Lee's 2023 study enters a charged policy debate at the intersection of school governance, partisan politics, and racial equity in education. The article claims that school board political composition, measured along a conservative-to-liberal spectrum, systematically relates to the share of students in each racial group meeting grade-level standards in U.S. districts. This claim warrants rigorous evaluation because it could reshape how communities think about school board elections and their consequences for student outcomes. For a full explanation of the PEARLS framework used in this review, see our [methodology page](/methodology.html).
The study draws on U.S. school district-year observations, with the exact sample size reported in the article's tables. The selection process favors districts with available data on both school board political composition and standardized achievement outcomes, which introduces a potential selection bias: districts missing either measure are excluded, and these may differ systematically from included districts in ways that affect generalizability.
The demographic composition of the sample appears to reflect the national distribution of districts along urban-suburban-rural lines and racial/ethnic composition, but the study does not explicitly test whether included districts differ from the universe of U.S. school districts on observable characteristics. A larger, more comprehensively sampled dataset would strengthen confidence that findings apply broadly. The current sample likely overrepresents districts with the administrative capacity to track both board composition and detailed achievement data. Readers should therefore treat the findings as applicable to similar data-rich districts rather than all U.S. school systems.
The study employs a quantitative, observational design using cross-sectional and panel regression analyses. This approach can identify associations between board composition and differences in student outcomes across student groups, but it cannot establish causation. The authors correctly acknowledge this limitation and avoid strong causal language in their framing.
The methodology is sound for its stated aim of estimating associations. Panel regression with district fixed effects controls for time-invariant district characteristics that might confound the relationship, and the authors test alternative specifications to assess robustness. However, the observational design leaves room for unobserved confounders, factors that vary over time and simultaneously affect both board composition and the shares of students from different racial groups reading on grade level, that the analysis cannot fully rule out. The study is not a randomized controlled trial or a quasi-experimental design with a credible identification strategy, it is a correlational analysis of existing variation. This distinction matters because readers might infer causal effects where only associations exist.
The researchers analyze the relationship between school board political composition and differences in achievement between racial groups using regression models that control for district-level demographic and economic characteristics. They report statistically significant associations: districts with more conservative school board compositions show larger differences in achievement between Black and White students and between Hispanic and White students, while districts with more liberal governance exhibit smaller differences. These effects persist across alternative model specifications.
The analysis appropriately distinguishes correlation from causation in the text, with the authors noting that their design cannot prove that board composition causes changes in achievement outcomes for student groups. The title and abstract lean toward language that emphasizes the finding strongly, which could lead some readers to overstate the causal interpretation. The gap between what the data show (association) and how the findings are presented (implying practical significance) is notable. The study does not directly observe the mechanisms linking board composition to achievement outcomes for student groups, which limits the actionable insights practitioners can draw.
The study was published in 2023, making it recent relative to the current policy landscape. School board elections have become increasingly politicized, and questions about whether partisan composition affects student outcomes are directly relevant to voters, candidates, and incumbent board members. The data collection period predates the most intense waves of this politicization, which means the findings may not fully capture current conditions.
For a practitioner in a different setting (a school board member in a mid-sized district, a superintendent advising their board, or a parent activist concerned with equity) the findings suggest that political composition correlates with equity outcomes. However, the study's observational nature means that a practitioner cannot infer that changing board composition would change differences in outcomes between student groups in their district. The contextual applicability depends heavily on whether the mechanisms driving the association in the sample data operate similarly elsewhere.
The study's funding source is not specified in the information provided. Readers cannot assess whether the research was supported by a neutral federal grant, a foundation with no stake in the findings, or an organization with ideological or financial interests in demonstrating a particular relationship between politics and educational outcomes.
Given the politically sensitive nature of the topic, linking partisan board composition to the share of students in each racial group meeting academic benchmarks, transparency about funding is especially important. Studies funded by organizations with clear ideological positions on school board politics, education finance, or racial equity could face scrutiny over whether the research design or interpretation was influenced. Without disclosed funding information in the available description, readers must treat the study as having an unknown funding profile.
The study investigates a specific, narrow relationship: the association between school board political composition and racial differences in academic outcomes. It does not examine the mechanisms through which board composition might affect outcomes, such as budget allocation decisions, curriculum choices, hiring practices, or district policy priorities. The narrow focus allows precise estimation of the primary association but leaves the causal pathway unexplained.
Regarding corroboration, related work provides indirect support: one study finds that minority representation on school boards shifts resources toward schools serving more minority students, and another documents links between board representation and racial spending gaps. Another study shows that electoral incentives in board races are unresponsive to minority student performance. These studies corroborate the broader governance-equity mechanism but do not directly test Lee's quantitative claims.
Practitioners can reasonably conclude that school board political composition correlates with differences in student achievement between racial groups in the sample studied, districts with more conservative boards tended to have larger differences. However, they should not conclude that changing board composition would reduce differences in student achievement between racial groups, as the study does not establish causation.
Actionable takeaways: First, board members should recognize that governance decisions have equity implications, regardless of political orientation. Second, districts seeking to increase the share of students from historically underserved groups meeting grade-level standards should examine the specific policies and resource allocations their boards approve, not merely the partisan composition of the board. Third, researchers and practitioners should treat this study as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence. Fourth, the absence of identified mechanisms means practitioners cannot look to this study for specific interventions.
Given the observational design and the absence of direct corroboration, practitioners should give this study moderate weight, sufficient to warrant further investigation but insufficient to base policy decisions on without additional evidence.
Found a study on school board governance? Paste the DOI below and we'll add it to the PEARLS review queue.
We'll evaluate it using the PEARLS framework and post the review when complete.