell voters about their campaigns, their issues, and so much more. 

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

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 mobile app, My Vote Ballotpedia.

In the 2020 election cycle, 4,745 candidates completed the survey.



More absentee ballot drop box legislation introduced in 2023 than at this point in 2022

Welcome to the Tuesday, May 23, Brew. 

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. More absentee ballot drop box legislation introduced in 2023 than at this point in 2022
  2. On this day: a look back at Oregon’s 1972 and 1978 ballot measures 
  3. 40 candidates filed for federal and statewide offices last week

More absentee ballot drop box legislation introduced in 2023 than at this point in 2022

Over the past few weeks, we’ve brought you stories about recent trends in election administration legislation, including a look at single-topic versus omnibus-style election bills and which states are introducing the most election-related legislation. 

Let’s take a look at another trend we’ve seen this year relating to election administration legislation. So far this year, state legislators have introduced more bills regulating the availability and security of absentee ballot drop boxes than at this point in 2022

Ballot drop boxes are like large mailboxes where voters can return their mail-in ballots. Drop boxes can be staffed or unstaffed. Depending on the location, a ballot drop box may be accessible 24/7 or only during specified business hours. The bills that would regulate such drop boxes can generally fit into two categories: drop box availability and drop box security. Bills on drop box availability regulate the allowance, availability, or placement of ballot drop boxes. Drop box security bills establish or change existing rules for the physical security of drop boxes, such as requiring security cameras or in-person staffing.

  • In 2023, legislators have introduced 34 bills related to ballot drop boxes. Three (9%) of these bills have become law. 
  • At this point in 2022, legislators had introduced 26 bills, and two (8%) had become. 

Since the start of 2022, Democrats have introduced more drop box availability bills overall, sponsoring 38 compared to Republicans’ 31. Republicans have introduced more drop box security bills, sponsoring 19 compared to Democrats’ 13. Republicans sponsored all seven bills introduced since 2022 to prohibit drop boxes entirely. 

Let’s take a closer look at these bills. 

Drop box availability

State legislatures have considered five more bills dealing with drop-box availability this year (29 bills) than at this point in 2022 (23 bills). Two states—Arkansas and New Mexico—have enacted drop box availability bills so far in 2023—the same number as this point in 2022. Nine drop box availability bills were enacted in 2022.

Arkansas’ Republican-sponsored bill, SB258, prohibits election officials from establishing or using a drop box to collect absentee ballots. New Mexico’s Democratic-sponsored bill, SB180, prohibits anyone other than the secretary of state or the county clerk from providing or operating a drop box.

In 2022, Utah (HB0313) and Washington (HB1716) each enacted a bill on drop box availability. Republicans sponsored the Utah bill, which requires election officials to designate at least one ballot drop box in each municipality and reservation located in the jurisdiction holding an election. Democrats sponsored the Washington bill, which requires county auditors to open a voting center with a ballot drop box for any special elections the county may hold. 

Drop box security

Eighteen of the bills introduced this year deal with drop box security compared with eight bills at this time last year and 21 introduced throughout 2022. Two bills introduced this year have been enacted—the same number enacted at this point in 2022. Overall in 2022, governors enacted three bills on the topic. 

Republicans and Democrats each enacted one drop box security bill in both 2022 and 2023. Utah has enacted one Republican-sponsored bill so far this year—HB0347. The law makes it a third-degree felony to tamper with, destroy, or remove a drop box or its contents. New Mexico enacted the Democrat-sponsored SB180. The bill regulates drop box availability and makes the unlawful operation of absentee ballot drop boxes a fourth-degree felony.

Legislators in Utah and Washington approved the two drop-box security bills signed into law in the first half of 2022. In Utah, Republican-sponsored HB0313 requires drop boxes to be monitored by recorded video surveillance at all times. In Washington, HB1716 prohibits interfering with voters or disrupting the administration of a voting center, including ballot drop boxes. Later in 2022, Ohio enacted Republican-sponsored HB458, requiring drop boxes to be monitored by recorded video surveillance. 

Our comprehensive Election Administration Legislation Tracker is the basis for the data and analysis in this report. This user-friendly tracker covers thousands of election-related bills in state legislatures and organizes them by topic with neutral, expert analysis from Ballotpedia’s election administration researchers.


Click below to use the Tracker and explore bills of your interest!

Keep reading


On this day: a look back at Oregon’s 1972 and 1978 ballot measures 

We have tens of thousands of articles about statewide ballot measures that have appeared before voters stretching back to the early 19th century. Pick a random day of the year, and there’s a decent chance that voters in one or more of the 50 states decided at least one ballot measure—and that we have an article about it.  

So, what happened today, and where? When we punch May 23 into our ballot measure database, we find that Oregon voters decided ballot measures on this day in 1972 and 1978. Let’s see what was on the ballot on May 23 of those two years.

1972

Voters rejected five measures and approved one. 

Click here to learn more about all of Oregon’s 1972 measures. 

1978

Voters approved four measures and rejected one. 

Click here to learn more about all of Oregon’s 1978 measures. 

We have several ways to look through our historical ballot measures repository. You can search for ballot measures by year, state, or topic

Keep reading 


40 candidates filed for federal and statewide offices last week

Last week, 40 candidates filed to run for congressional and state offices—including for elections in 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. Two weeks ago, we tracked 42 candidates who declared for congressional and state offices.

This year, we’ve tracked 912 declared candidates for congressional and statewide offices. At this time in 2021, Ballotpedia had identified 1,794 declared candidates for 2022, 2023, and 2024 races.

Here’s a breakdown of the candidates who declared last week:

Of the partisan nature of the declared candidates: 

  • 22 are Democrats.
  • 18 are Republicans.

Of the offices tracked:

  • 28 candidates filed for Congress.
  • 4 candidates filed for governorships.
  • 8 filed for a lower state executive office. 

Between March 6 and April 3, we tracked an average of 22 candidates who filed for congressional or state elections. Between April 3 and May 8, that average increased to 35 candidates.

We cover elections for tens of thousands of offices across the country, and part of that work includes keeping tabs on the candidates who file to run for those offices. We’ll periodically update you on how many candidates are signing up to run for state and congressional offices. We process both official and declared candidates.

Click here to read more about our definition of candidacy. Click the link below to see a list of all declared candidates for federal elections in 2024. 

Keep reading 



2023 sees highest number of public-sector union bills in past five years

Welcome to the Friday, May 19, Brew. 

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. 2023 sees highest number of public-sector union bills introduced in state legislatures since 2018
  2. An update on this year’s ballot measure certifications
  3. #FridayTrivia: Which state does not require voter approval to amend its constitution?

2023 sees highest number of public-sector union bills introduced in state legislatures since 2018

We’ve closely monitored and tracked public-sector union bills in state legislatures since the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that public sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees. 

This year, we’re tracking 225 public-sector union bills in state legislatures—the most since 2018. Public-sector union legislation deals with topics that include collective bargaining, union membership, strikes and other labor actions, and more. 

In 2023, Democrats have introduced 68% of these bills, a higher percentage than in previous years. The chart below shows the breakdown of these bills by sponsor party affiliation. 

The states with the greatest increase in public-sector union legislation introduced from 2022 to 2023 are Maryland (13 more bills) and Minnesota (12 more bills), both states that gained Democratic trifectas as a result of 2022 elections.

We’ve tracked an average of 151 such bills since 2018. Previously, 2018, with 202 bills, was the year with the highest number of bills introduced. The year with the fewest was 2020, with 102. 

Only a small share of all bills tend to get enacted. From 2018 to today, an average of 15 bills have been enacted each year, ranging from five bills in 2020 to 30 bills in 2018.

One recent story related to public-union legislation that has received national attention comes out of Florida. On May 9, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed Senate Bill 256. Among other things, the bill prohibits most types of public-sector unions—except those representing law enforcement officers, correctional officers, correctional probation officers, and firefighters—from deducting union dues from employee paychecks and requires them to have the support of 60% of members. 

Several unions across the state filed lawsuits the same day in response to the law. 

Click here to read more about Senate Bill 256.

Here’s a look at some of the bills legislators are currently considering:

  • Connecticut SB01199: This bill would provide that anyone holding an adjunct professor permit from the State Board of Education shall be a member of the exclusive bargaining unit for certified employees, unless the employer and bargaining unit agree otherwise. 
  • Michigan HB4233: This bill would allow public school employers to collect union dues from employees’ wages.
  • Ohio SB83: This bill would amend a list of public employees who are not allowed to strike to include all employees of public higher education institutions..

You can stay up to date on public-sector union legislation at the link below. 

Keep reading


An update on this year’s ballot measure certifications  

We’re nearing the halfway point of the year (where does the time go?), so let’s check in on how the 2023 statewide ballot measure landscape is shaping up.

As of May 16, 13 statewide measures have been certified for the ballot in eight states for elections this year. That’s five more measures than the average number—eight—certified at this point in other odd-numbered years from 2011 to 2021. This is the time of year when many legislatures are wrapping up sessions—which usually leads to a busy period of new measures being certified for the ballot. 

Here’s an update on the latest ballot measure activity.

Three new measures were certified for the 2023 ballot last week:

Two new measures were certified for the 2024 ballot last week:

Signatures have been submitted and are pending verification for one initiative in Michigan:

Signatures were verified for three indirect initiatives in Maine, and the initiatives are now before legislators:

In Ohio, one initiative to legalize marijuana was certified to the legislature, which had four months to act on the proposal; as the legislature took no action, a second 90-day signature-gathering period commenced on May 3.

For 2024, 34 statewide measures have been certified in 18 states. That’s five more measures than the average number certified at this point from 2010 to 2022.

Click below to read more.
Keep reading 


#FridayTrivia: Which state does not require voter approval to amend its constitution?

In the May 17 Brew, we discussed a legislatively referred measure in Ohio that would raise the threshold for voters to approve future constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%. Voters will decide the measure on Aug. 8. 

While most states require a simple majority to amend the constitution, a handful of others require a supermajority or some other criteria that can affect the number of votes needed.  

One state, however, does not require voter approval to amend its constitution. Which is it? 

  1. Montana
  2. Louisiana
  3. Delaware
  4. Maine


Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #61

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

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues:  The debate over the Biden administration’s transgender school sports rule 
  • Share candidate endorsements with us! 
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • As Texas’ legislative session ends, here’s where things stand with a bill that would implement a statewide education savings program   
  • Extracurricular: education news from around the web
  • Take our Candidate Connection survey! 

Reply to this email to share reactions or story ideas!


On the issues: The debate over the Biden administration’s transgender school sports rule 

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.

On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education released a proposed update to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 regulating when schools may or may not ban transgender athletes from participating on sports teams that do not align with their sex. Title IX says: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The Education Department’s proposed rule would prohibit schools from imposing outright bans on transgender students wanting to compete in sports consistent with their gender identity but allow for some exceptions to achieve educational objectives or minimize harm to students.

Rich Lowry writes that the proposed rule is too vague and broadly redefines Title IX. Lowry says Title IX was enacted to promote women’s sports and that the proposed rule will promote competition between biological men identifying as women and biological females. He says regulators should not be able to change the intent of laws and argues Congress should have to draft new legislation to implement the Biden administration’s proposed changes. 

Doriane Coleman writes that Biden’s proposed rule properly balances the interests of both women and transgender people who identify as women. Coleman says the rule is specific enough to provide sufficient guidance for governments and school leaders on both sides of the issue, protect transgender individuals from discrimination, and protect girls and women from physical harm.

Biden trans-sports rule reverses the intent of the law it ‘enforces’ | Rich Lowry, New York Post

“If justice demands that Title IX encompass gender identity, then the solution is very simple — Congress should amend the statute. Why bother with such Schoolhouse Rock notions, though, when Title IX can be rendered infinitely malleable? First, the Biden administration last year redefined the law, without any warrant, so that ‘sex’ includes ‘stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.’ And now there’s going to be an entire new regulatory regime devoted to ensuring the participation of trans athletes in sports meets the Biden administration’s standards. Congress passes a law protecting and encouraging women’s sports, and lo and behold, 50 years later the law is being used to ensure as many males as possible are competing against females. Here the road to hell isn’t even paved with good intentions, but bad-faith interpretations of the law imposed by people who know they can’t win democratic assent for their cultural agenda. … The draft rule is an affront to Congress, an affront to federalism (it clearly targets the roughly 20 states that have bans on males competing against females) and an affront to girls and women who simply want to compete against one another when they play sports.”

Why Biden’s New School-Sports Rule Matters | Doriane Coleman, The Atlantic

“The loudest voices in the debate often seek either to ban transgender women and girls from participating on female teams altogether or, on the other side, to make sports blind to sex differences. This is a complicated issue, one that requires compassion for all the athletes involved, as well as precision, not broad strokes. The administration’s proposal is a welcome response to the partisan rancor and a sophisticated approach that mostly meets the challenge at hand. … If you understand that both sex and gender matter; if you care about the integrity of girls’ and women’s sports; and if you want schools to take care of all kids, including trans kids, this is a good proposal. … The administration’s rule doesn’t just address the practical question of how to accommodate transgender athletes; it also addresses a political question—how to negotiate the space between those on the left who deny the existence of sex or the relevance of sex differences to law and policy, and those on the right who deny the existence of transgender people and insist that their advocates are selling a dangerous ideology. President Joe Biden clearly cares about trans rights. He also cares about women’s rights.”


Share candidate endorsements with us! 

As part of our goal to solve the ballot information problem, Ballotpedia is gathering information about school board candidate endorsements. The ballot information gap widens the further down the ballot you go, and is worst for the more than 500,000 local offices nationwide, such as school boards or special districts. Endorsements can help voters know more about their candidates and what they stand for. 

Do you know of an individual or group that has endorsed a candidate in your district? 

Click here to let us know.


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

Ballotpedia has historically covered school board elections in about 500 of the country’s largest districts. We’re gradually expanding the number we cover with our eye on the more than 13,000 districts with elected school boards.


Election results from the past week

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania school districts held primaries on May 16. All districts in Pennsylvania held elections, with approximately half of the state’s 4,491 seats on the ballot. Pennsylvania holds school board elections every two years in odd-numbered years. Pennsylvania is one of four states that allow for partisan school board elections. Pennsylvania candidates can choose to run under a specific party’s label.

We’ll share results from these elections when we have them. 

South Dakota

We’re covering all school board elections in South Dakota this year. In South Dakota, school boards choose the timing of their elections within a certain range. This year, all 149 districts are holding elections. Approximately 33% of the state’s 853 seats are up for election this year. 

One notable race took place in Sioux Falls, the state’s largest city. 

Dawn Marie Johnson and Brian Mattson ran for an at-large seat on the Sioux Falls School Board on May 16. Johnson defeated Mattson 70.6% to 29%. Nick Zachariasen’s name appeared on the ballot, but he ended his campaign in April and backed Johnson. Zachariasen received 20 votes.

Cynthia Mickelson did not run for re-election. Her term ends June 30.

State Reps. Tyler Tordsen (R) and Kadyn Wittman (D), as well as the South Dakota District 11 Democrats, endorsed Johnson. The Sioux Falls Education Association, the local teachers union, also endorsed Johnson. Click here to see more Johnson endorsees. 

The Minnehaha County, S.D., Republican Party and the Patriot Ripple Effect endorsed Mattson. Click here to see more Mattson endorsees. 

Sioux Falls School District is South Dakota’s largest district with an estimated enrollment of around 25,000 students. The board consists of five members. 

Oregon

Districts in Oregon held general elections on May 16. We covered elections in the following districts:


As Texas’ legislative session ends, here’s where things stand with a bill that would implement a statewide education savings program  

This year, governors in four states—Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, and Florida—have signed legislation creating universal education savings account (ESA) programs. Additionally, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed a bill establishing a voucher program on May 4. Overall, more than 11 states have some kind of ESA program, though some are limited to low-income students or students with disabilities. In the Feb. 22 edition of this newsletter, we looked at proposed legislation in more than 10 states—including Texas—that would expand or implement ESA programs. 

And in Texas, as the legislative session draws to a close, lawmakers and the governor are wrangling over a bill that would establish an ESA program.

On May 14, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) pledged to veto a bill that would provide some families with ESAs for private school tuition or homeschooling because it didn’t apply to enough students. 

The legislation, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), passed the state Senate on April 6 in an 18-13 vote and has been before the House Public Education Committee since. The committee heard invited testimony on the bill on May 15.

Also on April 6, the House voted 86-52 to approve an amendment to an unrelated budget bill that prohibits using state funds for private education. Twenty-four Republicans voted with Democrats to approve the amendment. According to The Texas Tribune’s Brian Lopez and Alex Nguyen, House “Democrats and rural Republicans have banded together in the past to oppose voucher-like programs as they fear they could take away money from their local school districts.”

Republicans hold a 19-12 majority in the Senate and an 85-64 majority in the House (with one vacancy). 

The House’s version of the bill makes several changes to the Senate’s ESA eligibility requirements. While the Senate’s bill would give kindergartners and any private-school students who had attended public school access to $8,000 for education expenses, including private school tuition and homeschooling, the House version limits eligibility to low-income students, students with disabilities, and students enrolled in low-performing schools. Additionally, the House bill makes the amount each student receives in the account dependent on income and disability status and eliminates a provision prohibiting schools from providing “instruction, guidance, activities, or programming regarding sexual orientation or gender identity to students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade.”

The original Senate bill also includes a provision for giving rural districts $10,000 for every student that uses ESAs to leave the district. 

On April 6, the Senate also voted 22-9 to pass Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), a $1.6 billion package that includes a $4,000 raise for all teachers—as well as an additional $4,000 for those in rural districts—and funding for teacher childcare and apprenticeship programs. The House Public Education Committee is also considering SB 9. Some legislators opposed the bill, saying $2,000 isn’t enough. 

Abbott said, “This latest version does little to provide meaningful school choice, and legislators deserve to know that it would be vetoed if it reached my desk. Instead, the original House version of the Senate bill provides a more meaningful starting point to begin House-Senate negotiations.” This year’s legislative session in Texas is scheduled to end May 29. Abbott said he would consider calling a special session if the legislature did not send him a bill he likes.

The Texas State Teachers Association President Ovidia Molina said, “The governor and the legislative majority are shortchanging educators and their students with an inadequate budget and trying to pass a voucher bill that would further endanger our public education system and threaten the futures of the millions of Texas school children who will remain in public schools.”

The House Public Education Committee has until Saturday to vote on SB 8 and SB 9 for the full House to consider the bills before the end of the session. 

Meanwhile, legislators in Oklahoma announced on May 15 they had agreed on a school funding package including teacher pay raises and a universal refundable tax-credit plan for private school tuition and homeschooling expenses. Households earning less than $75,000 annually would receive $7,500 per student. Households making more than $75,000 would receive less. All homeschooling families would receive $1,000 per student. 

The state House and Senate had been at a standstill the last few months as lawmakers tried to find common ground on school funding, teacher pay, and the tax-credit plan. The House passed House Bill 1934 (HB 1934), which establishes the tax-credit program, on May 2 in a 61-31 vote. However, House Speaker Charles McCall (R) used a procedure to indefinitely prevent the bill from going to Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) until lawmakers in both chambers could agree on House Bill 2672 (HB 2672), which includes teacher raises and changes to the school funding formula. 

According to The Oklahoman’s Nura Martinez-Keel, officials in the House and Senate agreed on a $625 million funding package. McCall said he’d send the tax-credit bill to Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) once HB 2672 had been voted on. 


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

Everyone deserves to know their candidates. However, we know it can be hard for voters to find information about their candidates, especially for local offices such as school boards. That’s why we created Candidate Connection—a survey designed to help candidates tell voters about their campaigns, their issues, and so much more. 

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

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 mobile app, My Vote Ballotpedia.

In the 2020 election cycle, 4,745 candidates completed the survey. 



California voters are approving parcel tax measures at a higher rate than in odd-numbered years over the last decade

Welcome to the Friday, May 12, Brew. 

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. California voters are approving parcel tax measures at a higher rate than in odd-numbered years over the last decade
  2. A look back at Ballotpedia’s first Community Volunteer Day! 
  3. #FridayTrivia: How many state executive officials have left office early since 2012? 

California voters are approving parcel tax measures at a higher rate than in odd-numbered years over the last decade

So far in 2023, California voters have approved 89% of the nine parcel tax measures that have been on the ballot. In odd-numbered years between 2011 and 2021, that figure was 62%

A parcel tax is a form of property tax based on the characteristics of a unit of property—a parcel—rather than the assessed value. A parcel tax can be levied on square footage or by dwelling unit, or the tax may be a flat rate per parcel.  

In the United States, parcel taxes are unique to California. Local governments turned to parcel taxes to raise revenue after voters approved Proposition 13, a constitutional amendment that limited property taxes, in 1978. Local governments, including cities, counties, and school districts, can impose parcel taxes, and revenues can be used for various types of spending, including construction costs, employee salaries, and school funding. Parcel tax measures require a two-thirds vote for approval.

From 2011 to 2021, voters decided 216 parcel tax-related ballot measures in California during odd-numbered year elections, approving 133 (61.57%) and rejecting 83 (38.43%). Through April of this year, voters have approved eight (88.89%) and rejected one (11.11%).

On average, 36 parcel tax-related measures appeared on ballots in California during an odd-numbered year. In all years since 2011, an average of 55.5 parcel tax measures appeared on ballots. 

Here’s a look at some of the parcel tax measures voters have decided this year:

  • Of the parcel taxes voters have approved, South Pasadena Unified School District had the highest parcel tax measure. The measure asked voters to renew a current parcel tax at a rate of $4,764 per parcel for seven years to provide education funding.
  • The one parcel tax measure that was defeated by voters would have established a tax based on the square foot of buildings ($0.32 per square foot of homes, $1.42 per square foot for lodging, and other rates) to provide funds to acquire, operate, and maintain the Napa County Fairgrounds.
  • The measure with the highest vote of approval was in the Salmon Creek Fire Protection District in Humboldt County, which was approved with 111 (96%) voters in favor and five (4%) opposed. The measure enacted a $75 per year special tax for each parcel to fund the Salmon Creek Volunteer Fire Company.

Click the link below to see our coverage of all local measures throughout California.
Keep reading


A look back at Ballotpedia’s first Community Volunteer Day! 

In yesterday’s Brew, we told you a little about Ballotpedia’s first Community Volunteer Day. Ballotpedians helped at local organizations around the country, including animal shelters, soup kitchens, local nature preserves, and many others. 

We were all excited to volunteer and give back to readers in our local communities. Below are photos of our staff enjoying the day and a little about how some volunteers contributed:

“I enjoy hiking and think it’s important to keep trails in good shape for everyone to use and encourage people to get outside” Volunteering with Portland Trails

“I do a lot of advocacy volunteer work for women and children in crisis in our community and this seemed like the perfect opportunity!” Volunteering with a local women’s and children’s shelter

“I have several veterans in my family, including my dad who is a disabled, Purple Heart Medal recipient. Our military community means a lot to me.” Volunteering with Veterans Affairs

“It’s giving me the opportunity to get out of my house and get involved in the community. I do things online to help people all the time, but it’s different when you can see them face to face.” Volunteering with Eastside Soup Kitchen

“I adopted my dog Daisy from Humane Tomorrow. Humane Tomorrow is a no kill dog shelter that tries to provide foster homes for every dog they bring in. They also provide resources to help owners adopt and train their dogs to adapt to new homes.” Volunteering with Humane Tomorrow

We’re excited to see the results of our efforts, and we hope to continue to support more essential organizations in the future! 


#FridayTrivia: How many state executive officials have left office early since 2012? 

In the May 9 edition of this newsletter, following Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan’s (D) resignation the day before, we looked at the number of state executive officials who’ve left office early in 2023. Fagan’s resignation brings the total this year to 20 irregular office changes—our term for when an official resigns or dies.

In that edition, we also looked at the total number of irregular office changes we’ve tracked since 2012. 

How many state executive officials have left office early since 2012?

  1. 243
  2. 111
  3. 356
  4. 87


Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #60

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

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues: The debate over religious charter schools
  • In your district: reader replies on district reading programs
  • Share candidate endorsements with us! 
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • Judge rules Pennsylvania district must permit After School Satan Club to use school facilities
  • 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 religious charter 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.

The Oklahoma Catholic Conference (OCC) applied in February 2023 for permission to start a religious online charter school. The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board rejected the application on April 11, saying it did not meet the state’s standards for approval and giving the OCC 30 days to fix the identified problems. 

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board writes that religious charter schools, since they would receive public funding, would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Board says taxpayers should not have to fund religious charters and that the policy would violate the principle of church-state separation.

Andy Smarick writes that Supreme Court precedent since 2017, in its ruling in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, supports the idea that states cannot exclude certain schools from participating in government programs solely based on their religious nature. Smarick says religious charters would be beneficial for creating more options in the public school system.

Editorial: Taxpayers have no business funding religious instruction in public schools | The Editorial Board, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“But this isn’t just any ol’ charter school application. It proposes to cross the long-respected dividing line between church and state outlined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Religious conservatives insist the clause has been misinterpreted and that the Founding Fathers always intended America to be a Christian nation. … Regardless of the outcome in Oklahoma, it almost certainly won’t be the final attempt to impose Christian doctrine on public schools while demanding that taxpayers fund it. Other nations have tried state sponsorship of religion, and it doesn’t tend to go well. Once religion becomes interwoven in government, it becomes almost impossible to unweave it. And since the Constitution requires equal treatment, state funding would also have to extend to other religions, meaning taxpayers could be on the hook to pay for public schools teaching, say, Islamist doctrine. Oklahoma’s current charter regulations require schools to be nonsectarian in all instruction, admissions policies and operations — as it should be. Feeding souls are what churches, synagogues and mosques are all about. Public schools are for feeding brains, free of faith indoctrination. And they must stay that way.”

The extended case for faith-based charter schools | Andy Smarick, The Thomas Fordham Institute

“Addressing those charging that the Court was forcing states to fund religious groups, Chief Justice Roberts’s Espinoza decision explained that Montana didn’t have to create a program that funded nongovernmental organizations. But once the state did so, it couldn’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. The same logic applies in Trinity Lutheran and Carson: States don’t have to create programs for nonprofits to resurface playgrounds or for students to attend out-of-district high schools, but once they do, they can’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. We should expect a Roberts opinion ruling that states aren’t obligated to allow charter schools, but once they do, they can’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. … The left’s strategy could be to simply vote “no” as this wave swells. An alternative is to support more school options and increased parental power inside a public system of transparency and accountability. That would mean sitting down at—not walking away from—the negotiating table on the issue of faith-based charters. When the Supreme Court eventually rules that states with charter school laws must permit faith-based charters, the left will be glad that they had a hand in crafting those programs instead of standing on the sidelines.”


In your district: reader replies on district reading programs

We recently asked readers the following question about the reading program in place in their local districts:

Do you think your district is using the best possible reading program?

Thank you to all who responded. Today, we’re sharing a handful of those responses. We’ll return next month with another reader question. If you have ideas for a question you’d like to see us ask, reply to this email to let us know!

A community member in Virginia wrote

Our reading program is touted as being aligned with “Science of Reading”, but the scores of our black and brown students and those who are economically disadvantaged prove it’s not working.

A school board candidate in Oregon wrote

Absolutely not! Our district, the Beaverton School District in Oregon, is still using Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study. This program has been thoroughly discredited/debunked dating back to at least 2020. Other neighboring districts, like Portland Public Schools, have removed/replaced this curriculum already given the poor outcomes it produces. However, the Beaverton School District has told the community that they will continue to use it through the 2023-24 school year. They are looking to augment it with some smaller phonics-based programs, but it is ridiculous they are still using such a terrible program and have been for years now.

Keep in mind this is not a small district that lacks resources. BSD is the 3rd largest district in Oregon and has many administrators and TOSAs (Teacher on Special Assignment) who focus on curriculum adoption, support, training, etc.

A community member from Pennsylvania wrote

Only if the district is using multiple tools of teaching, such as phonics, meanings in context, common word recognition, reading for pleasure, etc.

A school board member from Wisconsin wrote:

Test scores have been declining over the last decade. The administrator says we are using a phonics based approach to reading so why the decline is a mystery to me. I’m wondering if the hand off each year as children progress is consistent or if we are losing something in the transfer each year. 

 A teacher from Illinois wrote:

Absolutely NOT! With all the Science of Reading buzzing around, our new program is the total opposite of that!

A school board member from Michigan wrote:

No – I really wish they would explore other options such as EBLI – Evidence Based Literacy Instruction. The state needs to be putting resources directly into heavily staffing reading interventionists in elementary schools. Our elementary school children are either barely proficient or below standards.


Share candidate endorsements with us! 

As part of our goal to solve the ballot information problem, Ballotpedia is gathering information about school board candidate endorsements. The ballot information gap widens the further down the ballot you go, and is worst for the more than 500,000 local offices nationwide, such as school boards or special districts. Endorsements can help voters know more about their candidates and what they stand for. 

Do you know of an individual or group that has endorsed a candidate in your district? 

Click here to let us know.


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

Ballotpedia has historically covered school board elections in about 500 of the country’s largest districts. This year, Ballotpedia is covering elections for approximately 8,750 seats in 3,211 school districts across 28 states—or about 36% of all school boards elections this year. Click here to read more about our 2023 school board coverage. 


Election results from the past week

On May 6, we covered general elections in 58 Texas school districts, including in Dallas Independent School District, the state’s second largest district by enrollment. The largest district, Houston Independent School District, will hold general elections on Nov. 7, along with some others. 

Three seats were up for election in the Dallas Independent School District. Around 154,000 students are enrolled in the Dallas Independent School District. The board consists of nine members elected to three-year terms. 

In the race for District 6, Incumbent Joyce Foreman defeated challenger Stephen Poole 77% to 23%. Foreman was first elected in 2014. 

The race for District 2 will conclude in a June 10 runoff election between Jimmy Tran and Sarah Weinberg, who advanced from the May 6 general election because neither candidate received more than 50% of the vote. Tran received 39.6%, while Weinberg received 37.1%. Kevin Malonson received 23.3%. 

Current District 2 incumbent Dustin Marshall endorsed Weinberg. 

According to The Dallas Morning News’s Valaria Olivares, Weinberg raised around $312,000 and Trans raised around $124,000. 

The race for District 8 was canceled because incumbent Joe Carreon was the only candidate to file. 

See more election results in Texas here


Upcoming school board elections

Pennsylvania

As part of our expanded coverage in 10 states, we’re covering all school board primary races in Pennsylvania on May 16. All districts in Pennsylvania are holding elections this year, with approximately half of the state’s 4,491 seats on the ballot. Pennsylvania holds school board elections every two years in odd-numbered years. 

Oregon

Districts in Oregon are holding general elections on May 16. We’re covering elections in the following:

Judge rules Pennsylvania district must permit After School Satan Club to use school facilities

On May 1, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John Gallagher ruled the Saucon Valley School District, in Pennsylvania, must allow the After School Satan Club to use school facilities for meetings while the case is argued in court.  

We looked at the debate over this case in the April 19 edition of this newsletter. In February, the school district initially approved but then later denied the After School Satan Club’s request to use school facilities for meetings. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the Satanic Temple, sued the district on March 30. The Satanic Temple alleged the district violated the First Amendment in refusing to approve the club’s application while permitting other religious clubs to operate in schools.     

Saucon Valley School District is located in the eastern part of Pennsylvania, outside of Allentown. The district has approximately 2,100 students. 

The Satanic Temple describes itself as “a religious organization dedicated to the practice and promotion of individual rights. We do not subscribe to supernaturalism, so in that way we do not believe that Satan is a deity, being, or person.” According to the Satanic Temple, the organization only starts clubs if other religious groups are operating in schools. 

After School Satan Clubs exist in schools in several states, including Ohio, Illinois, and Colorado.

The district argued it rescinded its initial decision to approve the club’s application because the Satanic Temple violated its advertising policies when it put up social media posts that insinuated the district had sponsored the club: “TST’s [The Satanic Temple] actions misled community members and people across the country to think that the Club was being sponsored by the District, not just letting the Club meet in its building.” The district received calls from parents and community members, including an anonymous bomb threat on Feb. 21 that caused the district to close schools for a day.

On Feb. 24, the district announced the After School Satan Club would not be allowed to use school facilities. 

Gallagher ruled the district did not provide sufficient evidence that it rejected The Satanic Temple’s application because the group violated the district’s advertising policy. Gallagher concluded the district most likely rejected the application because of the organization’s viewpoint and the community reaction to the club: “The record does not support the District’s argument that the negative public backlash and criticism was caused by a mistaken belief ASSC [After School Satan Club] was District-sponsored. Rather, as the litany of e-mails from parents and community members to the District’s Superintendent reveal, the negative community backlash and criticism expressed a frustration with the District’s decision to permit ASSC meetings, not with a mistaken belief the District actually sponsored the ASSC.”

Gallagher’s ruling means the club will be able to meet for the remainder of the school year while litigation in the case continues. 


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 responses from Connie Clemens and Jeff Myers, who are running in May 16 elections for seats on the Beaverton School District school board in Oregon. Clemens is running in the general election for Zone 3 against Maham Ahmed and Melissa Potter, while Myers is running in the general election for Zone 6 against Justice Rajee. Neither Ahmed, Potter, nor Rajee completed the survey. 

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

  • I am very concerned about the reduction in curriculum over the years. We need to take a hard look at what’s been deleted and what’s been added and why.
  • I also am concerned about the abysmal scores of our juniors on Oregon’s state tests. We need to put academics first in policy and do everything possible to ensure students are getting a truly exceptional education.
  • Communication between the district and school board with parents and the community must be improved. One way to achieve that is to get volunteers back into the buildings. BSD has an abundance of talented and experienced people who can partner with the schools in the education process.”

Click here to read the rest of Clemens’ responses. 


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

  • Priority #1: Academics. We need to leverage proven methods and materials for our children to be and feel successful in achieving their goals. It’s time to raise the bar!
  • Priority #2: Safety. Students and staff need to feel safe and able to focus to be successful. After years of struggling with a failed approach to discipline, we need to go back to basics.
  • Priority #3: School Environment. We need to take meaningful action on the top issues impacting school staff: large class sizes, ever-increasing workloads, conflicting priorities, and responsibility without authority.

Click here to read the rest of Myers’ responses.

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



A roundup of May 6 Texas election results

Local elections took place across Texas on Saturday, May 6. Ballotpedia covered 47 ballot measures on May 6. That was nearly three times more than we covered in May Texas elections in 2019 and 2021, mainly due to an increase in bond measures and charter amendments this year.  

As of this writing, results for some of the 47 measures were not yet available. Those that received the most media attention were voted on in San Antonio, El Paso, and Austin.

San Antonio

Voters rejected Proposition A 71.63% to 28.37%. The amendment, a citizen-initiated measure, would have made the following changes: 

  • Established a city justice director appointed by the mayor and city council; 
  • Prohibited police from issuing citations or making arrests for certain misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses;
  • Prohibited police from enforcing criminal abortion laws;
  • Banned law enforcement use of no-knock warrants and chokeholds; and
  • Used citations instead of arrests for certain misdemeanors.

The San Antonio Police Officers Association opposed the measure. President Danny Diaz said, “This wasn’t a party issue. This was a community issue. The work doesn’t stop tonight. The work continues so that we go out into the community so that they understand what we’re doing as police officers for them to make sure they are safe.”

Act 4 SA led the effort to get the measure on the ballot. Its executive Director, Ananda Thomas, criticized the measure opponents, saying, “lies and the misinformation that were put out there backed by over $2 million. We know at the end of the day, in the long run, the people will always win over big-money interests.”

El Paso

Voters decided 11 charter amendments, including Proposition K, a citizen initiative related to the climate. Voters rejected Proposition K 83.5% to 16.47%. 

Among other things, Proposition K would have established the Climate Department and the Climate Director, which would have carried out the amendment’s three policy goals — “to reduce the City’s contribution to climate change; second, to invest in an environmentally sustainable future; and third, to advance the cause of climate justice.” 

El Paso Matters’s Diego Mendoza-Moyers said, “the Climate Charter sparked fierce opposition – and heavy campaign spending – from business groups such as the El Paso Chamber and the Houston-based Consumer Energy Alliance, which collectively poured over $1 million into television and web advertisements and campaign mailers urging voters to oppose the measure. Supporters of the Climate Charter spent about $30,000 in the election.”

Austin

Voters decided two competing initiatives related to police oversight. Voters supported Proposition A 79.86% to 20.14% and rejected Proposition B 81.09% to 18.91%. Equity Action sponsored Proposition A, while the Austin Police Association-backed Voters for Oversight and Police Accountability sponsored Proposition B. 

Proposition A authorizes the Office of Police Oversight to investigate anonymous complaints, gather evidence and directly interview witnesses, and conduct a preliminary investigation of every complaint and determine whether a full investigation is warranted. The measure allows the Office of Police Oversight to analyze all force incident data and conduct random audits of body camera video.

Under Proposition B, certain provisions regarding the Office of Police Oversight would have been removed from the city Code of Ordinances, including a provision of the Office of Police Oversight to receive anonymous complaints. 

On Saturday night, the Austin Police Association tweeted they were “taking immediate action to determine the city’s intentions regarding the implementation and enforcement of the illegal provisions contained in Prop A.” 

According to Community Impact’s Ben Thompson, “The face-off between the ballot measures is the latest in a series of high-profile policing decisions in the city through recent years, following a 2021 vote in which Austinites rejected a police staffing requirement and voted to ban low-level marijuana enforcement and no-knock raids in the city in last spring’s election. This year, the pending outcome of this May’s proposition election also led City Council to hold off on approving a new labor agreement with the police union.”

Mayoral and municipal elections

Ballotpedia covered mayoral elections in six cities on May 6. Incumbents in all six cities were running for re-election, and all incumbents were re-elected. Three of those cities — Fort Worth, Garland, and Irving — have Republican mayors, while Dallas has a Democratic mayor. San Antonio’s mayor is an independent. We have been unable to verify the partisan affiliation of Arlington’s mayor. 

Ballotpedia is covering 40 mayoral elections this year, including upcoming elections on May 16 in Jacksonville, Fla., and Philadelphia, Pa

Ballotpedia also covered city council and other elections on May 6 in the following cities and counties. Click to see results.