








































All Politics Is Organizational: An Analysis of Candidate Recruitment and Political Infulence in Pennsylvania School Board Elections


COMMONWEALTH, Volume 19, Issue 2 (2017). © 2017 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association.  
ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/com.v19i2.154. All rights reserved.

All Politics Is Organizational

An Analysis of Candidate Recruitment  

and Political Influence in Pennsylvania  

School Board Elections

NATHAN R. SHRADER
Millsaps College

This article seeks to enhance the limited research dedicated to local school 
board elections by investigating whether Pennsylvania school board members 
are recruited candidates or are self-starters. The article also investigates which 
kinds of organizations are the most active sources of candidate recruitment and 
engagement in Pennsylvania school board races and which organizations are 
the most and least influential in local school board politics. Using a unique 
dataset obtained through the statewide Pennsylvania School Board Survey and 
interviews with current state legislators who began their political careers as 
local school board members, this article finds that local political party organi-
zations play a larger than expected role in influencing local school board elec-
tions and recruiting candidates. Board members themselves are also found to be 
highly engaged in political party activity within their communities before ever 
seeking office. Also explored are the implications of these findings for school 
board politics and the discipline’s view of local party organizations.

The study of America’s school boards, the citizens who serve on them, 
and the politics and policy they influence converge to make school 
board politics a dynamic center for the study of numerous interlock-

ing components of research in the local government arena. These components 
include local governance and elections, education politics and policy making, 



52 NathaN R. ShRadeR

the power of personality, the impact of individual citizens on the democratic 
process, participation among interest groups and parties, and the pursuit of 
power. As an academic discipline, political science has a central role to play 
in explaining substantial questions about school board politics given that 
roughly 14,000 of these local governing bodies exist in the United States, with 
the clear majority of their membership being elected to serve. Additionally, as 
the home to 499 separately elected public school boards, Pennsylvania repre-
sents fertile ground in the effort to enhance the discipline’s understanding of 
school board politics and those serving as school board members.

America’s school boards are among the most underexamined of the 
country’s political institutions. Likewise, individuals who govern the nation’s 
public education system are largely unknown actors whose jobs require the 
dedication of significant amounts of time to positions that are unpaid and in 
many respects, somewhat unappreciated by those they serve. Because they 
seek positions that exist on a small scale, individuals dedicating time and 
resources to running for these offices and then governing the school districts 
must stand before the citizens in their neighborhoods and towns, directly 
asking for their votes. Candidates for public school board seats in states like 
Pennsylvania run in “off-year” elections. This presents a unique challenge for 
these candidates given that “off-year” election turnout tends to be consider-
ably lower than election years featuring prominent races for positions such as 
president, governor, or for other federal and state offices.

According to Berkman and Plutzer (2005) and Hess and Meeks (2010), 
over nine out of 10 of America’s public school board members are elected to 
office in local or county elections, with the remainder appointed to their posi-
tions. Board members are charged with performing a multitude of adminis-
trative and policy-oriented tasks, including “set district policy, approve the 
budget, and hire and evaluate the superintendent” (Duke 2010, 61). Despite 
the expectations and job requirements, board members tend to be “amateurs 
when it comes to the professional practice of education” (Duke 2010, 60). 
School boards throughout the nation, which are dispersed across just under 
14,000 school districts (Berkman and Plutzer 2005, 1), are charged with devel-
oping educational policy, studying and implementing curriculum, negotiat-
ing labor contracts, hiring and firing administrators, overseeing immense 
numbers of educators (although day-to-day management tends to be done by 
principals), overseeing the instruction of the country’s public school children, 
and meeting annual budgeting requirements to manage the district’s finances.

Although scholarship in the area of public school board research in gen-
eral is quite broad, this particular study examines several specific questions 
that have not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature on school 



All Politics Is Organizational 53

board elections. First, I investigate the question of who serves on Pennsylva-
nia school boards and how the composition of boards within the Keystone 
State compares to the demographic composition of the Commonwealth itself 
and public school boards nationally. Second, upon establishing who serves on 
Pennsylvania’s school boards it is important to determine whether these indi-
viduals were recruited to seek office or if they are self-starters. Simultaneously, 
this study investigates which political and nonpolitical organizations within 
Pennsylvania communities are the most and least likely to be engaged in 
recruiting candidates for school board seats. The article also considers which 
groups exert the greatest influence over school board elections in the districts. 
Last, the article examines the question of whether Pennsylvania school board 
members are politically engaged citizens prior to seeking a position on the 
board and what this means for school district politics and governance.

The Role of America’s Public School Boards

America’s school boards play a considerable role in running the country’s 
public education system while also managing a considerable amount of public 
money. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), as 
of the 2013–2014 fiscal year, school boards in the United States were respon-
sible for overseeing more than $625 billion in public funds (NCES 2016c) with 
about $280 billion of those dollars being raised locally by taxpayers within the 
school districts. They’re also charged with managing the schooling of over 55 
million enrolled students as of 2015 (NCES 2016a) and handling the hiring 
and firing of over 3.1 million teachers as of 2014 (NCES 2016b).

It is essential to draw attention to this $625 billion expenditure figure 
due to its sheer size and because this helps demonstrate the magnitude of the 
financial responsibilities placed on the shoulders of America’s public school 
boards. As a means of comparison, the National Priorities Project reports that 
about $599 billion in federal money was appropriated to the United States 
Military in Fiscal Year 2015. Additionally, the same organization reported 
that the cost of all American military operations in Afghanistan between 
September 2001 and December 2016 is just north of $756 billion. In other 
words, America’s public school board members—the clear majority of whom 
are elected within their communities—are collectively responsible for rais-
ing, spending, and managing a significant sum of taxpayer-generated dollars, 
making them a body of government officials worthy of detailed examination.

In most states—including Pennsylvania—school board members have a 
hand in determining whether local school tax rates in the districts they serve 
will increase or decrease. They often have the power to establish a school 



54 NathaN R. ShRadeR

district’s spending priorities, making critical choices about whether the new 
high school football stadium or neighborhood elementary school will be 
built, deciding how to fund academic and athletic programs and projects, and 
determining how to award building contracts. These individuals can affect 
the content of what America’s children learn in the classroom through deci-
sions regarding curriculum choices, textbook selection, and the acquisition of 
instructional materials available to teachers and students.

A closer look at the public education finance data indicates that Penn-
sylvania is among the states most reliant upon locally-generated tax dollars. 
Table 1 shows that as of Fiscal Year 2014, Pennsylvania collects a considerably 
lower share of its elementary and secondary education dollars from state cof-
fers and a larger than average share from local taxpayers than school districts 
nationally. Additionally, data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2016) show that 
only Connecticut, Nebraska, and New Hampshire had a higher local share 
than Pennsylvania in FY 2014. Meanwhile, only Illinois, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, and South Dakota collected a smaller share of their elementary 
and secondary education funds from state sources.

Bogui (2008) finds that state and local governmental bodies can either 
be classified as being fiscally dependent or fiscally independent entities 
(28). Fiscally independent bodies such as local school boards have the legal 
authority to create their own budgets and thus raise revenue, while fiscally 
dependent boards must rely upon other governmental agencies or bodies to 
provide revenue. The North Carolina School Boards Association (NCSBA) 
found that among all “local boards of education nationwide, over 90% are fis-
cally independent. This is because school boards in most states are considered 
independent units of government” (n.d., n.p.). Pennsylvania’s elected school 
boards fall into this category and have the power to levy local property taxes, 
although these locally raised dollars are their main, but not their only, source 
of revenue.

The local property tax is the most commonly accepted source of school 
district revenue among Pennsylvania school districts. As noted in Table 1, 

table 1. Sources of K–12 education Funding as of Fiscal Year 2014

entity Federal State Local

Pennsylvania 6.6% 37.2% 56.3%

United States 8.6% 46.7% 44.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data—2014, available 
at https://www.census.gov/govs/school/, accessed March 13, 2017.



All Politics Is Organizational 55

over 56% of Pennsylvania’s elementary and secondary education dollars are 
locally raised. McNulty found that for school districts in the Keystone State, 
“property taxes accounted for 85.5% of local school district tax revenues. 
However, there is wide disparity in dependence on property taxes among the 
different districts across Pennsylvania” (McNulty 2014, 1). McNulty indicates 
that 10% of the remaining local dollars constitute local earned income taxes, 
1.5% come from local business taxes, and 2.4% come from other local revenue 
streams (2014, 2). The presence of these local income and business taxes varies 
greatly from district to district.

In Pennsylvania there have been several notable efforts to diminish what 
is perceived by some to be an over-reliance on property taxes for financing the 
local share of public education funding. One of these efforts—The Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 2006—provided local property tax relief through state-collected 
gaming revenue while attempting to limit the ability of local school boards to 
raise taxes “unless the school district either obtains approval from the voters 
to increase taxes above the index or applies and qualifies for one of the limited 
and specific referendum exceptions provided in the law” (PSBA 2014, n.p.). 
The Harrisburg Patriot-News concluded that as of 2011, the effort had “been 
a failure” (Malawskey 2011, n.p.) as “school districts had asked the state 1,345 
times to raise property taxes without seeking the approval of voters. They 
have been approved the vast majority of the time. Those exceptions range 
from a few thousand to millions of dollars” (Malawskey 2011, n.p.). Later that 
year the legislature attempted to correct this by reducing the number of rea-
sons local districts could seek exceptions.

According to McNulty, “Act 25 of 2011 limited the exceptions to two relat-
ing to paying off indebtedness, one relating to special education costs and 
one to address the situation when the school’s required share of retirement 
payments to the Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System 
(PSERS) increases more than the index” (2014, 6). Despite attempts to limit the 
exceptions available to school districts, a Pennsylvania School Boards Asso-
ciation analysis found that in “2013–14, there were 171 school districts that 
sought and were granted approval for referendum exceptions; of that, there 
were 93 districts that used the [PSERS] exception. For 2014–2015, there were 
164 districts that sought and were granted approval for referendum excep-
tions” (Pennsylvania School Boards Association 2014, n.p.). Despite most all 
of these exemption requests being made for purposes related to pensions and 
special education, the example shows that school boards in Pennsylvania con-
tinue to retain the capability of raising local taxes and that they are still “on 
the hook” for a disproportionate share—over 56% as of FY 2014—of financing 
public education in Pennsylvania.



56 NathaN R. ShRadeR

A related question is whether state and federal mandates have worked 
to diminish the ability of school boards to truly act as autonomous govern-
ing entities. Stover (2011, 2) wrote that “the gradual whittling away of board 
authority through endless state and federal mandates and regulations” is a 
serious threat to the ability of school boards to maintain local control of public 
education through the policy-making process. Prior to the 2015–2016 legisla-
tive session, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association released a special 
report on school district mandates (2014) to help signal the organization’s 
interest in seeking mandate reform from Harrisburg. The report indicated 
that although local school districts must address certain federal mandates, the 
bulk of the mandates placed on districts come from the state government. A 
comprehensive laundry list of state mandates covering policy areas such as tax-
ation, construction, planning, reporting, operations, transportation, testing, 
personnel, and several other categories totaled roughly 140 state-specific man-
dates imposed on local districts in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the PSBA report 
found that perhaps the two most serious concerns for local school boards in 
Pennsylvania have become paying for increasing retirement contributions and 
mandated payments to charter schools, which combine to account for “Almost 
14 cents of every dollar spent by school districts in 2014–2015” (Pennsylvania 
School Boards Association 2014, 9). Although there is clearly a concern among 
school boards regarding the erosion of their power due to state and federal 
mandates, local school boards have retained their power over local finances 
as nearly 45% of public education funds are raised locally in the United States 
(and over 50% in Pennsylvania). School districts have also retained control 
over the power to hire and fire educators and administrators while making 
decisions regarding curriculum and district requirements over time.

The existing academic literature pertaining to America’s school boards 
can be divided into three general categories: school board elections and poli-
tics, administration and management of school districts, and mechanisms for 
reforming education through school board leadership. Studies on the politics 
of school board campaigns (Deckman 2004; Hess and Leal 2005; Moe 2005; 
Meier and Juenke 2005; Hess 2008) address the types of issues that commonly 
arise in campaigns for public school board seats in the United States, interest 
group participation, and the intersection of complex policy issues that board 
members (and candidates) must address. A second category explains the 
administrative and organizational nature of education leadership, including 
school boards (Callahan 1962; Tucker and Ziegler 1978; Hussey 2003; Epstein 
2004; Eadie 2005; Reimer 2008; Mayer 2011). This literature is largely explana-
tory in nature and describes the role of school board members as they relate 
to school governance. The overarching theme of this literature focuses on 



All Politics Is Organizational 57

effective leadership and managerial techniques for board members, superin-
tendents, and other administrators.

A third general category of school board-themed literature examines 
mechanisms for reforming the way school leadership structures are designed 
and explains ways school board members and school leadership can improve 
the education system (Peterson 1985; Blackwell 2006; Reimer 2008; Kowal-
ski 2008; Duke 2010; Maeroff 2010; Mayer 2011). Several additional pieces 
of research conducted by McCarty and Ramsey (1971) and Iannaccone and 
Cistone (1974) bridge research pertaining to education politics with school 
organization and management. I explain below why and how the themes 
addressed in this research do not fit neatly within any of these categories 
and are largely unexamined within the existing body of academic literature 
pertaining to public school boards.

School Board Candidate Recruitment  
and Major Local Stakeholders

One of the most important objectives of this study is to analyze candidate 
emergence and recruitment among those serving on public school boards in 
Pennsylvania. As such, Table 2 contains nearly 30 opportunities and motives 
that may be taken into consideration by a citizen who decides to run for a seat 
on a public school board or by a recruitment agent, such as a political party, 
labor union, religious organization, business organization, nonpolitical com-
munity organization, parent organization, or an individual elected official 
who engages in the practice of candidate recruitment.

As indicated in Table 2, these motivations can be distilled into six larger 
categories: finance and budget, education and curriculum, politics, civic duty, 
associational interests, and general district management. A variety of these 
motives are rooted in policy preferences, such as in the financial/budgetary 
and education/curriculum categories, while others, such as those ascribed to 
the personnel, general management, associational, and politics categories, 
may or may not include a motivation that is driven by a desire to see a specific 
policy implemented or rejected. For example, the motives and opportunities 
contained within the civic duty category tend to represent a personal outlook 
embodied through the notion of civic engagement and public responsibility 
rather than a political or policy-driven purpose behind candidacy for the pub-
lic school board. Consequently, although some individuals who seek public 
school board seats may be motivated by policy concerns, such as what is being 
taught in the science curriculum or whether tax dollars should be appropri-
ated for constructing a new elementary school, it should come as no surprise 



table 2. Opportunities and Motives for Seeking School Board Positions or Recruiting 
Candidates to Seek School Board Positions

1.  Financial/budgetary Increase/reduce/maintain property tax levels

Increase/reduce/maintain spending and borrowing

Increase/reduce/maintain expenditures on certain budget 
items

Address unfunded mandates

2.  Education/curriculum Enhance/change/maintain quality of educational programs

Support/oppose components of district curriculum 

Favor/oppose adoption of textbooks 

3.  Politics Support/oppose various ideological agendas

Hold seat for my party/block opposing party from holding 
seat

Opportunity to lobby legislators for support of district needs

Gain experience to use seat as springboard to higher office

4. Civic duty Opportunity to give back to community

Frustrated with lack of interest in schools within community

In need of something to do

Own kids had positive/negative experience in district and 
wanted to maintain/change things on the basis of their 
experiences

5.  Associational 
interests

Recruited to run by organization that I support

Recruited to run by individual leader that I support

Support/oppose agenda of incumbent(s) that I agree/
disagree with 

6.  District management Approve/disapprove of changes to physical plant

Play role in awarding building contracts 

Improve communication with constituents or taxpayers

Oversee athletic programs

Govern student-based organizations in district

Approve/disapprove of professional conference/student trip 
attendance

Interested in overseeing district while own children are 
enrolled

Manage/hire/fire superintendent and leadership team

Play role in negotiating labor contracts with district staff

Influence general personnel or hiring decisions

Sources: This menu of motives and opportunities was developed on the basis of the the school board 
literature discussed in the text, the author’s own experiences interacting with local school board 
members and candidates, conversations with the leaders of education-focused organizations (such 
as the Education Policy and Leadership Center and Pennsylvania State Education Association), and 
discussions with several state legislators interviewed for this project who once served as members of 
their school boards.



All Politics Is Organizational 59

that some may be driven by purposes related to oversight, district manage-
ment concerns, self-interest, or civic duty.

Having addressed a wide range of motivating factors that could lead 
citizens to either become “self-starters” and run for their local school board 
independently or be recruited by an organization or political actor within the 
community, it is important to discuss the chief stakeholders in school district 
politics, attempting to discern why and how they may be motivated to partici-
pate in the process of convincing like-minded individuals to run for school 
board seats. These stakeholder groups who likely have political motivations 
can be broken down into four general categories, as per the literature: teachers 
and teacher unions, church-related organizations, parent organizations, and 
political party organizations.

Of America’s teachers, 79% are unionized, while 64% are covered by col-
lective bargaining agreements (Moe 2011, 155). Although these numbers may 
sound quite large, Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in 2015 found a 
sharp decline in unionized public school teachers in recent years, with just 
2.5 million of the nation’s 5.2 million teachers represented by a labor union 
(Toppo and Overberg 2015) today.

Moe suggests that school boards are at a disadvantage—at least in the 
public’s eye—when dealing with teachers because teachers are known and 
respected within communities. This maximizes the bargaining leverage held 
by teachers and their labor unions in contract negotiations, enhancing their 
influence within school district politics. According to Moe’s perspective, the 
number of teachers represented by unions and their ability to bargain collec-
tively has led to a critical view of the imprint unions have made on education 
reform efforts. Alleging that unions have insisted on “bigger budgets, higher 
salaries, job protections, and other union-favored objectives” (2011, 10), Moe 
contends that the unions have presented a roadblock to certain reforms and 
made the cost of funding public education untenable in many districts. Moe 
argues that teachers unions and those who belong to them have a power-
ful advantage within school districts given “that their members are teachers, 
and Americans like teachers. They admire them, they trust them, they often 
interact with them personally, and they see them as caring about children and 
quality education” (Moe 2011, 22).

As stakeholders, teachers and teacher unions play a critical role in the pol-
itics of local elections and can influence elections for public school board seats 
through campaign donations, grassroots mobilization, candidate recruit-
ment efforts, and collective action to support or oppose certain candidates 
or slates of candidates for school board positions. Moe’s study of California 
school board races found that teacher “unions are typically the most powerful 



60 NathaN R. ShRadeR

participants in school board elections” (2006, 13), are equally powerful across 
districts of all sizes, and have generally been successful in helping elect pro-
union school board members who are viewed by the teachers as being helpful 
and powerful allies during times of contract negotiations. As per Moe’s find-
ings, teachers unions have a great incentive to engage in recruiting candidates 
to run for school board seats because the unions have a vested interest in how 
the outcome of those elections relate to their ability to gain favorable conces-
sions during bargaining sessions.

Similar to labor unions, church-related organizations have numerous 
incentives to engage in candidate recruitment at the school district level. 
Deckman (2004) posits that religious or church organizations affiliated with 
the Christian faith have a long history of recruiting local candidates for school 
board seats due to concerns regarding the teaching of evolution, the presence 
of sex education curriculum, support for local control of education as opposed 
to intrusion by the federal government, advocating for what they believe to be 
“traditional” Christian values, and issues related to textbook selection. Anec-
dotal evidence that I have gathered from personal conversations with school 
board members, union officials, and conservative activists regarding school 
board elections also indicates that church-affiliated or religious groups occa-
sionally become intertwined with other political organizations, such as anti-
tax organizations, which may combine their resources to recruit candidates 
and promote slates of multiple candidates conducive to advancing the agendas 
of both types of organizations.

Additionally, education-oriented organizations, such as Parent Teacher 
Associations (PTAs) or Parent Teacher Organizations (PTOs), Good Schools 
Pennsylvania, Parents United for Public Education, and Students First, are all 
active in various parts of the state. Groups such as these are involved in grass-
roots organizing on behalf of various education-related issues, are active in the 
day-to-day affairs of the school districts, and are led by individuals who have a 
strong commitment to working on education policies and management. Moe 
argues parent groups “tend to be wholly unorganized outside (perhaps) the 
PTA—which is a parent-teacher organization, not simply a parent organiza-
tion, and almost always an ally of the unions” (2006, 11). There could be some 
blending between the types of individuals involved in these groups. Another 
example is the group Students First, which comprises education advocates 
and businesspeople seeking to expand school choice in the Commonwealth. 
Although parents of school-age children are ostensibly behind the organiza-
tion’s grassroots operation, several well-endowed business leaders are the chief 
financiers of the group’s efforts.

Parents involved with the PTA or PTO groups may be driven to recruit 
candidates or become active in school board elections if they sense that a 



All Politics Is Organizational 61

situation or problem unfolding within one of the schools or across the entire 
district is not being adequately handled by the district’s professional admin-
istrators or the school board. It is also probable that these recruits are parents 
with school-age children and sense that their membership on the school board 
will allow them to help manage the district while their kids are in attendance. 
This fits with the assessment of Rosenstone and Hansen, who argued that 
the when it comes to parents and their interaction with the schools, “specific 
concerns are quite narrow, focusing on the educational needs of their own 
children” (1993, 103) rather than the district as a whole.

Local political party organizations likely have considerably less to gain 
when it comes to candidate recruitment and activity in local school board 
seats. Likewise, these organizations are generally viewed as waning due to the 
increasing centralization of power within the two major parties at the national 
level, which ostensibly weakens the power of the party organizations at the 
local level. As such, Hershey describes local party organizations as structures 
that correspond “to the levels of government at which voters elect officehold-
ers. This structure is often pictured as a pyramid base in the grassroots and 
stretching up to the statewide organization” (Hershey 2009, 49). She describes 
the structure in the following manner: “In a typical state, the smallest voting 
district of the state—the precinct, ward, or township—will have its own party 
organization composed of men and women elected to the party’s local commit-
tee (called committeemen and committeewomen). Then come a series of party 
committees at the city, county, and sometimes even the slate legislative, judi-
cial, and congressional districts” (p. 49). The party organizations whose juris-
diction would overlap with local school boards are most likely to be the party 
organizations found at the local level and organized by ward and precinct.

Local or county party committees are the official organizations that work 
on behalf of the Democratic and Republican parties within those municipali-
ties or counties on projects such as voter registration, voter contact, canvass-
ing, phone banking, placing campaign signs, taking candidates around their 
precincts, and meeting voters outside the entries to the precinct polling places 
during primary and general elections. They are the party’s front line in any 
electoral battle. According to Hershey, many party committee positions at 
the local level, which are volunteer-driven, are vacant (2009, 50) and reeling 
from the gradual realignment over time that has led to stronger national party 
organizations at the expense of the local entities (2009, 78). Considering this, 
I expect to find that organizations like church or religious groups, unions, or 
parent organizations are more likely to be engaged in the practice of recruiting 
school board candidates than local political parties.

Despite the variety of ways the academic literature treats public school 
boards, there is a general absence of discussion about who sits on America’s 



62 NathaN R. ShRadeR

school boards, their political orientation, and the intersection of electoral 
politics, candidate recruitment, and the work of political parties at the school 
board level. This study should be able to help begin the process of filling that 
void, at least as it pertains to Pennsylvania school districts.

Pennsylvania as a Case Study

Pennsylvania’s cultural, political, and economic diversity as detailed by Cooke 
(1960), Beers (1980), Madonna and Bresler (1997), Flint (2001), Treadway 
(2005), Kennedy (2006), Lamis (2008), and Shrader (2011) makes the state a 
meaningful case for the purpose of exploring research questions related to the 
public school boards and those serving on them. The state is also a political 
swing state featuring voters who are known for ticket splitting in statewide 
and down-ballot races. This adds to the intrigue of examining the offices 
that often appear at the very end of the ballot and are selected using partially 
partisan elections in which candidates can opt to file to run in both party 
primary elections. In short, Pennsylvania’s 499 individual school districts, 
each with its own elected board of nine members represent a subset of 499 
unique cases within a single state study. It must also be noted that although 
the Commonwealth actually has 500 school districts, the Philadelphia School 
District—which happens to be the state’s largest—has an appointed School 
Reform Commission (SRC) rather than an elected board. Established in 2001, 
the SRC consists of three gubernatorial appointees and two mayoral appoin-
tees. None of the representatives who serve on the SRC are chosen by the 
voters and were therefore not included in the universe of survey participants.1

Aside from Philadelphia, voters in the remaining 499 individual districts 
elect nine individuals as school directors (or board members) to serve for 
four-year terms. Board members can be elected in one of four methods, with 
the majority running at-large within their districts. The Pennsylvania School 
Boards Association reported in January 2016 that 63% of districts elect board 
members at-large, 28% use a three-region (or electoral districts within the 
school district) system, 6% use a nine-region system, and 3% of districts have 
an at-large/region hybrid scheme for electing board members (2). According 
to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, the only legal requirements 
for school board service include Pennsylvania citizenship, being at least 18 
years of age, one year of residence in the district, and “good moral charac-
ter” (n.d., n.p.). The school board members elected to lead these districts are 
charged with handling a myriad of governmental functions at the local level. 
Data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education (2016) show that public 
school board members were responsible for over $15.8 billion in locally raised 
tax dollars as of the 2014–2015 fiscal year. According to the nonpartisan, 



All Politics Is Organizational 63

Harrisburg-based Education Policy and Leadership Center (EPLC), the 
responsibilities of public school boards in Pennsylvania are distributed across 
five categories. These categories include

1. Planning through the creation of strategic plans, setting educational 
goals and priorities, budgeting, and professional development

2. Policy making through board operations and establishing expected 
outcomes

3. Monitoring by evaluating the performance of the district superin-
tendent, regular assessment of student performance, and by over-
seeing the district’s finances

4. Communicating procedures, expectations, and policies to staff, par-
ents, students, and the general public through regular reports and 
public meetings

5. Advocating for the children who attend the schools by serving as 
lobbyists or liaisons to policymakers at all levels. (2004, 13–14)

Meanwhile, the specific powers of Pennsylvania’s elected public school boards 
are enumerated in Article V of the Pennsylvania School Code. The extensive 
list of responsibilities indicated in Table 3 is adapted from the list of powers 
and duties outlined by the EPLC (2014, 13–14) and helps to demonstrate the 
array of powers and duties granted to Pennsylvania school boards and school 
board members. In summary, the individuals serving on public school boards 
are important to understand, observe, and analyze due to the significance 

table 3. Powers and duties of Pennsylvania School Board Members via 
Pennsylvania School Code

• Adopt an annual budget

•  Adopt policies to govern student 
organizations

• Adopt policies to manage the district

• Adopt textbooks

• Adopt the curriculum

• Appoint and dismiss professional staff

• Appoint and dismiss the superintendent

•  Authorize staff participation in 
professional conferences

• Authorize student field trips

• Borrow money

• Determine depositories for school funds

• Determine salaries of all personnel

•  Determine the location of school 
buildings

• Determine the school calendar

• Enter into contracts

• Establish schools and programs

• Levy and collect taxes

• Operate school cafeterias

• Organize school safety patrols

• Purchase and sell land

Source: Education Policy and Leadership Center, “Strengthening the Work of School Boards in Penn-
sylvania,” 2004, pp. 13–14, available at http://www.eplc.org/K12GovernanceReport.pdf, accessed 
September 3, 2013.



64 NathaN R. ShRadeR

of the responsibilities they bear according to Article V of the Pennsylvania 
School Code. Likewise, their actions can affect a multitude of stakeholders in 
each school district, such as students, teachers, administrators, parents, and 
taxpayers.

Research Agenda

The Pennsylvania School Board Study was originally crafted as a comprehen-
sive effort to contribute to our understanding of the demographic and political 
profile of those serving on Pennsylvania school boards, their political and ide-
ological philosophies, the levels of civic and political engagement among these 
public servants, the reasons why these individuals sought local school board 
seats, and the relationship between the board members and their district super-
intendents. This article assesses the question of who serves on school boards in 
Pennsylvania, as well as several important, yet largely unaddressed, questions 
pertaining to the role of political and nonpolitical organizations in local Penn-
sylvania school board politics. The following questions are addressed:

1. Who serves on Pennsylvania school boards and how does their 
composition compare to that of public school boards nationally and 
the demographics of the state?

2. Are Pennsylvania’s elected public school board members self-start-
ers or are they recruited to run for office? Among those who are 
recruited, which organizations or entities are most responsible for 
enlisting and organizing school board candidates?

3. Are the citizens elected to serve on Pennsylvania’s public school 
boards engaged in the political process before running for office? 
If so, what does this mean for the practice of politics within school 
districts?

On the basis of the research cited earlier, I expect to find that organiza-
tions such as labor unions, church-related groups, and nonpartisan education 
organizations such as Parent-Teacher Associations and other school-oriented 
groups are most likely responsible for recruiting local school board candidates 
and exerting influence over the local political process at the school district 
level. I also expect to find that local political party organizations are some-
what active in these areas, but not to the same extent as labor, religious, and 
school or education-oriented organizations. Due to the lack of available demo-
graphic information on who serves on Pennsylvania’s public school boards, I 
do not have a very clear expectation on the likely outcome of the first question, 



All Politics Is Organizational 65

although I would not be astonished to find that the profile of Pennsylvania’s 
school board members looks something like their counterparts in the national 
sample to which it is later compared.

Methodology

This study consisted of a statewide survey of sitting school board members 
in Pennsylvania and interviews with 5 of the 16 members of the Pennsyl-
vania General Assembly (as of November 2013) who began their careers in 
public service as members of a local school board.2 The Pennsylvania School 
Board Survey, which was funded by the Temple University Institute for Public 
Affairs, was administered to all 4,476 public school board members in the 
Commonwealth between November 2013 and March 2014. Previous research 
on public school boards led me to the conclusion that while some academics 
and professional organizations have gone to great lengths to explain what 
school boards do, how they are structured, and the kinds of policies they 
address, very little information exists to help inform us about the people 
serving on these boards and their political attitudes and experiences. Chiefly, 
the project sought to ask questions to help understand who these actors are, 
where they come from, why they are serving in these positions, and what are 
their political experiences and motivations. The survey mainly served to col-
lect data describing demographics of those serving on Pennsylvania school 
boards, the political and policy interests of these elected officials, motivation 
for seeking these positions, sources of candidate recruitment, levels of politi-
cal and community engagement among the members, individual political 
ambition, and the impact of recruitment and political ambition on governing.

The Pennsylvania School Board Survey was housed online at a site built 
exclusively for this project—www.PennsylvaniaSchoolBoardSurvey.com. An 
introductory letter containing relevant information about the project, a par-
ticipant security code, and specific completion instructions were sent via the 
U.S. Postal Service to the school district office addresses of all board mem-
bers, arriving in late November 2013. A follow-up email was sent two months 
later to a subset of 1,000 members with publicly available email addresses 
with another email being sent to 412 (of 499) school superintendents, school 
board secretaries, or administrative assistants who work for school district 
superintendents for the purpose of encouraging the school board members in 
their districts to participate. Last, in early February 2014, a reminder postcard 
with security code information and completion instructions was mailed to the 
original universe of 4,476 members as well as one final email reminder to the 
subset of 1,000 with available addresses.



66 NathaN R. ShRadeR

The Pennsylvania School Board Survey received a total of 380 responses 
for an overall response rate of 9%. Unfortunately, since very few surveys of 
local school board members in either the nation or Pennsylvania have been 
published, there are limited opportunities to draw comparisons between the 
overall response rate for the Pennsylvania School Board Survey and similar 
survey-based studies. For example, the 2010 Hess and Meeks national school 
board study relied upon a stratified sample of school board members and 
superintendents nationally and received a response rate of 24%. A survey con-
ducted by the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee 
in 2013 is instructive about response rate expectations. The Senate Appro-
priations survey was distributed to 27,000 public school teachers, all building 
principals, all superintendents, all intermediate unit directors, and all elected 
school directors in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondents were 
asked in this survey “to assess our current system, evaluate recent reform 
efforts, and provide their own suggestions to improve public education pro-
grams in Pennsylvania” (Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Appropriations 
Committee 2013, 2). The Senate study received responses from 282 school 
board members for a 6.3% overall response rate.

On the basis of the regional distribution of responses to the Pennsylvania 
School Board Survey, it was determined that the sample tracked closely with 
the actual distribution of school board members within geographic regions 
of the Commonwealth. This determination was made by calculating the per-
centage of responses coming from board members within six regions (again, 
minus Philadelphia) and the number of school board seats available in each of 
the six regions. Since the survey was anonymous, respondents were not asked 
to include their names, the city or town in which they live, or the school dis-
trict they represent. Instead, participants were asked to respond to an open-
ended question listing the name of the county in which their school district 
is located. Based upon the regional division of Pennsylvania counties used by 
Franklin & Marshall College’s Keystone Poll, each county was coded based 
upon the region. Table 4 demonstrates that the sample tracks closely with the 
geographic distribution of school board seats within the six regions. The data 
show that the percentage of respondents within the region fall within two to 
four percentage points of the number of seats, falling within this range in five 
of six regions covered by the study.

It is also necessary to note several specific limitations to this study, or 
perhaps any study that is based largely upon survey research. First, survey-
based research allows for a methodical examination of trends and patterns 
within the responses and permits the researcher to ask questions of the uni-
verse of respondents that could not be investigated otherwise. However, as 



All Politics Is Organizational 67

political scientist Andrew Gelman explained in a Washington Post “Monkey 
Cage” installment, any survey or “poll is a snapshot” (2013), meaning that 
findings can and will change over time with shifting circumstances and even 
a changing universe of respondents. Despite this, the Pennsylvania School 
Board Survey appears to the be the first of its kind conducted within the state 
for the purpose of probing for answers to questions pertaining to composition 
of Pennsylvania school boards, the political attributes and actions of their 
members, and the intersection of political and nonpolitical community orga-
nizations in local school board politics.

Second, although providing for an otherwise nonexistent means of system-
atically analyzing Pennsylvania school board members, the survey—especially 
in relation to the questions of candidate recruitment and engagement—
includes only victorious candidates and not those who ran unsuccessfully 
for school board seats. Notwithstanding attempts to gain access to mailing 
lists or even candidate lists for all of Pennsylvania’s 499 school board seats 
in the most recent cycle, it was determined that these lists would either have 
to be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests through each 
county or in some cases on a district-by-district basis. Although this would be 
a worthwhile project to pursue, it also appeared to be costly in terms of both 
time and monetary resources that could have hindered the ability to produce 
valid and timely research.

With regard to the distribution of survey responses, there appears to be a 
slightly weaker response rate among members serving districts in northwest-
ern Pennsylvania than other districts in the state. The variation between the 
percentage of respondents representing districts within five of the six regions 

table 4. Pennsylvania School Board Survey: Responses by Region Compared to 
Number of School Board Seats per Region

answer Options
Response 
Percentage Response Count

Number of School 
Board Seats per Region

Allegheny 9.7% 35 7.3% 

Northeast 11.9% 43 15.3%

Southeast 15.3% 55 11.4% 

Northwest 10.8% 39 16.4% 

Southwest 14.7% 53 15.9% 

Central 37.5% 135 33.6% 

 Answered question 360

 Skipped question 20

Source: Pennsylvania School Board Survey.



68 NathaN R. ShRadeR

represented here ranged within two to four percentage points of the distribu-
tion of school board seats within said regions. The discrepancy was 5.6% for 
northwestern Pennsylvania respondents. Despite these potential limitations, I 
am quite confident that the findings of the Pennsylvania School Board Survey 
and this study are valuable to the discipline of political science, the study of 
local politics, and the actual applied practice of political engagement at the 
school board level.

Last, a review of each of the 253 legislator biographies (203 in the House, 
50 in the Senate) contained in volume 119 of the Pennsylvania Manual for the 
2009–2010 session revealed that as of 2009 there were 16 members serving in 
one of the two legislative chambers who once served on a public school board. 
Much like the survey sample of Pennsylvania school board members, these 
state legislators are mostly Republican, with 14 of the 16 being members of 
the Grand Old Party and two Democrats. It was my belief that these General 
Assembly members were uniquely positioned to help explain whether those 
who begin their political careers by serving in a local position such as the 
school board eventually climb to a position such as the legislature. Five of 
these members were interviewed following the collection of survey data and 
asked to comment on some of the patterns observed in the results.

Findings

Who Serves on Pennsylvania School Boards?

A brief overview of the demographic and political traits associated with Penn-
sylvania’s elected school board membership as per the Pennsylvania School 
Board Survey’s findings is contained in Table 5. The data compare those serv-
ing on Pennsylvania’s public school boards, the state population, and when 
available or applicable, the 2010 national school board sample drawn by Hess 
and Meeks.

These data indicate that there are some substantial personal, demo-
graphic, and political differences between those serving on Pennsylvania pub-
lic school boards, the state’s population and electorate, and the national school 
board sample from 2010. Pennsylvania’s school board membership tends to 
contain a larger share of men than the national school board sample or the 
state’s population itself. The Commonwealth—whose population is over 11% 
black—contains a black school board membership of just 1.6%. The levels of 
educational attainment between the Pennsylvania school board sample and 
the state population is striking, with nearly 80% of those serving on school 
boards holding at least a bachelor’s degree compared to 27% of the state’s gen-
eral population. School board members in Pennsylvania are also significantly 



All Politics Is Organizational 69

more likely to come from households making between $50,000 and $99,999 or 
over $100,000 per year (about 53%) than the state populace (about 35%). They 
are also about 10% more likely to have school-age children than the state’s 
overall population.

Table 5 also offers several valuable findings concerning partisanship and 
ideology. Simply put, Pennsylvania’s overall electorate is considerably more 
Democratic than those serving on the state’s public school boards. The state’s 

table 5. demographic and Political data

Pennsylvania 
School Board 
Membership 
(%)

Pennsylvania 
Population 
or electorate 
(%)

National 
School Board 
Sample (%)

Male 61.7 51.2 56.0

Female 38.3 48.8 44.0

White 95.1 83.5 80.7

Black 1.6 11.4 12.3

Other 3.3 5.1 17.0

Married 88.8 50.2 NA

Divorced 3.0 8.5 NA

No degree 0.3 11.7 0.1

High school or GED 4.9 37.2 5.1

Bachelor’s degree 34.9 16.6 27.7

Advanced degree 42.5 10.4 46.5

Household earns under $50k/year 9.5 48.1 9.7

Household earns $50k–$99.9k/year 38.1 31.2 41.8

Household earns more than $100k/year 14.6 4.0 9.5

Has school-age children 39.4 29.9 38.1

Does not have school-age children 60.6 70.1 61.9

Democrat 39.6 50.0 NA

Republican 58.5 37.0 NA

Other 1.9 13.0 NA

Conservative 40.4 34.0 30.3

Liberal 14.7 26.0 20.3

Moderate 44.9 36.0 49.3

Sources: (1) Pennsylvania school board figures from Pennsylvania School Board Survey. (2) Figures on 
gender, race, marital status, educational attainment, household income, and presence of school-age 
children from U.S. Census Bureau. (3) Figures for party affiliation from Pennsylvania Department of 
State. (4) Ideology figures from July 2014 Franklin & Marshall Poll. (5) National School Board Sample 
figures from Frederick M. Hess and Oliva Meeks, “Governance in the Accountability Era” (Alexandria, 
VA: National School Boards Association, 2010).



70 NathaN R. ShRadeR

electorate is over 10% more Democratic than the school board sample. The 
school board membership is nearly 22% more Republican than the rest of the 
state and about 11% less likely to be associated with a third party or indepen-
dent than the rest of the Commonwealth’s electorate. One possible explana-
tion for some of these partisan differences between the school board sample 
and party affiliation in the state is that Philadelphia, with an appointed School 
Reform Commission, is not included in the sample of school board members. 
Figures from the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Division of Voter Reg-
istration indicate that just under 20% of all registered Democrats in Pennsyl-
vania live in Philadelphia County. Additionally, there are striking ideological 
differences as well, with the school board population being roughly 6% more 
conservative and about 11% less liberal than the rest of the state. Last, Pennsyl-
vania’s school board members are over 10% more conservative, about 5% less 
liberal, and nearly 5% less moderate than the nation’s school board members.

In summation, these demographic data help to underscore the importance 
of understanding who serves in these positions and where they emerge from 
and are even more crucial for both the field of political science and the pub-
lic interest. Discrepancies between the descriptive, political, educational, and 
socioeconomic attributes of Pennsylvania’s public school board members and 
the citizens they serve introduce valuable questions for consideration pertain-
ing to representation, decision making, and outcomes. The following section 
analyzes how the practice of candidate recruitment, development of candidate 
slates, and sources of political engagement influence Pennsylvania’s school 
districts.

School Board Candidate Recruitment and Organizational Activity

Respondents to the Pennsylvania School Board Survey were asked to indicate 
whether they were contacted and urged to run by any organizations prior 
to deciding to run for a seat on the school board. A majority of respondents 
reported that they were not recruited to run for the school board by any orga-
nizations in their districts. About 76% said that no such recruitment efforts 
occurred, while about 24% said that an organization did contact them to 
encourage them to seek a seat on the school board. Those who indicated that 
they were initially recruited to run for their seats were then asked to indicate 
which type of organization or organizations served as the recruiting agent 
that reached out to them.

As indicated in Table 6, the survey found that political party committees 
or organizations were the most common recruiting agent, with nearly 43% of 
recruited school board members having been enlisted by such an organiza-
tion. This level of recruitment activity by party organizations seems relatively 



All Politics Is Organizational 71

high in comparison to the literature, especially the work of Deckman (2004) 
and Moe (2001, 2005, 2006, and 2011), who respectively suggest that religious 
organizations and labor unions are exceptionally active in school board elec-
tions. The findings here demonstrate that only about 8% of board members 
who were recruited were enlisted by labor organizations, while just over 3% 
were recruited by a church-affiliated group. These findings indicate that local 
political party committees and organizations play a larger than expected role 
in seeking out individuals to run for school board seats.

Another means of determining organizational activity is the establish-
ment of candidate slates. Candidate “slating” occurs when a political party 
organization, political action committee, interest group, or some other type 
of group organizes multiple candidates to seek positions as a team in a race in 
which there may be multiple victors. Through this practice, an organization 
would essentially endorse a slate of candidates and work toward the election 
of every member on the slate through what becomes a joint campaign coor-
dinated by that organizing source. When asked whether they had ever run 
for election or reelection to the school board as part of a slate of candidates, a 
majority (65%) replied that they have not campaigned as part of a slate.

Respondents that ran on a slate of candidates were then presented a follow-
up question asking who was chiefly responsible for organizing that “team” 
effort intended to elect multiple candidates to fill multiple seats. Nearly 30% 

table 6. Question 8: “If yes, which type of organization or organizations contacted 
you (please check all that apply)?”

answer Options
Response 
Percentage

Response 
Count

Political party committee or organization 42.8% 39

A nonpolitical community/neighborhood group or 
organization

36.3% 33

A church-affiliated organization 3.3% 3

A labor organization 7.7% 7

A business organization 2.2% 2

A fraternal organization 0.0% 0

Incumbent member(s) of the school board 8.8% 8

An education-oriented organization within the district 7.7% 7

Other 8.8% 8

 Answered question 91

 Skipped question 289

Source: Pennsylvania School Board Survey.



72 NathaN R. ShRadeR

said that a political party or an official affiliated with a political party was 
responsible, while 22% attributed the effort to an incumbent member of the 
school board. Almost 20% indicated that their friends and neighbors orga-
nized the slate campaign, while 12% cited a nonpolitical community or neigh-
borhood group or organization. Less than 1% said that a labor organization 
was responsible for the slate effort, while zero respondents cited a church-
affiliated organization, a business organization, or a fraternal organization. 
Another 16% responded “other.” Eleven of the 19 respondents who opted to 
enter a response in the “other” category said that the candidates themselves 
organized the slate. Once again, the organizational work of the local party 
committees stands out (Table 7).

Survey participants were unable to identify a specific type of organization 
that is overwhelmingly influential in local elections held within their districts. 
Respondents were asked to evaluate how influential a variety of organizations 
were on local elections in their districts. The results are presented in Table 8.

Nearly 40% of respondents stated that political parties or organiza-
tions are “extremely” or “very” influential over local elections. Overall, 35% 
reported that school or education groups are influential in this way, and 34% 
said the same of community and neighborhood organizations. Just 10% said 
that church organizations are influential over local elections in their districts, 

table 7. Question 10: “If yes [to Question 9], who organized this effort [to slate 
candidates]?”

Response Response 
answer Options Percentage Count

A political party or an official affiliated with a political party 29.8% 36

A nonpolitical community/neighborhood group or 11.6% 14
organization

A church-affiliated organization 0.0% 0

A labor organization 0.8% 1

A business organization 0.0% 0

A fraternal organization 0.0% 0

Friends and neighbors 19.8% 24

An incumbent member of the school board 22.3% 27

The candidates themselves 9.0% 11

Other 6.6% 8

 Answered question 121

Source: Pennsylvania School Board Survey.



All Politics Is Organizational 73

while 17% said the same of labor organizations. Fewer than 10% said that 
business or fraternal organizations held sway over local elections, according 
to respondents.

Although opinion appears to be somewhat weak when it comes to iden-
tifying extremely or very influential organizations, a majority of respon-
dents identified four types of organizations that they believe are clearly “not 
influential” in local elections. These organizations include fraternal clubs or 
organizations (66%), church-affiliated groups or organizations (55%), busi-
ness organizations (55%), and organized labor groups (54%). This is again a 
departure from the expectation regarding the role of church and labor affili-
ated groups.

Legislators Confirm Participatory Role of Party Organizations
A second component of this study featured interviews with 5 of the 16 mem-
bers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly (as of 2013) who began their 
careers in public service as members of their local school boards. These 

table 8. Question 16: “Which types of organizations have the most influence over 
local elections in your district? For each of the organizations listed below, please 
select whether these groups are extremely influential, very influential, somewhat 
influential, or not at all influential over local elections in your district.”

answer Options
extremely 
Influential

Very 
Influential

Somewhat 
Influential

Not at all 
Influential

Response 
Count

Political party 
committees or 
organizations

13.9% 23.7% 34.8% 27.6% 359

Community and 
neighborhood groups or 
organizations

7.0% 26.5% 49.4% 17.0% 358

Church-affiliated groups 
and organizations

2.2% 7.8% 35.2% 54.7% 358

Organized labor groups 4.2% 13.0% 29.1% 53.7% 354

Business organizations 1.1% 7.7% 36.6% 54.5% 352

Fraternal clubs and 
organizations

0.9% 4.3% 28.8% 66.1% 351

School- or education-
oriented organizations

8.7% 26.0% 43.0% 22.3% 358

 Answered question 363

 Skipped question 17

Source: Pennsylvania School Board Survey. 



74 NathaN R. ShRadeR

interviews were conducted with the promise of anonymity in the district 
offices of each member. My initial expectation was that local party organi-
zations would play less of a role in either recruiting candidates or influenc-
ing local school board elections. However, the interviews conducted with the 
members showed that these seasoned practitioners were not surprised when 
respondents to the Pennsylvania School Board Survey reported a larger than 
anticipated role for local parties and local party organizations.

There were several other fascinating patterns gleaned from these five 
interviews as it relates to the party organizations. First, three of the five 
believe that political party organizations are instrumental in recruiting school 
board candidates in their districts and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia. Second, three of the five reported having been personally recruited to run 
for the school board by a political party, one was self-recruited, and a third 
was recruited by an incumbent board member. The last interview subject was 
recruited by an incumbent board member who happened to be the individu-
al’s father, an active party member. Furthermore, four of the five stated that 
they were personally involved in local politics in their communities before 
their first campaign for the school board, meaning that even if they weren’t 
recruited by a party organization, they were “plugged in” to the local political 
scene from day one. As previously noted, the fifth member’s father was an 
incumbent who was politically active, thus likely providing Legislator 5 with 
a higher-than-usual level of name identification and inroads with politically 
aware individuals within the community. That fifth member also informed 
me that he had served for decades as the chair of his local party and actively 
recruits school board candidates on a regular basis within his community.

Political Engagement

The third research question asks whether the citizens who are elected to serve 
on Pennsylvania’s public school boards engaged in the political process before 
running for office and what this may mean for the practice of politics at the 
local level. The Pennsylvania School Board Survey makes it possible to reach 
some conclusions about this. First, respondents were asked to describe the 
level of activity among the party organizations in their districts. As indi-
cated in Table 9, over 60% of Pennsylvania’s school board members are from 
districts with at least one active political party organization. Nearly 28% of 
respondents report that both parties have very active organizations in their 
districts, almost 21% says that their districts have an active Republican Party 
organization, while close to 12% say the same about an active Democratic 
Party organization. The fact that more than 60% of Pennsylvania’s school 



All Politics Is Organizational 75

board members come from districts with at least one active party organiza-
tion indicates that the local parties are likely more influential or active in 
local races than noted within the existing literature or assumed prior to the 
undertaking of this study. I am intrigued by these findings because there is 
a general impression among many political and governmental professionals 
that local parties in Pennsylvania are largely inactive or absent from the scene. 
These findings contradict conventional wisdom.

As reported earlier, nearly 59% of Pennsylvania’s school board members 
identify as being Republicans compared to just about 40% who say they are 
Democrats. These numbers do not align with the overall electorate in the 
state, which is about 50% Democratic and 37% Republican. The data uncov-
ered in Table 9 provide at least a partial explanation for this imbalance as 
nearly 21% of board members represent districts featuring only an active 
Republican organization as compared to nearly 12% who come from districts 
with only a strong Democratic organization. It could be argued that there 
are more Republican school board members since more school districts con-
tain active Republican Party organizations as compared to those with active 
Democratic Party organizations. This can possibly serve as both recognition 
of the organizing strength of Republicans locally and a way to rouse dormant 
Democratic organizations from their slumber.

Second, the Pennsylvania School Board Survey discovered that the indi-
viduals serving on the state’s school boards had long histories of both political 
and community engagement prior to running for a seat on the local school 

table 9. Question 15: “Which of the following options most closely describes the 
political parties in your district?”

answer Options
Response 
Percentage

Response 
Count

Both political parties have very active organizations in my 
district.

27.9% 102

My district has a very active Democratic Party organization 
only.

11.7% 43

My district has a very active Republican Party organization 
only.

20.8% 76

Neither political party has a very active organization in my 
district.

39.6% 145

 Answered question 366

 Skipped question 14

Source: Pennsylvania School Board Survey.



76 NathaN R. ShRadeR

board. Table 10 represents the response rates to the question pertaining to 
political or governmental activity. Respondents were asked to select all forms 
of political or governmental engagement prior to their candidacies. The 
results associated with this question helped inform me that these voluntary 
public servants are more than just concerned citizens seeking to do good for 
their communities; they are incredibly well-connected in the political lives of 
their communities and have extensive personal histories of political involve-
ment prior to holding office.

The figures below are rather astounding because they help demonstrate 
that Pennsylvania’s elected school board members are extremely engaged and 
involved in the political process before seeking positions on the school board. 
Over 44% report having volunteered on other political campaigns, over 18% 
have helped raise money for candidates, 16% held another public office in the 
past, nearly 13% served as a member of a political party committee, and about 
11% also sought some other office in the past. Another 11% were involved in 
campaigns through a business, labor, or professional organization. A total 

table 10. Question 21: “Were you engaged in any of the following political or 
governmental activities prior to running for a seat on the school board (please check 
all that apply)?”

answer Options
Response 
Percentage

Response 
Count

Ran for public office in the past (9) 10.7% 28

Held public office in the past (5) 16.0% 42

Served as a party committeeperson (6) 12.6% 33

Volunteered on other political campaigns (1) 44.3% 116

Helped raise money for political candidates (4) 18.3% 48

Involved in campaigns through a business, labor, or 
professional organization (9)

10.7% 28

Worked for a government office, agency, or other public 
official (5)

16.0% 42

Lobbied or contacted a government official or agency in 
support/opposition of a policy (3)

30.2% 79

Organized people in my community to take action regarding 
an issue or concern (2)

33.6% 88

Other (7) 12.2% 32

None (8) 11.4% 30

 Answered question 262

 Skipped question 118

Source: Pennsylvania School Board Survey.



All Politics Is Organizational 77

of 16% worked in government or for a public official. Incredibly, nearly 34% 
organized people in their communities to take action on a certain issue, while 
over 30% had lobbied or contacted a government official or agency.

In short, these findings demonstrate that Pennsylvania’s school board 
members are not amateurs in the world of politics. Conversely, the findings 
indicate that they are perhaps the most highly involved citizens within their 
communities when it comes to political engagement. These findings are sig-
nificant because it changes the conversation about locally elected school board 
members being “regular folks” like their neighbors or Cincinnatus-like pub-
lic servants who reluctantly leave their plow and till in the field in order to 
aid their communities. Pennsylvania’s school board members are among the 
political elite of their communities and far more astute at the game of politics 
than their fellow citizens. Duke noted that school board members tend to be 
“amateurs when it comes to the practice of education” (2010, 60), but these 
findings show that this is not the case when it comes to politics.

Discussion

In summary, the findings presented throughout this study help reach the fol-
lowing conclusions in relation to the original research questions.

Demographics

These demographic findings help illuminate a level of detachment between 
the individuals who compose Pennsylvania’s public school boards and the 
public itself on descriptive and political indicators alike. The data show that 
Pennsylvania’s school board members tend to be wealthier, more highly edu-
cated, considerably more likely to lean toward the Republican Party (and 
conservatism), and much less racially diverse than the state’s populace. The 
state’s school board membership is also less diverse in terms of race, gender, 
ideology, and income level than their counterparts in the national sample. The 
ramifications of these descriptive and political differences between the board 
members and populace they govern could have legitimate ramifications for 
the policy-making process within the districts. For example, the election of a 
disproportionate number of self-identified conservative or Republican school 
board members within a district may have an impact on the consequential 
decisions made by board members when it comes to some of the previously 
noted responsibilities of school boards, such as approving certain types of 
textbooks, adopting the curriculum, deciding upon the local property tax 
rate, and negotiating union contracts with the district workforce.



78 NathaN R. ShRadeR

As for the apparent incongruity between the state’s school board member-
ship and the general population on descriptive measures such as race, ethnic-
ity, and gender, ample research has shown that the presence or absence of 
elected political leadership among minority groups can influence the formu-
lation of policies crafted by legislative bodies and the type of representation 
received by individuals within these groups. For example, a 2003 study of 
elected legislators in Texas and California by Pantoja and Segura found that 
the presence of Latino legislative representation is modestly associated with 
greater Latino empowerment within those districts. Similarly, in their study 
of descriptive representation of racial minorities within the U.S. Congress, 
Bowen and Clark determined that “among many of the activities both legisla-
tors and constituents care deeply about—such as constituent service, securing 
funds for local projects, and citizen-legislator communication—MCs’ [mem-
bers of Congress’s] representational activities are more positively evaluated 
and better recognized among members of their own racial or ethnic group” 
(2014, 703). Although neither the Pennsylvania School Board Survey nor this 
article specifically examines policy making within the districts, the clear lack 
of diversity on school boards in the areas of gender, race, class, educational 
attainment, partisanship, and political ideology represents serious challenges 
worth considering in the area of policy making at the school district level.

Recruitment, Organization, and Influence

The initial research questions sought to identify the organizations that serve 
as the chief sources of candidate recruitment in local school board races. 
These groups tend to be the most likely to be engaged in organizing and pro-
moting slates of candidates in school board elections, while serving as the 
most politically influential organizations at the local school board level in 
Pennsylvania. This research has found that local political party organizations 
are considerably more active in these areas than expected. Furthermore, they 
are substantially more involved in the activities of candidate recruitment, slate 
organizing, and exerting general political influence over local school board 
elections than their counterparts in organized labor, church-related groups, 
or even education or school-related group at the school district level than 
initially anticipated.

Although the general expectations at the outset of this study were incor-
rect in predicting or anticipating the considerable role of local party organi-
zations, the impact of these findings are significant when compared against 
what could be expected given the existing academic literature. Despite Moe’s 
frequent admonitions against the calamitous effects of organized labor’s 



All Politics Is Organizational 79

influence in local education politics, there is very little to report regarding 
labor’s presence in Pennsylvania school board elections. The findings of this 
study demonstrate that fewer than 8% of those who were recruited to seek 
school board seats in Pennsylvania were enlisted by labor. Less than 1% of 
those who ran as part of a slate of candidates for the school board reported 
that this effort was organized and carried out by a labor organization. Like-
wise, nearly 54% of all respondents said that organized labor groups were 
not influential whatsoever in local elections in their districts. Compare this 
to the paltry 17% who said that labor organizations were either extremely or 
very influential.

The Pennsylvania School Board Survey shows that labor unions and 
their influence in school board politics are largely absent from the political 
scene when it comes to recruiting candidates in school board elections and 
influencing the outcomes of school board races. Several specific data points 
offer an explanation that is contradictory to the conventional wisdom about 
labor unions essentially controlling school boards and school district busi-
ness. Although there is nominal evidence of at least some union influence 
in Pennsylvania school boards—16% of members report to be either past 
or present union members—this research has led me to conclude that the 
union-controlled school system as depicted in the literature is not prevalent 
in this state. I have found no systemic or clear evidence suggesting that Moe’s 
portrait of local education systems being controlled by union elites is true 
regarding Pennsylvania’s public school boards. Lyndon Johnson was known 
for dismissing ideas that made little sense to him by opining that “that dog 
just don’t hunt” (Safire 1993, 790). Regarding local school board elections in 
the Keystone State, Moe’s union power thesis “just don’t hunt.” The same can 
be said of religious or church-affiliated organizations that also appear to be 
absent in the discussion of candidate recruitment, organizing, and exerting 
influence over school board elections in Pennsylvania.

This study has largely found that local political party organizations are 
the most active sources of candidate recruitment for local school board seats. 
It has also determined that local political party organizations are more likely 
than any other entity within the school districts to organize slates of board 
candidates. Last, we have discovered that political party organizations are 
substantially more influential in local school board elections than expected—
more so than their counterparts in church, business, labor, community or 
neighborhood, and education groups. With that said, there are two other 
instructive pieces of information in the Pennsylvania School Board Survey 
that help build the case for stronger-than-expected local political party orga-
nizations at the school district level.



80 NathaN R. ShRadeR

Emphasis on Local Party Committees  
and Organizations

Thanks to this study, we have determined that local political party organiza-
tions are the most active recruiters of school board candidates in Pennsylvania 
and the most likely to establish slates of candidates for school board seats. 
They are also the most likely sources of influence in local school board races 
as determined by the sitting school board members themselves. At this time 
it is worth asking why local parties would be engaged in such activities. This 
is especially worth exploring because these organizations are not commonly 
recognized as key stakeholders in the community when considering what 
local school boards do and the fact that the constituencies they serve tend 
to be parents, families, teachers and their unions, students, school admin-
istrators such as superintendents, and taxpayers rather than politicians and 
partisan groups.

Local party organizations may be engaged in the action of candidate 
recruitment and slate organization because it is a point of pride for them to 
demonstrate that they are capable of running candidates for these positions 
and winning the seats. It is conceivable that victories for these so-called down-
ballot races serve as basic markers for success for the organizations them-
selves. In other words, they seek out candidates and promote unified slates of 
these candidates in order to win. Although this seems like a sensible action 
for a political party to engage in, it had not been demonstrated by earlier 
research in this area. A second possible explanation is that party organiza-
tions are engaged in these actions because they also have a sense that they are 
as influential in local politics as the board members themselves indicated in 
the survey findings. Thus, they want to capitalize on those substantial levels 
of influence or at least exploit the perceptions of such levels of influence.

Last, local party organizations could be recruiting candidates to “audition 
talent” for future races for positions such as county commissioner, state legis-
lator, or county row officer. This could serve as a means for the party to watch 
how these individuals behave or perform as candidates in order to get a better 
sense of whether they are worth considering for other positions in the future. 
Although the Pennsylvania School Board Survey finds that just a quarter of 
respondents are politically ambitious, this does not necessarily mean that the 
party leaders who are recruiting candidates are not mindful of the need to 
create a dependable bench of future starting players for their party’s rosters. 
In support of this point, the survey findings revealed that over 13% of school 
board members report to having served on a party committee before seeking 
office. Meanwhile, on the basis of the number of party committee positions 



All Politics Is Organizational 81

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is unlikely that more than 0.003% 
of the state’s population could serve in this capacity at one point in time. 
This indicates that a significantly higher share of school board members are 
connected to their local party organizations than the typical citizen and thus 
likely have prior relationships with county and local party leaders.

It is worth diving a bit deeper into the data regarding candidates who ran 
as part of a slate of candidates. Perhaps as a testament to the power of run-
ning as part of an organized slate, over 75% of those who ran as a member of 
a candidate slate reported that all members of their slate of candidates were 
successful in both the primary and general elections. Meanwhile, about 16% 
said that all of their slate’s members were successful only in the primary elec-
tion and about 9% reported that their entire slate was victorious only in the 
general election.

These findings could be interpreted as demonstrating the fact that being 
coupled or teamed with other candidates on a slate can enhance the oppor-
tunity of all of the participating candidates to successfully navigate both the 
primary and the general elections for Pennsylvania school board seats. This 
is especially interesting given that 30% of candidate slates were organized 
by political party organizations or officials affiliated with a political party 
organization and that 22% were organized by incumbent members of the 
school board, who tend to be deeply connected with the local political party 
structures.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate that local political party organizations play a 
major role in local school board politics. They are more likely than other types 
of organizations at the local level to engage in the recruitment of candidates 
for public school board positions. The local parties—not church-affiliated, 
labor union, or parent groups—are the most highly engaged in the develop-
ment and formulation of slates of candidates for seats on public school boards 
and are rated by incumbent board members as the most influential group in 
elections for local school board seats in Pennsylvania. It has also been discov-
ered that Pennsylvania’s public school board members are among the most 
politically engaged members of their communities and are far from being 
local political neophytes.

The findings associated with this study are noteworthy because they run 
counter to prior scholarship, which emphasizes the role of labor, religious, 
and education-related organizations in the realm of school district politics. 
Furthermore, these findings present the opportunity to develop a fascinating 



82 NathaN R. ShRadeR

stream of research in the area of local political party organizations. Largely 
thought to be declining due to the centralization of political party operations 
by the Democratic and Republican National Committees, this study deter-
mines that the local parties are still influential, active, and effective (especially 
when considering the success rate of those reporting to have run as a part of 
a slate of candidates, which was most likely to be organized by a local party 
organization).

Moving forward, I propose that it is essential to dig deeper into the actual 
organization and operation of local party organizations to offer a clear and 
descriptive explanation of how they perform the types of operations discussed 
within the findings of this study. Fueled by this exploration of school board 
politics, these types of research questions should include an assessment of the 
people who constitute these local organizations, how their leadership struc-
tures are developed, and the types of tactics they use when recruiting poten-
tial candidates, electing officeholders under the party banner, and conveying 
their messages to voters at the precinct level of local politics.

NOTES

1. Travers (2003) documents the history of the creation of the Philadelphia School 
Reform Commission. 

2. Interviews were conducted in the legislators’ district offices in late 2013 and early 
2014. Legislator 1 was interviewed on November 15, 2013, legislator 2 on November 22, 
2013, legislator 3 on December 6, 2013, legislator 4 on January 8, 2014 and legislator 5 on 
January 24, 2014.

REFERENCES 

Beers, Paul B. 1980. Pennsylvania Politics Today and Yesterday: The Tolerable Accommoda-
tion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Berkman, Michael, and Eric Plutzer. 2005. Ten Thousand Democracies: Politics and Public 
Opinion in America’s School Districts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Blackwell, Joel. 2006. Empowering School Leaders: Personal Political Power for School 
Board Members and Administrators. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Educa-
tion.

Bogui, Frederic. 2008. Handbook of Governmental Accounting. Oxford, UK: Taylor and 
Francis.

Bowen, Daniel C., and Christopher J. Clark. 2014. “Revisiting Descriptive Representation 
in Congress: Assessing the Effect of Race on the Constituent–Legislator Relationship.” 
Political Research Quarterly 67 (September): 696–707.

Callahan, Raymond. 1962. Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press.

Cooke, Edward F. 1960. “Patterns of Voting in Pennsylvania Counties, 1944–1958.” Penn-
sylvania History 27 (January): 69–87.

Deckman, Melissa M. 2004. School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Politics. Wash-
ington, DC: Georgetown University Press.



All Politics Is Organizational 83

Duke, Daniel L. 2010. The Challenges of School District Leadership. New York: Routledge.
Eadie, Doug. 2005. Five Habits of High-Impact School Boards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow 

Press.
Education Policy and Leadership Center. 2004. “Strengthening the Work of School 

Boards in Pennsylvania.” Available at http://www.eplc.org/K12GovernanceReport 
.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2013.

Epstein, Noel. 2004. “Introduction: Who Should Be in Charge of Our Schools?” In Who’s 
In Charge Here? The Tangled Web of School Governance and Policy, ed. Noel Epstein. 
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1–14.

Flint, Colin. 2001. “Right-Wing Resistance to the Process of American Hegemony: The 
Changing Political Geography of Nativism in Pennsylvania, 1920–1998.” Political 
Geography 20 (August): 763–786.

Franklin & Marshall College Poll. 2014. “Survey of Pennsylvanians Summary of Find-
ings.” Available at https://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/293642708620153651-july 
-2014-f-m-poll-original.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2014.

Gelman, Andrew. 2013. “A Poll Is a Snapshot, Not a Forecast.” Washington Post, December 
10. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/10/ 
a-poll-is-a-snapshot-not-a-forecast/?utm_term=.aa0dcaa875ef. Accessed December 
16, 2016.

Hershey, Marjorie Randon. 2009. Party Politics in America. 14th ed. New York: Pearson.
Hess, Frederick M. 2008. “Money, Interest Groups, and School Board Elections.” In The 

Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation, ed. Thomas L. Alsbury. 
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education, 197–225.

Hess, Frederick M., and David L. Leal. 2005. “School House Politics: Expenditures, Inter-
ests, and Competition in School Board Elections.” In Besieged: School Boards and the 
Future of Public Education, ed. William Howell. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-
tion Press, 228–254.

Hess, Frederick M., and Oliva Meeks. 2010. “Governance in the Accountability Era.” Alex-
andria, VA: National School Boards Association.

Hussey, James P. 2003. Report Card: The Weekly Education of an American School Board 
Member. Latham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Iannaccone, Laurence, and Peter J. Cistone. 1974. The Politics of Education. Eugene: Clear-
inghouse of Education Management, University of Oregon.

Kennedy, John. 2006. Pennsylvania Elections: Statewide Contests from 1950–2004. Lan-
ham, MD: University Press of America.

Kowalski, Theodore J. 2008. “School Reform, Civic Engagement and School Board Lead-
ership.” In The Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation, ed. 
Thomas L. Alsbury. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education, 312–340.

Lamis, Renee M. 2008. The Realignment of Pennsylvania Politics since 1960. University 
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Madonna, G. Terry, and Robert J. Bresler. 1997. “Pennsylvania.” In State Party Profiles, 
ed. Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 272–279.

Maeroff, Gene I. 2010. School Boards in America: A Flawed Exercise in Democracy. New 
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Malawskey, Nick. 2011. “Act 1 Doesn’t Slow Tax Hike, Study Shows.” Patriot News, Feb-
ruary 6. Available at http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/02/act_1_
doesnt_slow_tax_hike_stu.html. Accessed April 4, 2017.

Mayer, Richard E. 2011. How Not to Be a Terrible School Board Member. Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage Press.



84 NathaN R. ShRadeR

McCarty, Donald James, and Charles E. Ramsey. 1971. The School Managers: Power and 
Conflict in American Public Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. 

McNulty, Eileen. 2014. “How Pennsylvania Funds Public Schools: The Story of the Local 
Share.” Temple University Center on Regional Politics Issue Memo Number 3, May. 
Available at http://www.cla.temple.edu/corp/files/2012/12/Local-Share-Issue-Memo 
.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2017.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2005. “Electoral Structure and the Quality 
of Representation on School Boards.” In Besieged: School Boards and the Future of 
Public Education, ed. William Howell. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 
199–228.

Moe, Terry. 2001. “Teachers Unions and the Public Schools.” In A Primer on America’s 
Schools, ed. Terry Moe. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 151–185.

———. 2005. “Teacher Unions and School Board Elections.” In Besieged: School Boards 
and the Future of Public Education, ed. William Howell. Washington, DC: Brookings 
Institution Press, 254–288.

———. 2006. Union Power and the Education of Children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institu-
tion Press.

———. 2011. Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools. Washington, 
DC: Brookings Institution Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2016a. “Table 103.10. Enrollment in Pub-
lic Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Level and Grade.” Available at https://nces 
.ed.gov/programs/digest/2016menu_tables.asp. Accessed March 15, 2017.

———. 2016b. “Table 213.10. Public Elementary and Secondary Teachers, by Level and 
State or Jurisdiction: Selected Years, Fall 2000 through Fall 2014.” Available at https://
nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2016menu_tables.asp. Accessed March 15, 2017.

———. 2016c. “Table 236.10. Summary of Expenditures for Public Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education and Other Related Programs, by Purpose: Selected Years, 1919–20 
through 2013–14.” Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2016menu_tables 
.asp. Accessed March 15, 2017.

National Priorities Project. 2016. “Cost of National Security.” Available at https://www 
.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/. Accessed December 16, 2016.

North Carolina School Boards Association. N.d. “Fiscal Independence Issue Brief.” Avail-
able at http://www.ncsba.org/clientuploads/DocumentsWord/Advocacy/NCSBA%20 
Fiscal%20Independence%20Issue%20Brief.doc. Accessed December 5, 2014.

Pantoja, Adrian D., and Gary M. Segura. 2003. “Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive Rep-
resentation in Legislatures and Political Alienation among Latinos.” Social Science 
Quarterly 84 (June): 441–460.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. 2016. “Data and Statistics.” Available at http://
www.education.pa.gov/DATA-AND-STATISTICS/Pages/default.aspx#tab-1. 
Accessed March 18, 2017.

Pennsylvania Department of State. 2014. “2014 Voter Registration Statistics—Official.” 
Available at http://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Voting 
ElectionStatistics/Documents/2014%20Primary%20Election%20VR%20Stats.pdf. 
Accessed May 10, 2017.

Pennsylvania Manual. 2009. Vol. 119. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of General 
Services. 

Pennsylvania School Boards Association. 2014. “Background on Property Tax Reform.” 
Available at https://www.psba.org/2014/10/background-property-tax-reform/. 
Accessed March 17, 2017.



All Politics Is Organizational 85

———. 2016. “PSBA Election Survey Shows Nearly 900 New Board Members Taking 
Office.” Available at https://www.psba.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Board 
-Election-Survey-Results-JAN-2016.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2017.

———. N.d. “How Pennsylvania Public School Boards Work.” Available at http:// 
docshare01.docshare.tips/files/2371/23712745.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee. 2013. “Education Sur-
vey Results and Analysis.” Available at http://senatorhughes.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/09/SURVEY_RESULTS_10_11.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2014.

Peterson, Paul. 1985. The Politics of School Reform 1870–1940. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.

Reimer, Laura. 2008. Leadership and School Boards: Guarding the Trust. Lanham, MD: 
Rowman and Littlefield Education.

Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and 
Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.

Safire, William. 1993. Safire’s New Political Dictionary. New York: Random House.
Shrader, Nathan R. 2011. “Swing State in Transition: Assessing Democratic Party Per-

formance in Pennsylvania: 1970–2010.” Paper presented at 2011 Northeast Political 
Science Association conference and 2012 Pennsylvania Political Science Association 
conference. Available at http://nathanshrader.com/pa. Accessed May 1, 2011.

———. 2015. “Pennsylvania Public School Boards: An Analysis of Politics, Policy, and 
Public Servants.” Ph.D. diss., Temple University, Philadelphia.

Stover, Del. 2011. “Is School Board Reform Coming for You?” American School Board 
Journal, November. Available at http://www.asbj.com/TopicsArchive/Leadership/Is 
-School-Board-Reform-Coming-to-You.aspx. Accessed March 14, 2017.

Toppo, Greg, and Paul Overberg. 2015. “Fewer than Half of Teachers Now Covered 
by Unions.” February 10. Available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/
nation/2015/02/10/teacher-unions-fewer-half/23195433/. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Travers, Eva. 2003. “Philadelphia School Reform: Historical Roots and Reflections on the 
2002–2003 School Year under State Takeover.” Perspectives on Urban Education 2 
(Fall): n.p. 

Treadway, Jack M. 2005. Elections in Pennsylvania. University Park: Pennsylvania State 
University Press.

Tucker, Harvey J., and L. Harmon Ziegler. 1978. “Responsiveness in Public School Dis-
tricts: A Comparative Analysis of Boards of Education.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 
3 (2): 213–237.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data—2014. 
Available at https://www.census.gov/govs/school/. Accessed March 13, 2017.

Nathan R. Shrader is co-chairman of the Department of Political Science, assistant pro-
fessor of political science, and director of American studies at Millsaps College in Jackson, 
Mississippi. He previously served as legislative aide and deputy director of communica-
tions to the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, as a legislative aide in the Virginia House 
of Delegates, and as a political campaign professional and consultant. He was a research 
assistant at the Institute for Public Affairs and Center on Regional Politics at Temple Uni-
versity while he completed his doctoral studies. His academic and professional interests 
include political parties, state and local government, political campaign management, 
and political marketing.


	Structure Bookmarks
	The Role of America’s Public School Boards
	Pennsylvania as a Case Study
	Research Agenda
	Methodology
	Findings
	Discussion
	Emphasis on Local Party Committees  and Organizations
	Conclusions




