INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
The Impact of School Board Interference on Educational Outcomes:  
A Barrier to Student Success  
Dr. Philip V. Saywrayne, III  
Lover Street, Paynesville, Liberia  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100227  
Received: 18 November 2025; Accepted: 27 November 2025; Published: 05 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This article examines the negative consequences of political and administrative interference by school boards in  
core educational processes—curriculum design, teacher selection, and policy implementation. Drawing on  
recent empirical research and international case studies, it demonstrates that excessive board involvement in  
operational matters undermines teacher professionalism, disrupts instructional coherence, and ultimately  
diminishes student achievement. The analysis argues that boards should act as strategic policy organs, not as  
political agents, and concludes that depoliticizing school governance is essential to improving educational  
outcomes and student success.  
INTRODUCTION  
Education systems thrive when governance roles are clearly defined, professionals enjoy instructional autonomy,  
and policies are grounded in evidence. However, in many contexts, school boards—tasked primarily with  
strategic oversight extend their influence into day-to-day administrative or political domains. When these boards  
shape curricula, influence staffing, or impose politically motivated policies, the educational focus shifts away  
from learning outcomes toward ideological agendas.  
Empirical evidence shows that micromanaging or politicized boards frequently erode teacher morale, disrupt  
institutional accountability, and depress student performance (Revell, 2011; McCarty, 2025). Consequently,  
understanding the mechanisms by which such interference impedes effective schooling is essential. This article  
explores the impact of political overreach in curriculum, staffing, and policy domains and demonstrates why  
board interference presents a substantial barrier to student success.  
DISCUSSION  
A. Curriculum Design and Implementation  
The curriculum defines educational purpose, sequencing, and pedagogical coherence. When school boards  
intrude into curriculum development for political or ideological reasons, they compromise evidence-based  
instructional design.  
Revell (2011) observed that districts where boards interfered with curricular and site-level decisions experienced  
measurable declines in student achievement, attributed to a deterioration of the learning climate. Similarly,  
Hilliard et al. (2022) found that unclear board roles and limited governance capacity weakened institutional  
efficiency, discipline, and teacher performance.  
While constructive collaboration—such as financial or administrative support—can enhance curriculum  
implementation (JRI IIE, 2024), politically motivated interference often results in inconsistent instructional  
goals, teacher frustration, and reduced student engagement. Effective curriculum governance thus requires that  
educational experts, not politically driven boards, guide pedagogical decisions.  
Page 2863  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
B. Teacher Selection and Staffing Decisions  
Teacher quality remains one of the most critical determinants of student learning outcomes. When boards  
intervene in hiring, assignment, or dismissal processes for political or personal reasons, they compromise  
educational quality.  
McCarty (2025) reported that excessive board involvement in staffing correlates with instability in leadership  
and increased superintendent turnover—conditions that disrupt instructional continuity. Governance analyses  
further note that politically motivated boards tend to override professional hiring standards, resulting in poor  
staff morale and diminished classroom effectiveness (Bonfire Leadership Solutions, 2024).  
Empirical evidence from multiple districts confirms that politically influenced staffing decisions undermine  
professional trust, create administrative instability, and weaken long-term student performance indicators.  
C. Policy Implementation and Board Micromanagement  
Effective education policy requires consistency, clarity, and depoliticized implementation. When boards  
micromanage operational policies—such as discipline frameworks, resource allocation, and instructional  
scheduling—schools lose stability.  
According to Education Week (2025), political turnover among board members often correlates with declines in  
student achievement, as frequent policy changes disrupt implementation cycles. Likewise, the Association of  
Educational Service Agencies (AESA, 2023) found that districts adhering to research-based governance models  
achieved significantly higher accountability scores than those affected by board overreach.  
Such findings underscore that strategic rather than operational governance is key. When boards assume  
managerial functions, priorities shift from student learning to political agendas, eroding institutional coherence  
and long-term progress.  
D. Illustrative Case Studies  
Case 1: Board Micromanagement and Achievement Decline.  
An analytical review by Bonfire Leadership Solutions (2024) highlighted that districts with highly intrusive  
boards experienced lower student outcomes and elevated leadership turnover.  
Case 2: Texas Lone Star Governance Evaluation.  
An AESA (2023) evaluation found that districts implementing evidence-based governance frameworks  
improved their accountability ratings by an average of 6.07 points, compared to 1.00 in districts with inconsistent  
governance practices.  
Case 3: Superintendent Relationships.  
Research from the University of Connecticut’s CEPARE (2022) demonstrated that constructive board–  
superintendent relationships positively correlate with improved student outcomes, while adversarial governance  
models undermine progress.  
Collectively, these examples confirm that student achievement flourishes under stable, professionally managed  
governance but declines under politically intrusive leadership.  
E. Implications for Student Success  
Student success depends on coherence between curriculum, staffing, and policy implementation. When boards  
overstep professional boundaries, they erode this coherence, replacing educational priorities with political  
considerations.  
Page 2864  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Revell (2011) and Education Week (2025) both highlight that politically charged governance reduces teacher  
motivation, fragments decision-making, and distorts school objectives. Therefore, school boards must focus on  
strategic oversight—vision-setting, resource management, and accountability—while deferring pedagogical and  
administrative operations to trained educators.  
A depoliticized, evidence-based governance framework is thus not merely desirable but essential for equitable  
and sustainable student achievement.  
CONCLUSION  
The evidence is unequivocal: political and administrative interference by school boards undermines student  
performance and institutional stability. Boards are crucial in defining strategic direction, ensuring accountability,  
and mobilizing resources; however, their legitimacy depends on restraint and adherence to governance ethics.  
When boards engage in curriculum engineering, politically motivated staffing, or day-to-day management, they  
violate professional boundaries and disrupt educational integrity. Such overreach erodes teacher autonomy,  
weakens leadership, and diverts attention from learning outcomes.  
To ensure student success, governance must be guided by professionalism rather than politics. Educational  
leadership should be entrusted to those with pedagogical expertise, while boards maintain a supportive, policy-  
focused role. Only through this separation of powers can education systems build the stable and student-centred  
environments necessary for genuine learning.  
REFERENCES  
(APA 7th Edition Format)  
1. AESA (Association of Educational Service Agencies). (2023, November 6). The Effects of School Board  
Behaviors on Student Outcomes – An Evaluation of Lone Star Governance. https://www.aesa.us  
2. Bonfire Leadership Solutions. (2024). The Clock Is Up: How 50 Years of Local School Board Control  
Has Seriously Failed America’s Children. https://bonfireleadershipsolutions.com  
3. Education Week. (2025, July). What the Research Says About School Boards: How Much Conflict  
Really Is There? https://www.edweek.org  
4. Hilliard, A. T., Foose, R. A., Kargbo, H., & Jackson, C. H. T. (2022). Dwindling Resources and Funding:  
Superintendents’ Leadership and School Board Members’ Decision-Making and Students’ Well-being  
and Academic Outcomes Remain a Challenge. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9), 513–  
518. https://journals.scholarpublishing.org  
5. JRI IIE. (2024). School Board Support and Curriculum Implementation in Tanzania. International  
Journal of Education and Innovation Exchange, 6(2), 44–59.  
6. McCarty, S. (2025). School Board Members’ Perceptions of Their Roles in Improving Student Academic  
Performance: A Narrative Inquiry Study. Doctoral dissertation, Prairie View A&M University.  
https://lair.etamu.edu  
7. Revell, J. (2011). School Board Training Effects on Student Achievement. Master’s thesis, California  
State University, Sacramento. https://www.csus.edu  
8. UConn CEPARE. (2022). Superintendent–Board Relationships and Their Impact on District  
Performance. Center for Education Policy Analysis, Research and Evaluation.  
Page 2865  
www.rsisinternational.org