Welcome to Hall Pass, a newsletter written to keep you plugged into the conversations driving school board governance, the politics surrounding it, and education policy.
In today’s edition, you’ll find:
- On the issues: The debate over paying school board members
- School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
- U.S. Department of Education announces new interagency agreements with DOJ, HHS
- Extracurricular: education news from around the web
- Candidate Connection survey
Reply to this email to share reactions or story ideas!
On the issues: The debate over paying school board members
In this section, we curate reporting, analysis, and commentary on the issues school board members deliberate when they set out to offer the best education possible in their district. Missed an issue? Click here to see the previous education debates we’ve covered.
Should school board members receive compensation for their work?
In some states and districts, they already do. In Florida, for example, school board member salaries are established in state law, with the exact amount depending chiefly on the population of the county in which the district resides. According to the Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research, school board members in the 2025-26 Fiscal Year earned an average of $43,878. School board members in Liberty County, the least populated in the state, earned $32,072, while those in Miami-Dade county and others with populations greater than one million earned $56,587.
But not all states are like Florida. According to a 2023 Education Week analysis, 13 states prohibited school board members from receiving any regular compensation outside of reimbursement for expenses. In other states, like Oregon, compensation is determined on a district-by-district basis.
A 2017 Ballotpedia analysis of school board member salaries in the country’s top 10 largest districts found that three — New York City Department of Education, Chicago Public Schools, and Houston Independent School District — did not pay school board members. In the other seven, the salaries ranged from $9,000 in the Clark County School District, in Nevada, to $125,000 in the Los Angeles Unified School District (if the member doesn’t have separate employment—it’s $50,000 if they do).
Below, we look at arguments for and against paying school board members.
Nick Sawka, a member of the Lynden School District school board in Washington, says serving on school boards should be a volunteer role. Sawka says that while he supports reimbursing school board members for expenses, he worries that compensating them for their work could attract individuals who are more interested in the paycheck than improving the quality of schools. Sawka says that adding money into the equation could increase concerns about political influence on school boards.
In 2025, Sawka completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. Sawka won his election with 57% of the vote.
Nancy Brune is a Las Vegas City Councilmember who previously served as the executive director of the Guinn Center, a nonpartisan research center in Nevada. In an editorial she wrote while she was still serving as the Guinn Center’s executive director, Brune says school board members should be well compensated to reflect the important role they play in influencing educational outcomes and the time and skill it takes to manage a school district. Brune says fair compensation would attract a more diverse and experienced set of members and create the conditions for greater public accountability.
Should school board directors be paid? | Nick Sawka, Lynden Tribune
“That said, I do support reimbursing board members for legitimate expenses, such as travel, meals and lodging, when their duties require them to attend conventions or board-related functions outside the City of Lynden. However, I worry that offering stipends for general service could create a slippery slope, potentially attracting candidates motivated by financial gain rather than a genuine desire to serve. If concerns about political influence on school boards exist now, imagine how those concerns could grow if monetary compensation became the norm.
…
“If a stipend system were to be implemented, I would advocate for a per-meeting payment model, ensuring that board members are only compensated for their active participation in official meetings. Under Policy 1733, compensation could extend to events such as commencement ceremonies, staff retirements and other functions. However, the public should never have to question whether board members are attending such events because of a financial incentive.”
Competence must be compensated; we can't do school board governance on the cheap | Nancy Brune, The Nevada Independent
“Beyond the value proposition, establishing professional level compensation for school board members has a few other advantages. First, and perhaps foremost, professional level compensation would likely attract a greater number and a more diverse selection of professionals with the varied skills necessary for overseeing a large public organization.
“Arguably, we have underestimated the knowledge, experience and professional competence necessary to effectively manage a school district. School board members must navigate public meeting laws, human resource laws, collective bargaining arrangements, financial reports with various accounting methods, education policy reports based upon statistical modelling, public administration matters and community interactions. There are few jobs requiring such a vast array of skills — and which play such a crucial role in the lives of so many. It is unreasonable to expect to find more than a handful of individuals who are both able and willing to take on such a position and the stress it brings.”
School board update: filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
In 2026, Ballotpedia will cover elections for more than 30,000 school board seats. We’re expanding our coverage each year with our eye on covering the country’s more than 80,000 school board seats.
Election results from the past week
June 23
Upcoming school board elections
U.S. Department of Education announces new interagency agreements with DOJ, HHS
On June 16, the U.S. Education Department announced new agreements to transfer some of its work overseeing special education and civil rights investigations to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — the latest in its Returning Education to the States initiative. The initiative, created to further President Donald Trump’s (R) goal of shuttering the Education Department, is focused on “breaking up the education bureaucracy in D.C. and returning educational responsibility to state and local leaders – and ultimately parents – to unleash a new era of excellence.”
To date, the Education Department has announced 14 interagency agreements with six agencies — DOJ, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, and HHS — since May 2025. Click here to read our coverage of the Education Department’s first round of interagency agreements in November 2025.
Here’s what we know about the latest agreements.
Agreement #1: HHS will carry out and support the day-to-day work of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
OSERS administers programs and funding related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, supporting children, youth, and adults with disabilities. That includes programs that help individuals transition into the workforce.
Congress appropriated roughly $20 billion to OSERS in FY 2026. Funding for IDEA will continue to flow through the Education Department for the near future.
According to the interagency agreement, HHS will administer IDEA grants and other programs at the direction of the Education Department. OSERS’ responsibilities will include compliance, fiscal management, and data collection. The agreement specifies that ultimate responsibility for OSERS’ obligations will lie with the Education Department. The agreement notes that the “partnership will completely preserve the independent statutory functions of OSERS in overseeing special education,” and that “this agreement will be primarily carried out by personnel detailed from ED [Department of Education] to HHS.”
Education Department officials justified working with HHS on the grounds that HHS already oversees a variety of programs supporting individuals with disabilities, like Medicaid and Head Start.
In a letter to parents, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said, “As the Trump Administration scales back federal micromanagement when it hinders success, we are equally committed to bolstering the efficacy of federal oversight where it is essential.” McMahon said IDEA would remain law long after the Education Department ceased to exist.
The Education Department has now entered into a total of four interagency agreements with HHS. Other agreements cover foreign medical school accreditation standards, a program supporting on-campus childcare for parents enrolled in college, and a suite of programs related to school safety and family engagement.
Agreement #2: The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will assume responsibility for investigations currently overseen by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
OCR's primary role in the Education Department is to field and investigate allegations of discrimination on the basis of race and sex, as well as complaints of sexual misconduct. In 2023, the office received nearly 20,000 complaints and resolved 16,000. Under the Trump administration, OCR has opened investigations into districts for allegedly allowing transgender boys to play on girls’ sports teams.
According to the interagency agreement, OCR will now refer alleged violations of certain civil rights statutes to the DOJ, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Education Department will maintain oversight, oversee compliance reviews, and, following a completed investigation, make final recommendations about whether to pursue administrative or judicial enforcement.
Education Department officials said the agreement with the DOJ “will not impact students, parents or families who believe they have experienced discrimination,” and described the collaboration as a way to strengthen federal civil rights enforcement efforts.
In March 2025, as part of an agency-wide Reduction in Force (RIF), the Education Department fired roughly half the staff working in OCR. Following litigation that temporarily blocked the firings, the Education Department rescinded its RIF and paid between $28.5 and $38 million to keep the employees on administrative leave for about nine months before ultimately approving them for work once again.
Critics say the agreements will fall most heavily on vulnerable students and families, and that neither HHS nor DOJ have a specialty in education.
The Education Department has framed the agreements as a way to make federal programs more efficient and responsive to families, but critics say shifting responsibilities to different agencies will likely add to rather than decrease the bureaucratic hurdles facing both students and school officials that help them navigate it. American Federation of Government Employees Local 252 President Rachel Gittleman, who oversees the union that represents Education Department employees, said, “This isn’t efficiency — it’s chaos. Secretary McMahon is yet again targeting historically underserved students, eroding public trust, and sowing dysfunction for the federal employees who are trying to do their jobs on behalf of the public.”
Council for Exceptional Children CEO Chad Rummel said, “IDEA is an education law — not a health law — and moving it to the health department is more than a bureaucratic change; it segregates special education from K-12 programs and signals a move toward a medical model that views students as patients rather than as learners with strengths, potential and belonging.”
Sasha Pudelski, the advocacy director for the School Superintendents Association (AASA), said that while AASA has recommended that the Education Department reduce the number of federal agencies with which states and districts interact, she worried the “proposed structure could fragment critical program activities and create confusion around the funding, guidance and support districts rely on to serve students effectively.” Pudelski said districts will need to be aware that OCR and the DOJ have typically taken different approaches to resolving violations of federal law. OCR, she said, favors voluntary resolution agreements, while the DOJ pursues criminal and civil prosecutions.
How Congress is reacting to the Education Department’s agreements
Reactions in Congress to the Education Department’s actions have tended to break down along partisan lines, with Democrats opposed and Republicans generally more supportive. On June 17, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) introduced a resolution to impeach McMahon for “illegally transferring the operations of multiple offices and more than 100 programs under the Department of Education to other federal agencies without the consent of Congress.” House Education & Workforce Committee Chair Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), however, spoke positively about McMahon’s actions: “Madam Secretary, I appreciate the fact that you are finding creative ways, I believe, totally legal ways, to run your department.”
Not all congressional Republicans have been uncritical of McMahon’s initiatives. U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, said the Department of Labor would be better equipped to handle rehabilitative services than HHS, and indicated he would hold a vote on a Democratic-backed bill that would block the agreement from going into effect.
Congress created the Education Department in 1979, and McMahon has said the Trump administration’s goal is for Congress to vote to eliminate it.
Education Department grants Indiana greater flexibility over federal funds, relaxes accountability requirement
In other federal education news, the Education Department approved Indiana’s request for greater flexibility over some federal education funds on June 16. Indiana is the third state, along with Iowa and Louisiana, to receive what the Education Department is calling its Returning Education to the States Waiver policy. Similar to Iowa and Louisiana, the waiver allows Indiana to consolidate some federal grants, which state education officials claim will save the state money on compliance and reporting. Click here to read our coverage of Louisiana's waiver.
In two respects, however, Indiana’s waiver departs from what the other two states had requested. The Education Department approved Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner's request to allow 15% of districts to combine two federal grants related to instructional development (Title II, Part A) and student support (Title IV, Part A) into one pool, reducing paperwork and red tape. The federal government also approved Indiana’s request for an exemption from the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) requirement that its school rating system place a greater emphasis on academic indicators than other criteria. Indiana argued for the exemption, which applies only to high schools, on the grounds that its new A-F accountability system's non-academic indicators will measure academic factors like the completion of college and career readiness coursework. Previously, Indiana has maintained two accountability systems—its own, as well as one to satisfy ESEA. The waiver will allow Indiana to exclusively use its own system going forward.
The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) permits the creation of waiver programs. The Education Department used that authority to establish the Returning Education to the States Waiver policy. The waivers don’t change the amounts allocated to states or districts as part of the grants. State education departments must document how they are using the funds saved on compliance to improve student academic performance.
Extracurricular: education news from around the web
This section contains links to recent education-related articles from around the internet. If you know of a story we should be reading, reply to this email to share it with us!
- Non-college career pathways have a math problem | Chalkbeat
- The real problem with “gifted” education | Slow Boring
- The Decline of Teachers Unions (and How to Advance the Trend) | RealClearEducation
- Findings Offer a Math Playbook for California Schools | The 74
- New Idaho education laws: What students, parents and educators should know | Idaho Ed News
- What the International Debate Over School Choice Can Teach Us at Home | Education Week
- How public education has transformed in Virginia since the nation’s founding | Williamsburg Yorktown Daily
Take our Candidate Connection survey to reach voters in your district
Today, we’re looking at responses from the two school board candidates running in Florida’s Aug. 18 primary to represent District 3 on the Pasco County Schools school board.
Pasco County Schools is the 10th largest district in Florida, with roughly 86,000 students. Three of the five seats are up for election this year.
Matt Geiger’s career experience includes working as a teacher at a juvenile justice school and as an assistant director for English as a second language for a school district. He has also worked as the director of a YMCA camp, a child/family investigator for social services, an administrator at a psychiatric hospital, and a supervisor for special needs and disabilities.
Here’s how Geiger answered the question, “What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?”
“The public policy areas I am most passionate about are student achievement, school safety, teacher retention, workforce development, and parental engagement. With nearly 30 years in education, I believe every student deserves a safe, orderly classroom led by an effective teacher. I support policies that strengthen discipline, empower educators, and improve accountability. I am also committed to expanding Career and Technical Education programs that provide industry certifications, apprenticeships, and pathways to high-demand careers. Parents are essential partners in education, and my goal is simple: put students first, support teachers, engage families, and prepare every graduate for a successful future.”
Click here to read the rest of Geiger’s responses.
Kirk Phillips’ (also known as Captain Kirk) career experience includes working as a teacher and business owner. Here’s how Phillips answered the question, “What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”
- “Innovate: Our nation’s security depends on the education of its people. Innovation is the cornerstone of our culture, and our education system must drive that spirit forward.
- Educate: Education is not just the fabric of our nation; it is our soul, and it must be strong and effective, grounded in security, leadership, and innovation.
- Inspire: Innovation and education are meaningless without inspiration. We must mentor, coach, and support future generations through strong community connections as they explore, invent, and succeed.”
Click here to read the rest of Phillips’ responses.
As a reminder, if you're a school board candidate or incumbent planning to run this year, click here to take the survey. If you complete the survey, your answers will appear in your Ballotpedia profile. Your responses will also appear in our sample ballot. If there is an election in your community, share the link with your candidates and urge them to take the survey!
