Indiana’s recent decision to allow school board candidates to declare their political party affiliation has left me scratching my head. Starting July 1, candidates for these traditionally nonpartisan roles can align themselves publicly with a political party. And I have to ask—why?
Running our schools should be about serving the students, not furthering political agendas. This law, Senate Bill 287, feels like a step in the wrong direction, turning school board elections into yet another battleground for partisan debates.
School Boards Should Be About Students, Not Sides
When I think about the role of a school board, I think about budgets, curriculum decisions, and policies to help students thrive. These are responsibilities that demand thoughtful, pragmatic leadership—not political posturing.
Do we really need to know a candidate’s political affiliation to judge their ability to manage a school district? I’d argue no. What we need to know is their track record, their vision for our schools, and their commitment to putting students first.
Making these positions partisan could overshadow the real issues and encourage voters to make decisions based on party loyalty rather than qualifications or plans.
Transparency or Just More Division?
Supporters of the law argue it provides transparency. Parents can now see where candidates stand on hot-button issues, making it easier to choose. But is this really transparency, or just a shortcut to polarization?
The truth is, most issues facing school boards—like teacher retention, student achievement, and funding—don’t have simple partisan answers. Adding political labels risks reducing complex decisions to party-line debates, further dividing our communities.
And what about the children? Schools are supposed to be places of learning and growth, not political arenas. This change could trickle down, impacting how educators and students interact in the classroom. It’s not hard to imagine a future where even teachers feel the weight of political scrutiny in their daily work.
The Bigger Picture: Fewer Slots, Not More
Frankly, I’d rather see fewer roles on the ballot tied to party affiliation. The growing list of partisan elections feels unnecessary and, at times, counterproductive. In roles like these, where collaboration and problem-solving are key, partisanship often creates more obstacles than solutions.
We should be working toward less polarization, not more. Nonpartisan school boards have long been a way to keep the focus on students and their needs. Changing that framework risks politicizing education in ways we’ll all regret.
What’s Next?
As this law goes into effect, I can’t help but wonder how it will play out in practice. Will we see school board campaigns become mini Congressional races, complete with attack ads and partisan bickering? Or will this change pass quietly, barely noticed by most voters?
Either way, I believe this shift is unnecessary. Our schools need leaders who can rise above politics, not be defined by them. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs—on our kids, their education, and their future.
Maybe there’s something I’m missing here. What do you think? Does this new law bring transparency, or is it a recipe for more division? I’d love to hear your thoughts.