The Boston City Council is considering a home rule petition that would fundamentally reshape the governance of the Boston School Committee. Introduced on Jan. 8 by Councillor Julia Mejia and co-sponsored by five of her colleagues, the proposal would change the panel from an appointed to an elected structure.

For over 30 years, the Research Bureau has supported an appointed school committee and continues to do so. The appointed model supports stability, a focus on long-term policy goals, and decision-making grounded in professional expertise rather than political pressures.

The debate about the district’s governance structure is a distraction from the urgent work necessary to improve the district’s operational and academic performance. Instead of a change in the form of governance, the focus should be on enhancing the school committee’s effectiveness and improving academic outcomes for all students.

Ultimately, as intended by the current system, it will be up to the voters to hold the mayor accountable for the performance of Boston’s district schools.
Boston is the only municipality in the state with a fully appointed school committee, with a home rule petition in 1991 changing it from an elected committee. This decision was affirmed by Boston voters in 1996, when 69.6 percent voted to maintain an appointed committee.

Currently, the mayor appoints all seven voting members of the school committee, with each appointee serving a four-year staggered term. The mayor must appoint each member from a list of nominees provided by the School Committee Nominating Panel. Both the mayor and the nominating panel are encouraged by the school committee’s enabling legislation to appoint individuals who reflect the ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic diversity of Boston and its public-school population.

A non-voting student member, elected annually by the Boston Student Advisory Council (BSAC), also serves on the committee.

This approach aims to balance expertise, community representation, and diversity, ensuring that the school committee reflects the city’s population as well as that of the district’s students while maintaining a focus on the long-term success of Boston Public Schools (BPS).

In November 2021, 78.7 percent of Boston voters approved a non-binding ballot initiative to return the School Committee to an elected body. This result may not be a reliable reflection of the electorate’s views. The City Council placed the question on the ballot on Sept.15, less than seven weeks before election day, leaving voters with limited time to gather information about the proposal, a task that was especially challenging because there was no campaign organized in opposition to the question. Only 28.5 percent of Boston’s electorate voted on the question.

Nevertheless, the election’s results reflect deep dissatisfaction with the appointed school committee’s performance (and perhaps of the district as a whole) and should serve as a call to action for the committee. Those who support the appointed structure should heed the voters’ warning and ensure that improvements are made.

Mayor Wu vetoed a similar home rule petition in February 2023 after the City Council passed it in a vote of 7-5, with one member voting present. Her objections centered on the risk of disrupting ongoing efforts to stabilize and transform BPS.

In November 2024, a spokesperson for the mayor confirmed her opposition to an elected school committee, stating that “after many years of leadership transitions, as well as disruptions from the pandemic and growing needs through our recovery, Boston Public Schools needs stability to continue the progress underway on long-term structural issues under Superintendent [Mary] Skipper, Mayor Wu and the administration.”

The 2025 proposed home rule petition would create a school committee of 13 members, four elected at-large and nine elected in the same districts as city councillors. Each member would be elected for a two-year term. Additionally, there would be two non-voting BPS student members appointed by the BSAC who would serve one-year terms.

The transition from an appointed to an elected school committee would begin in the municipal election following approval of the home rule petition, when nine district members would be elected and join four mayoral appointees on the body. In the subsequent municipal election, all 13 school committee members would be elected.

History should inform the discussion of what school committee structure will best serve Boston’s students.

Electing a committee’s members appeals to our democratic ideals, but it opens public education to political meddling, as demonstrated in communities across the country in recent years. In contrast, an appointed committee maintains clear mayoral accountability and helps decision-makers focus on the best interests of students rather than on their own political considerations for reelection or a race for higher office. The mayor’s appointment power also helps ensure that committee members align more directly with the mayor’s priorities. While this could be perceived as a negative aspect of an appointed structure, it allows voters to select a candidate for mayor based on the candidate’s vision for the school system and then make re-election decisions based on the district’s performance.

Under the elected model, the divided fiscal responsibilities of the mayor and school committee influenced spending and resource decisions. The elected body ran operating deficits in 11 of the 14 years prior to 1992 while BPS has consistently spent within its budget under mayoral control.

Establishing district seats and shortening terms to two years presents several downsides. Members holding district seats would likely be motivated by their desire to be re-elected in their own district, and they could consequently prioritize local interests over the needs of the school system as a whole. Two-year terms may also lead to a lack of stability and continuity, making it more difficult to create and implement long-term strategies.

A political focus could lead to school committee candidates who do not necessarily have the educational and managerial expertise essential in overseeing a large urban school district. The appointed system allows the mayor to choose diverse, highly qualified members, while emphasizing the experience of appointees.

Historically, Boston’s school committee elections have led to candidate apathy and low-turnout elections. For example, in Boston’s November 1989 election, no district School Committee candidate in a competitive race received votes of more than 16.4 percent of those registered in the district, and candidates in four of the nine seats were unopposed.

Changing the school committee’s governance structure will not resolve the challenges facing BPS.

The above was excerpted from a recent report issued by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau is an independent, non-partisan organization established in 1932 to provide objective policy analysis of the City of Boston’s government.