Overseeing the vast majority of America’s 13,318 public school districts are elected groups of local community volunteers: school boards. These nonpartisan boards are tasked with setting policy, adopting budgets, and hiring a superintendent to run their districts’ day-to-day operations. This form of local control—rooted in Massachusetts colonial governance—remains the predominant structure for public school oversight across the country. But how well does this democratic institution work in practice?

A new study by Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu, and Zachary Peskowitz provides the most comprehensive look yet at the realities of school board elections. Using data from 16 states between 2002 and 2017, the authors investigate whether turnover on school boards is meaningfully related to student outcomes—a central test of democratic accountability in education.

They begin by quoting the National School Boards Association, which paints an inspiring picture:

School board members are the unsung heroes in communities throughout the country. They establish the vision and goals for the public schools in their district, and they set standards for the performance of schools and superintendents. . . . Most school board members are elected by people in their community to represent their values, views, and desires for the public schools in their district. As selected leaders in their community, they consistently communicate with the public to keep community members abreast of challenges, ideas, and progress.

National polling data suggest the public agrees, expressing broad support for local, elected school boards.

But local elections are not without their critics. Scholars like Terry Moe have long argued that interest groups—most notably teachers unions—exert outsized influence in low-turnout contests, undermining democratic responsiveness and policy effectiveness.

So, what do Kogan and colleagues find?

Put simply, the data suggest that school board elections often fall short of the democratic ideal. Most contests are, in fact, uncontested. When turnover happens, it is usually due to voluntary retirement, not voter dissatisfaction. And most critically, there’s little evidence that poor academic performance leads to electoral consequences. The link between school outcomes and board turnover is weak at best.

These findings add to a growing body of evidence highlighting alarmingly low voter turnout—often below 10 percent—and the unmatched power and influence teachers unions wield in school board electioneering.

This raises uncomfortable questions. If elections do not hold officials accountable for performance, and if community engagement is low, then local control may be more symbolic than substantive—an empty vessel we continue to praise without asking whether it delivers.

To be sure, alternatives to local boards—such as mayoral control or state takeover of low-performing districts—have not produced stellar results. And yet, dissatisfaction with the current system is growing. Families are increasingly voting with their feet, opting out of traditional public schools in favor of homeschooling, microschools, or private options made more accessible through expanding universal choice programs. Their exit reflects not only frustration with school quality, but perhaps disillusionment with the promise of democratic voice in the current system.

Rather than dismiss those families as turning away from “local control,” we might consider the possibility that they are exercising a different form of democratic agency: the power to exit a system that fails to heed their voice.

So, where do we go from here?

If we want school boards to function as meaningful mechanisms of accountability, we need reforms that address their structural weaknesses:

1. Broaden the candidate pipeline. If voters have no real choices, elections can’t serve their intended purpose. What if school board service were approached more like jury duty—requiring broader civic participation—while still allowing voluntary candidates to enter the field?

2. Compensate members. Serving on a board is time-consuming and unpaid. Kogan et al. find that more than half of board members don’t seek reelection. Reasonable stipends for school board members are uncommon but could reduce barriers to service for working parents or those with caregiving responsibilities.

3. Experiment with governance. No structure is ideal, but there’s value in testing alternatives. Regional boards, hybrids with appointed and elected members, or a superintendent appointed directly by the mayor might better align authority, accountability, and responsiveness.

4. Reconsider election timing. Most school board elections are held off-cycle—for example, on the same day as the state primary, often in March of even-numbered years. Aligning school board elections with higher-turnout state and federal races could increase voter participation and, potentially, accountability for academic results.

Local control remains a cherished idea in American education. But it needs a thoughtful renewal if it is to remain more than a myth.

Anna J. Egalite is a professor of educational evaluation and policy analysis at North Carolina State University and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.