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 attendance- or enrollment-based funding for schools
- Share candidate endorsements with us!
- School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
- U.S. Supreme Court issues guidance for when government officials can block users on social media
- Extracurricular: education news and numbers from around the web
- Candidate Connection survey
Reply to this email to share reactions or story ideas!
On the issues: The debate over attendance- or enrollment-based funding for 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. Missed an issue? Click here to see the previous education debates we’ve covered.
Today, we look at arguments for and against two school funding approaches. Enrollment-based funding formulas give schools money based on the number of enrolled students, regardless of student attendance. Attendance-based funding formulas give more money to schools with higher attendance rates and reduce funding for schools with lower attendance.
Six states, including Texas and California, currently use an attendance-based formula for funding schools and 44 use an enrollment-based formula.
Glenn Sacks writes that enrollment-based funding is more equitable than attendance-based approaches. Sacks says lower-income schools tend to have more truancy due to the challenges poor families face. He says taking resources away from schools that serve poorer students and experience greater challenges is unfair.
Frederick Hess writes that attendance-based funding is fairer and rewards schools that do a good job and earn higher attendance rates. Hess says many schools could do more to boost student attendance but aren’t incentivized to make changes under enrollment-based funding structures.
Helping Our Most Challenged Schools | Glenn Sacks, RealClearEducation
“Why would funding based on enrollment be more equitable? Because students of low socioeconomic status face many extra challenges, challenges that reduce attendance rates. When students are absent, their schools and districts lose funding for them, however, their costs remain almost the same, regardless of daily attendance. … Hess argues that moving away from an attendance-based funding system is like ‘throwing up your hands and telling me no one ought to be held responsible.’ The student body at the high school where I’ve taught for the past 10 years has one of the lowest socioeconomic levels in the entire US, and also has significant attendance problems–exactly the type of school that Hess and other critics believe would be unjustly rewarded by this funding shift. Should my colleagues and I be ‘held responsible?’ Are our alleged failings a tangible cause of our attendance problems? I see no evidence that they are.”
Should Schools Be Rewarded for Absenteeism? | Frederick Hess, Education Next
“You want schools where students show up to get less funding so schools with empty seats can get more? That rewards schools which aren’t doing their job! How on earth is that equitable? … Some kids face more challenges than others. Absolutely. But I don’t buy that schools are helpless. They can ensure they’re worth attending and have staff talk to families or knock on doors. They need to rethink transportation, educate parents, and set expectations. It takes work but it’s doable. Sounds like you’re throwing up your hands and telling me no one ought to be held responsible. … You’re saying that a school where only a handful of students show up should get funded as if everyone was there—with a little extra on top—because there’s nothing the school can do? … Now, under the sway of a truly perverse notion of ‘equity,’ sophisticates have refashioned low expectations as a sign of compassion and moral superiority.”
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 respond!
School board update: filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
In 2023, Ballotpedia covered elections for over 9,000 school board seats in more than 3,000 districts across 34 states. We’re expanding our coverage each year with our eye on the more 13,000 districts with elected school boards.
Upcoming school board elections
In the next month, Ballotpedia will cover school board elections in Newark, New Jersey, on April 16, and Texas, on May 4.
New Jersey
On April 16, Ballotpedia is covering general elections for three seats on the Newark Public Schools school board and a special general election for one board seat.
Incumbent Kanileah Anderson is the only candidate on the ballot in the special election.
In the regular general elections, nine candidates are running for the three seats. Incumbents Dawn Haynes, Vereliz Santana, and Helena Vinhas are running as the “Moving Newark Schools Forward” slate. Haynes and Santana ran as part of the same slate in 2021 and 2018.
Che’ J.T. Colter and Muta El-Amin are running as the “It Takes a Village” slate.
Latoya Jackson, Sheila Montague, Debra Salters, and Jimmie White are also running.
Candidates running as the “Moving Newark Schools Forward” slate have won all elections to the board since 2016. In last year’s elections, Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka (D) endorsed the slate.
Newark Public schools is the largest district in New Jersey, with an estimated enrollment of more than 41,000 students.
Texas
Ballotpedia is covering elections in 50 districts on May 4, including elections in the Dallas Independent School District, the state’s second-largest by student enrollment.
We’ll have more on these Texas elections in the coming weeks.
U.S. Supreme Court issues guidance for when government officials can block users on social media
According to the Pew Research Center, 68% of U.S. adults say they use social media. With over 500,000 elected officials in the country, many officeholders likely have personal social media accounts. When those officeholders use their accounts to post about their official government duties, are they acting as private citizens or government officials?
On March 15, SCOTUS issued an opinion in two cases related to that question. We wrote about both, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, last year.
What were the cases about? O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier concerned two elected school board members, while Lindke v. Freed was about an appointed city manager. In both cases, officeholders blocked users who left repetitive and critical comments on social media accounts identifying them as government officials. The officeholders created the accounts before they assumed office.
SCOTUS heard arguments in both cases because lower courts came to different conclusions about whether the officeholders acted as government or private actors when they blocked users. According to Congressional Research Service Legislative Attorney Valerie Brannon, “Government retaliation against constituents because of the content or viewpoint of their speech can violate the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment only applies to government action; private action usually does not trigger First Amendment protections. This limitation is known as the ‘state action’ doctrine.”
In Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in 2022 that James Freed, a Port Huron, Michigan, city manager, had not violated the Constitution when he blocked a critic from his social media account. Freed’s account listed his government job and contact information.
That same year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. That case involved Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, two members of the Poway Unified Board of Education, in Poway, Calif., who used social media accounts to share district news and events. The Court ruled the school board members violated the First Amendment when they blocked two local parents who made frequent and critical comments on their posts. O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane indicated the accounts were connected to board activity, and both had separate, private accounts for friends and family.
SCOTUS heard arguments in both cases on Oct. 31, 2023.
How did SCOTUS rule? The Court issued one ruling for both cases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a unanimous court in Lindke v. Freed, and sent it and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to lower courts for judges to revisit in light of SCOTUS’ new guidance.
The Court issued a two-part test for evaluating the public or private status of a public official’s social media account. Barrett wrote: “When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.” In circumstances that satisfy both conditions, a government official could be sued for blocking or deleting comments on a social media account.
Barrett used a hypothetical involving a school board president to illustrate the distinction between private and public forums. Barrett wrote: “A school board president announces at a school board meeting that the board has lifted pandemic-era restrictions on public schools. The next evening, at a backyard barbecue with friends whose children attend public schools, he shares that the board has lifted the pandemic-era restrictions.” Barrett wrote the former constitutes state action, while the latter does not.
In the case of public officials’ social media accounts, Barrett said context matters: “Had Freed’s account carried a label (e.g., ‘this is the personal page of James R. Freed’) or a disclaimer (e.g., ‘the views expressed are strictly my own’), he would be entitled to a heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption that all of the posts on his page were personal.”
Additionally, Barrett said the way blocking works on different platforms can matter for judges trying to figure out if an account triggers the state-action doctrine. On some platforms, a blocked user can still see posts but cannot comment. On others, a blocked user is prevented from seeing any posts on the account. According to Barrett, “If page-wide blocking is the only option, a public official might be unable to prevent someone from commenting on his personal posts without risking liability for also preventing comments on his official posts.”
How are people reacting to the ruling? According to ACLU staff attorney Evelyn Danforth-Scott, the ruling “gives everyday Americans a way to hold officials constitutionally accountable when they censor social media content, restrict access to it, or improperly elevate certain viewpoints over others. At the same time, it protects public officeholders’ own free speech rights by giving them guidance on how to make clear when they are speaking as private individuals.”
The ACLU submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to rule individuals act as public officials on social media when their accounts appear to be an extension of their office.
Knight First Amendment Institute Katie Fallow said while she was pleased the Court recognized the First Amendment applies to public officials who post work-related content on their private accounts, she was disappointed “the Court did not adopt the more practical test used by the majority of the courts of appeals, which appropriately balanced the free speech interests of public officials with those of the people who want to speak to them on their social media accounts.”
The Knight First Amendment Institute submitted an amicus brief asking the Court to apply a stricter standard than the one it ultimately settled on: “When an official chooses to mix governmental and non-governmental conduct on an individual account, they must accept the First Amendment obligations that go with doing so.”
Other SCOTUS cases involving the First Amendment and social media:
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed are two of several cases regarding social media and the First Amendment SCOTUS has considered this term. Others include NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, concerning a Texas law allowing the state to regulate social media companies, and Murthy v. Missouri, about whether the federal government engaged in censorship when it asked social media companies to remove content.
Extracurricular: education news and numbers 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!
- How will ESSER fiscal cliffs drive school district budget cuts? | K-12 Dive
- Spending ESSER Funds Will Come Down to the Wire for Some Districts. Here’s Why | Education Week
- Parents are not fully aware of, or concerned about, their children’s school attendance | Brookings
- The Meltdown at a Middle School in a Liberal Town | The New Yorker
- 40 Years After ‘A Nation At Risk,’ Could Curriculum Reform Finally Move the Needle on Academic Improvement? | The 74
- University of Memphis could become its own K-12 school district under new legislation | Chalkbeat Tennessee
- Mansfield school district says it is unsure if candidate is eligible for board | Fort Worth Star-Telegram
- Two-Sigma Tutoring: Separating Science Fiction from Science Fact | Education Next
- Crafting ethical AI landscapes in K-12 education | eSchool News
- Mississippi lawmakers debate education funding formula | WJTV 12 News
Numbers of the week
- According to a Oct. 17-Nov.14 Pew Research Center poll, 49% of K-12 public school teachers rate their students’ behavior “Fair/Poor,” while 35% rate it “Good.” On the other end of the spectrum, 13% say students’ behavior is “Excellent/Very good.”
Take our Candidate Connection survey to reach voters in your district
Today, we’re looking at responses from two candidates running in the Nov. 5 general election for Millard Board of Education At-large in Nebraska. Three seats on the six-member board are up for election this year.
The May 14 primary was canceled.
Allison Kinney-Walker and Justin Curtis are two of six candidates running in the election. Knut Haasch, Jennifer Meyer, and incumbents Amanda McGill Johnson and Linda Poole are also running. Kinney-Walker and Curtis are the only candidates who’ve completed the survey.
Millard Public Schools is Nebraska’s third-largest district, with an estimated enrollment of 24,038 students. It includes the western part of Omaha.
Here’s how Kinney-Walker answered the question, “What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”
- “Support teachers and staff
- Support our students
- Address achievement gaps”
Click here to read the rest of Kinney-Walker’s responses.
Here’s how Curtis answered the question, “What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”
- I’m proud to be FROM MILLARD & FOR MILLARD. A Vote For Justin Curtis is a Vote For Millard!
- As a world-class educational community, Millard is a destination district. Every year, students, teachers, staff, and administrators find their home in one of our 35 excellent schools. A community asset this important requires stewardship. The type of stewardship that comes from men and women of integrity who are courageous enough to lead and humble enough to listen. Innovative leaders who value encouraging vocational/trade education in addition to college prep readiness. Sober-minded leaders who will not be easily influenced by the latest cultural ideologies. Servant leaders who will champion common-sense Midwestern values. This is why I am For Millard.
- Millard Public Schools are a tremendous asset to the entire community. The Millard Public School system strives for each student to exemplify the knowledge, skills, and character necessary for personal excellence and responsible citizenship through an innovative, world-class educational community that challenges and empowers all students. Millard has truly become a district of choice with many different paths for students to achieve their personal academic goals. Millard Schools will continue to thrive as they provide the best academic experience possible for every student in Millard. We want to have the BEST SCHOOLS for ALL STUDENTS who call Millard home. This is why I am For Millard.
Click here to read the rest of Curtis’ responses.
If you’re a school board candidate or incumbent, click here to take the survey. 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!
In the 2022 election cycle, 6,087 candidates completed the survey. The survey contains more than 30 questions, and you can choose the ones you feel will best represent your views to voters. If you complete the survey, a box with your answers will display on your Ballotpedia profile. Your responses will also appear in our sample ballot.
