Deciding for Democracy: School Board Members as Targeted Decision-Makers in the Conflict Campaign

Purpose Over the past five years, a nationally-networked and often purposefully partisanized “conflict campaign” has invited people to target local school boards around demands to limit diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. This study interrogates an under-explored aspect of the conflict campaign: the experiences and decision-making of school board members themselves, specifically in California, a state often depicted as a stronghold of progressivism. Research methods/approach Using Gutmann's theory of democratic education as a conceptual lens, we analyze data from interviews with eight school board members representing, respectively, eight California districts. We ask: How is the conflict campaign affecting decision-making processes on California school boards, with what local consequences? What does this suggest about the (in)capacities of school boards to protect and promote learning and inclusion in a diverse democracy? Findings The accounts offered by the study's participants underscore an antidemocratic pattern of intimidation tactics deployed against school board trustees. In the districts where such tactics persisted, school improvement efforts were slowed or stunted. Boards which did not experience intimidation, and/or where board members shared views about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as efforts to make systems “good for kids,” stayed focused on school improvement – a more democratic outcome overall. Implications Our study suggests that the conflict campaign has sharpened a tension within democratic schooling: the tension between the imperative for deliberation and the need to protect the rights of all. We propose that board members develop shared understandings of democratic education principles to refuse intimidation and preserve a commitment to deliberation while prioritizing educational improvement.