Democracy For What and For Whom?: The Possibilities and Challenges of K-12 School Boards

• In Event: Complex Contestation: Understanding the Structures and Actors that Manage Dissent in the U.S. K-12 Political Landscape

Abstract

Local school boards have historically played a major role in the functioning and character of US schools, providing fiscal oversight, shaping policy, and creating avenues for community voice, representation, and accountability (Tyack, 1974; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As such, school boards have regularly served as critical sites for political struggle and public discourse on a range of issues (e.g., ethnic studies, school closures and mergers, and LGBTQ+ students’ rights) (Walsh, 2024). Yet growing demands on schools (Casserly, 2024), political extremism (Rogers et al., 2024), and well-coordinated attacks on public education (Pappano, 2024) are testing the capacity, legitimacy, and purpose of these democratic institutions. Our paper examines the everyday realities of local school governance and how these realities speak to the possibilities of democracy in public education. Drawing on a qualitative, multiple case study of 10 school board members (SBMs) from diverse California districts, we explore the following research questions: How do board members conceptualize democracy and their role in it? What challenges and successes do they face in their efforts to enact these roles? Critical and democratic theories (Cohen, 1989; Fraser, 1990; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Mansbridge, 1983; Marsh, 2007; Pateman, 1975; Sanders, 1997) frame our understanding of the possibilities of school board governance and the reality of how they play out.
Analysis of interviews, audio-diary entries, and observations finds that SBMs struggled with the challenges of balancing their role as community representatives while considering the needs of particular groups, their own personal values, and state-mandated legal and fiscal responsibilities. For example, one participant shared “...there’s a balance between things being a democracy or everyone feeling like they have a say and moving the needle with equity, which requires you to sometimes make a decision that isn't reflective of what your constituents are saying.” SBMs also described how public meeting laws can limit boards’ ability to discuss district business or respond directly to the public during meetings. Nearly all SBMs agreed that a combination of these factors led to meetings that were either a checklist to get through or a presentation of complaints without opportunities to engage in participatory or deliberative democratic practices. As one SBM explained, “These spaces are not set up for real participation. It's like we have the space in theory. In practice, we don't have the space, you know, unless districts intentionally create it.” Broadly speaking, participants were conflicted about whether the purpose of democratically elected boards was ensuring legal compliance or transforming schools to address inequities.
Ultimately, these findings address under-examined questions about the nature of local democracy: for what and for whom? – democracy in service of maintaining the status quo or challenging it and advancing the needs of marginalized groups often left out of the process (Fraser, 1990; Kirshner & Jefferson, 2015). This is particularly important as school boards are poised to play an outsized role in education policy under the newly-inaugurated Trump administration (Peetz, 2025). Consequently, our work points to strategies for better supporting board members in realizing the promises of a just, local democracy.

Authors

• James C. Bridgeforth, University of Delaware

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Akunna Faith Uka, University of Southern California

• Laura Steen Mulfinger, University of Southern California

• Jacob Alonso, University of Southern California