Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Witness: State laws vary widely on student seats on school boards, committee told
Loading...
Summary
A policy analyst told the House Education Committee on April 14 that laws across states differ on whether student members are required or allowed, how they're selected, whether they may attend executive sessions, and whether they may vote; the witness offered to follow up on constitutionality questions raised by members.
A policy analyst from the Education Commission of the States told the House Education Committee on April 14 that state laws vary widely on how school boards include student members, ranging from mandatory student seats in some states to permissive or local-choice approaches in others.
"There are several states with policies that either allow for or require for school boards to include student representation," Hina Koyama said in her testimony to Chair Conley and committee members. Koyama, a policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States, said her written testimony includes citations and links to the state examples she discussed.
Koyama told the committee that approaches differ in four main ways: whether student members are mandated statewide or merely permitted; how many student members a board must or may have; the process by which student members are selected; and the rights afforded to student members, including access to executive sessions and voting authority.
She cited Massachusetts and New Hampshire as examples of states that require at least one student member statewide, and identified Illinois and Nebraska as states that allow but do not mandate student members. California's statute, she said, requires student members only if students petition the governing board.
Selection processes vary, Koyama said. New York statute, she noted, lists several options a district may use to identify a student member (student president, student-elected representative, student government pick, principal, superintendent or board selection); Massachusetts, by contrast, requires a student committee to elect a single chair to serve as the student representative. Virginia leaves selection procedures to local boards.
Koyama described differences in students' access to executive sessions: some states expressly prohibit student members from closed sessions, while others allow local boards to include or exclude students. She gave Montgomery County, Md., as an example in which a student member may attend all executive sessions except those on suspension or dismissal of employees, with an exception if the board votes to invite the student.
On voting, Koyama said most states make student members nonvoting. "In the majority of the states we looked at, students serve as non voting members," she said. She added that several Maryland counties give student members full voting rights on most matters but typically exclude them from votes on personnel, budgets, school closings and reopenings, collective bargaining and discipline.
Committee members pressed Koyama on constitutional questions about unelected students exercising decision-making votes. Chair Conley asked whether states with student voting had addressed a potential constitutional challenge to unelected voters. Koyama said she did not find a definitive answer in her initial research and identified Maryland as the most relevant place to examine full voting examples; she offered to follow up with additional information for the committee.
Riley asked whether any selection method correlates with greater student civic participation. Koyama pointed to ongoing research from Teachers College, Columbia University linked in her written testimony but said the project is not yet complete and she could not summarize findings at the hearing.
Committee discussion turned to Vermont's particular context: members noted some local school boards oversee no schools or no high schools, complicating a single statutory approach. Members discussed whether a model policy developed by the agency in collaboration with the school boards association might provide a flexible option instead of a uniform statutory requirement.
Members also discussed a practical route that boards sometimes use: appointing a student member until the next election. Chair Conley noted statute gives boards power to appoint until the next election; members said appointing a nonvoting student in an advisory role would avoid the constitutional question about an unelected person casting binding votes.
The committee took no formal action at the hearing. Koyama said she would research the constitutional question around unelected student voting and return the findings to committee members; the meeting concluded with scheduling notes and no vote.
