California School Boards and Their Members’ Experiences in Dynamic Times

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Wednesday 11:45 am - Gold 1
  In Roundtable Session: School Boards as Sites of Discourse, Legitimation, and Racialized Institutional Logics Amid Democratic Unrest

Abstract

Objectives
School board members are significant education policymakers given our nation’s tradition of local control over K-12 schools (Tyack, 1974; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). However, these institutions are understudied, and little is known about how members are navigating the current climate of heightened partisan polarization and shifting social and cultural contexts. To address this gap, our presentation draws on survey data from the large and diverse state of California to describe the characteristics of boards and their members, how members are engaging with communities, and how they are negotiating rapidly changing contexts.

Methods & Data Sources
We rely on a survey distributed to a near-census of the state’s board members as part of the “Getting Down to Facts III” project examining California’s education systems. The survey was administered online in May-June 2025 and had a response rate of over 18% (n=673). Conference results will use weighting to ensure results are representative of districts and board members statewide.

Preliminary Results
Consistent with prior literature (e.g., Hess, 2002), preliminary results suggest board members tend to be selected in relatively low-competition, low-spending elections. Specifically, 89% of respondents were elected (vs. appointed) to their board position. In their most recent election, 40% said they ran unopposed and 40% said they spent less than $100 on the campaign.

When it came to community involvement, most members viewed things positively, expressing confidence in their board’s ability to engage with constituents and viewing public feedback as representative of the broader community’s perspectives. Only 16% indicated that families who participate in board-sponsored events were not representative of the district. A large majority (83%) were themselves current or former parents/caregivers from the community. However, members had higher levels of income and education than average, with 82% indicating they had a college degree or graduate training.

Board members also identified challenges. Roughly half (51%) said they either would not run for another term or were not sure. A majority (61%) said being a member is more politically challenging than anticipated, and 52% had significant disagreements with other members. A non-trivial share experienced derogatory comments on social media (44%) or threats of violence or harassment (21%). Many indicated declining enrollment, labor union issues, uncertainty about federal funding, and changes in federal immigration enforcement policies were factors impeding progress. They expressed limited confidence in navigating social media, program evaluation, and political tensions, and indicated they would like more training in these areas.


Future Analysis and Scholarly Significance
Conference results will examine variation in how members are experiencing the current moment based on demographic characteristics of members and communities they serve. The presentation will discuss implications for governance, policy, and practice – particularly areas for future training and support. This work adds to a growing body of research examining the politicized environment, which has focused primarily on parents, educators, and district leaders (e.g., Jochim et al., 2023; Polikoff et al., 2022; Rogers et al., 2024; Woo et al., 2022; White et al., 2023), despite the important role of school board members.

Authors

• Beth Schueler, University of Virginia

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• James C. Bridgeforth, University of Delaware

• Jeimee Estrada-Miller, University of Southern California