I blame it all on Barack Obama
Plus, what I look for in school board candidates.
Some days it’s nice to have someone other than myself to blame for my decision to enter politics. So, on the days when doing politics and policy work feels frustrating or gross or futile and I can’t remember why I ever thought this was a good idea, I blame it all on Barack Obama. Like a lot of other people, I got swept up in all that talk of hope and change and the idea “that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it (video, transcript).” I like to think Barack Obama wouldn’t mind that in my dark moments I blame everything on him. After all, I’m still out here, somehow, relatively full of hope and pushing for change. And besides, he knows that once you’re in politics one of your key responsibilities is to recruit other people to join you even if that means you’re the one they blame when things get rough.
Democracy is an experiment dependent on the optimistic belief that each of us in our own ways has something to offer the greater good. It only works because new people choose to enter the game to compete against those already in it or to accept the handoff from the ones who need a break or opt to retire. When you don’t have any firsthand experience with elected politics it’s intimidating to jump in alone. So, once you’re in not only is it incumbent on you to find others to participate but you also have to guide them through a brand new world that has its own rules (written and unwritten), customs, and expectations.
I’ve been mulling this over for the past few weeks as I’ve met with several people pondering a run for school board. But the time for them to weigh their options is over. School board candidate filing opens tomorrow! I’m excited to use this newsletter to give you an insider’s perspective on the school board race, drawing from my past experiences as a candidate, elected official, and advisor of campaigns. And, while I’m still figuring out what it will look like, you can expect some sort of endorsement process where I identify the candidates I see as best suited for the office right now.
If you are a candidate for SLPS school board and we haven’t already met, please reach out to me ASAP. And, if you’re not a candidate yet but want to know more about it, I’d like to hear from you too.
City Reform is a weekly-ish newsletter. To receive new posts via email and show support for my work, become a free or paid subscriber. Thank you for following my writing in whatever way fits into your budget. I’m really glad you’re here.
Being a politician changed the way I see the work of politicians and it definitely changed what I look for in candidates. I used to vote for candidates that shared my stance on as many issues as possible, prioritizing the ones, like education, that I care the most about. This approach is fine, but it ignores a lot of really important stuff.
When I ran for office I had a whole list of ideas to make the district better. I wanted to improve communications with families, grow enrollment, and increase central office support for teachers and other school-based educators. I thoughtfully wrote out my position on tons of issues from neighborhood schools to curriculum, hoping to garner support from voters by demonstrating my knowledge and expertise. I had a lot of good ideas, but friends, I didn't get a chance to do hardly any of it.
Instead, I was handed an unprecedented transition of governance, an ideological war over education reform, a global 100-year pandemic, and permanent school closures. Does that mean I abandoned my platform or my beliefs? Nope. Should I have trudged forward on my personal agenda for the district despite what the current context called for? Also nope.
A elected official’s term is mostly defined by the current moment, mostly shaped by external factors far beyond their control. They have to be responsive to matters as they arise and adapt to the needs of the people they represent. So, while stances on issues are important and every voter should define their own non-negotiables, they are but one small part of how candidates should be evaluated. Demeanor, character, and problem-solving style matter far more important than an elected official’s opinion on any individual issue. When a new crisis appears on the horizon to interrupt a candidates perfectly crafted campaign platform what’s needed is the ability to evaluate the pros and cons; a desire to find nuance; and a commitment to direct and transparent communications with the general public. When everything turns upside down and there are new roadblocks or higher hurdles in place, it doesn’t really matter what they thought about a topical issue. It only matters if they can persevere through the challenge and pursue solutions.
Running for office is a vastly different job than serving in that office. Campaigning is a show, an opportunity for the candidate to sell themself to the public, pitch a vision, and garner support for their policy positions. It’s fast-paced and glitzy. The candidate gets to craft a message and a narrative they are wholly in control of, leaving out the unsavory parts and highlighting those things that boost their image. Success requires a unique skill set and lots of natural talent. No doubt plenty of people who would make amazing government representatives can’t create the magic necessary to get elected.
Real talk though, “winning is easy. Governing is harder.” No matter how exhausting or relentless or consuming campaigning is, it pales in comparison to actually holding office. It’s not enough to command the audience at a town hall or have the best answer in a debate. Good governance is a completely different skill set.
Maybe the discrepancy between what it takes to win elections and what it takes to govern is what gets so many politicians into trouble. Honestly, the day-to-day activities of government are pretty boring. It can be hard to find an outlet for all that charisma when tasks are reading policies; researching best practices and ideas from other places; and sitting in meetings. But power is intoxicating and incredibly hard to give up, leaving politicians to grandstand and build their brands, always looking toward that next election.
The best elected officials, the ones who manage to instigate real, sustainable change, find ways to avoid these pitfalls, recognizing there’s so much more to this work than just getting and keeping the job. They have an insatiable desire to learn, to do better, and to improve their craft. They communicate early and often, reflecting back the thoughts, fears, and dreams of the public. The good ones aren’t afraid to ask questions, to say they don’t know, to ask others for help, and they surround themselves with people who fill the gaps in their own skill sets.
Building a team is not without its own problems. Sometimes these relationships start out with the best of intentions only to morph into something toxic out of a perverse sense of loyalty, the idea that if you’re not with us then you’re against us creating artificial factions among people who are really on the same side.
All of this is true for school board candidates, but since it’s a role is unlike any other there are a few extra things to consider.
School board candidates do not have a constituency of their own nor do they have the autonomy to act as individuals. So, while other positions, like aldermen and representative, can allocate funds; fulfill or respond to constituent requests; or establish procedures for their office, school board members only have authority in conjunction with the rest of the board and in the course of an officially convened board meeting. With the exception of a very few, specific duties afforded to the president (mostly with regard to legal matters), no school board member can direct staff, including the superintendent, nor can they enter into agreements or contracts on behalf of the school district. The only thing they can do is get together with other members of the board and find consensus.
So, for school board candidates in particular, I assess how well they understand the nature of their governance role, gauging their ability to work through issues with their fellow members of the board. Are they good listeners? Do they have a strong sense of self and demonstrate the ability to think for themselves or do they regurgitate common talking points, forcing them into places they don’t fit? Can they wrestle with nuance, resisting the urge to reduce complicated topics to black-or-white, yes-or no positions? Do they learn from new information or reject it when it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions of what something is or should be?
The superintendent and the school board form a governance team of eight. The district’s success doesn’t rest on what any one of them think or do as individuals but on how they work together to achieve their goals and carry out their plans. The governance team already exists, we’re not creating anything new, we’re not building it from scratch. As such, the school board election should be viewed less as a competition between individuals and more as a draft to select a few new members that can make the team as strong as possible.
For a long time, our school board races have been dominated by district-versus-charter rhetoric. We ask candidates to answer question after question about it, picking apart their answers, searching for anything that proves they’re out to destroy SLPS. Given our city’s tendency to make major education policy decisions without the input of students, parents, and educators plus the well-organized and well-funded school privatization efforts that have taken hold across the country, it’s completely reasonable to want to vet every candidate beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But, this us-vs-them standoff hasn’t gotten us anywhere. Our entire public school system is struggling and we’ll never get the improvement we deserve if we keep doing things the same way we always have.
It is absolutely critical that every single person elected to the school board believes in the value of a traditional public school district and wants SLPS to succeed. Any candidates with ties to charter networks and education reform groups should be thoroughly scrutinized. But, we can’t let privatization be the only topic we ask about and we can’t exile any candidate whose background includes something we wish it didn’t. If public education in St. Louis is ever going to get any better then we actually need to talk about these issues and it’s impossible to do that if we exclude people from the conversation before it even starts.
Don’t believe me? Take it from the man who got me into this mess in the first place:
“In a democracy, it’s important to argue strongly for the issues we care about and draw lines that we’re not willing to cross. But, purity tests are not a recipe for long-term success.” (NYT story, video)
—Barack Obama, December 5, 2024