Local elections in the United States can often be low voter turnout affairs. The National Civic League reports that only 15% to 27% of the electorate participates in local elections; the recent mayoral election in Las Vegas drew only 9% of voters. But, when it comes to local school board elections, voter interest has dramatically increased in the last year — as a “school board revolt” over the diversity, equity, and inclusion elements of curricula has aroused the interest of parent groups.
The recall election of three school board members in San Francisco in February drew 36% of registered voters. Once-sleepy board meetings across the country have become angry and contentious.
The issues at stake draw the most attention, but it is important to appreciate, as well, that the parent revolt could not occur at all in many countries, even democratic ones. The American tradition of local control of school systems, including control of the content of curricula, is exceptional — and is proving to be a key safety valve of democracy.
According to the Department of Education, there are more than 13,000 local systems in the U.S. — systems that not only elect their own school board members (of which there are some 95,000) but that finance their operations in part or in whole through local property taxes.
At the turn of the 20th century, there were actually more than 100,000 local school systems, prior to a Progressive Era push for consolidation in the name of efficiency. Even still, however, today’s decentralized system creates a tight loop of local accountability; voters, especially in small, independent municipalities, who pay for their local schools also get to vote for those who govern them. Extreme decisions, such as the San Francisco board taking Abraham Lincoln’s name off a school while simultaneously keeping schools closed to in-person learning, lead to backlash.
It’s not something that could easily happen in many countries, however. England and France are certainly democratic nations, but, like many others, they adopt a national curriculum for all local schools. So, too, with Mexico and Sweden. There’s no national curriculum in Canada, but neither is there local control; provincial (state) ministries call the shots. Not surprisingly, Nazi Germany had a national curriculum, substituting “race science” for biology. Not only did it get tossed out after World War II, but so did the idea of a national curriculum altogether. Decision-making, in a federalized German system, was left to the newly empowered state governments.
There are, however, some exceptions to this vibrant form of American exceptionalism. As a result of a history of public corruption and incompetence, New York City, which has the largest public school system in the nation, abolished its Board of Education. Decision-making now lies with the mayor, leading to an inevitable dilution of parents’ voices in local elections in which teachers unions can have outsize influence. Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest system, retains a Board of Education, but union influence holds sway and helped keep schools closed even as the COVID-19 pandemic waned and parents protested.
The combination of school closures, mask requirements even for young children, and, crucially, curriculum disputes should be expected to continue to fuel a parents revolt and affect elections at many levels of government. But don’t be surprised if parent upset also drives population migration. The pandemic is already driving a population exodus away from New York and Los Angeles. Suburbs are likely to benefit as a result of the fact that places with smaller populations also have smaller electorates. That means that one’s vote carries more weight — and that organized interest groups such as teachers unions can’t hold sway as easily.
The math of voter impact is notable. Consider the comparative figures for the city of Columbus, Ohio, and Bexley, a municipality surrounded by Columbus. Columbus has seven school board members for a population of 860,000, a ratio of one member for 123,000 residents. Bexley has five board members but for a population of 13,700, a ratio of one board member for 2,700 residents, and an even lower ratio when the number of board members to voters is calculated. The most recent winner with the lowest vote total needed only 1,800 votes.
Los Angeles, with 3,976,000 residents, has only seven school board members, one representative for every 568,000 residents. In contrast, the city of Santa Monica has 92,000 residents and a seven-member school board, or one member for just 13,000 residents. Smaller districts mean more democratic accountability — leading people to vote with their feet. It should be no surprise that a tiny school district such as that of Cumberland, Maine (population 7,200), with nine school board members, would become caught up in controversy over the role of racial topics in its curriculum. Defeating a school board member there is far more influential than doing so in a large district such as LA’s.
Those who cheer on the current school parent revolt have American federalism, and our “exceptionally“ decentralized education system, to thank.
Howard Husock is a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on municipal government, urban housing policy, civil society, and philanthropy. Husock is the author of the paper “The virtues of American localism — and its 21st-century challenges.“
