Partisan Versus Nonpartisan School Board Elections

Why Election Format Matters, and What This Study Tests

The vast majority of American school districts use nonpartisan ballot formats, meaning candidates appear on the ballot without party labels. A smaller but significant number of states and districts have adopted or are considering partisan elections, where candidates run explicitly under a party banner. The arguments for each approach are familiar: proponents of nonpartisan elections argue they elevate candidates' governance qualifications over party loyalty and reduce ideological polarization on boards; proponents of partisan elections argue that party labels provide voters with meaningful information and increase accountability by tying board members to known platforms and constituencies.

What has been largely missing from this debate is rigorous causal evidence about what partisan versus nonpartisan formats actually produce. Hill, Jones, and Williams address that gap directly. North Carolina's recent transition, in which some districts moved from nonpartisan to partisan board elections, created a natural experiment unusually well-suited to difference-in-differences analysis. Rather than comparing dissimilar states with different political cultures, the authors can compare North Carolina districts against each other before and after the format change, controlling for stable district characteristics and shared statewide trends.

Compositional Effects: Who Gets Elected Changes

The study's clearest findings concern board composition. Partisan elections produced measurable shifts in the partisan, racial, and gender makeup of boards in the districts that switched. These are not trivial effects. The election format determined, in a statistically meaningful sense, which communities ended up represented at the governance table. This finding carries significant implications for representation debates. Arguments about whether school boards should reflect the demographic and political character of the communities they serve are not merely theoretical; the format through which board members are selected is a direct mechanism for shaping that representation.

The racial and gender composition findings are particularly notable given the ongoing national conversation about equity in educational governance. To the extent that partisan election formats alter the pathway by which candidates of different backgrounds access board seats, election format is in effect a structural equity variable, not just an administrative one. Districts and state policymakers deliberating over election format should treat these compositional effects as documented consequences of the choice, not speculative possibilities.

Performance Outcomes: Composition Shifts, Results Don't

The second major finding is the null result on performance outcomes. Despite documenting real and significant changes in board composition, the authors find no evidence that these compositional shifts translated into improved school or student performance. Test scores, graduation rates, and other measurable indicators of student success did not respond detectably to the change in board composition produced by partisan elections.

Null findings in rigorous quasi-experimental studies are important evidence, not the absence of evidence. This result challenges a common implicit assumption in governance reform debates: that getting the "right" people on the board, whether defined in partisan, demographic, or ideological terms, is sufficient to improve student outcomes. The study suggests that board composition, however measured, is not itself the mechanism through which governance affects student results. Something must translate composition into governance behavior, and governance behavior into instructional and operational change, before effects reach students.

Implications for Governance Practice

The practical lesson from this research is about sequencing and mechanism. Changing who sits on the board is a necessary but not sufficient step toward improving what the board produces. Governance practitioners, superintendents, board chairs, state education agencies, and board developers, should read this study as a call to attend carefully to what happens after composition changes. A more diverse or more partisan board is not automatically a more effective board. The governance structures, norms, training, and accountability systems that shape how board members behave once elected are the proximate determinants of whether compositional change translates into outcome change.

• Representation and performance are separate goals: This study demonstrates that election format can achieve representation goals without achieving performance goals. Districts and policymakers should be explicit about which goal is primary, and what additional investments are needed if both are desired.
• Governance development is the bridge: If composition change does not automatically produce outcome change, structured board development, focused on how members translate their values and constituents' priorities into effective governance behavior, is the mechanism that must be built.
• State election format decisions have distributive consequences: Because partisan elections shift racial and gender composition, state-level decisions about election format have equity implications that go beyond partisan politics. These effects should be part of the formal policy record when states deliberate over election law changes.
• Reform advocates should be precise about claims: Advocates for partisan or nonpartisan election formats should not promise student outcome improvements that the current evidence does not support. Honest framing, that format affects who governs, not directly how well students perform, is both more accurate and more sustainable as a policy argument.

Implications for Governance Practice

For superintendents, the study offers a useful frame for navigating board transitions. When a district shifts election format and board composition changes as a result, the superintendent's role is to help the newly constituted board develop governance competencies, not simply to wait and see whether new members perform differently. The absence of automatic performance effects means that leadership investment in board development becomes especially critical in the wake of structural election changes.

• Invest in governance onboarding after election format changes: New board members arriving through partisan elections may bring strong political identities; structured onboarding that grounds them in governance role clarity and student outcome focus is essential.
• Use compositional change as an opportunity, not a guarantee: A more representative board has the potential to bring community trust and legitimacy gains that support effective governance, but realizing that potential requires intentional board development and relationship building.