Does the Meeting Style Matter? The Effects of Exposure to Participatory and Deliberative School Board Meetings

Abstract

Would public meetings incite more civic engagement if they were structured in ways that are simply more engaging? I addressed this question by conducting an original survey with an oversample of racial and ethnic minorities and individuals from low-income households. The survey featured a randomized experiment in which each study participant was shown a short clip of an actual school board meeting that was (1) a standard meeting with no public participation, (2) a meeting with public participation, or (3) a meeting with deliberation (public participation followed by a reasoned response from the school board). The experience of viewing the more participatory and deliberative school board meetings led to increased trust in local officials and a stronger willingness to attend school board meetings in the future. This study has significant implications for civic engagement, local politics, and public school governance.

“All schools are not created equal:” An analysis of public comments on school rezoning

“…Our findings extend previous research on public participation in educational policy (e.g., Bertrand & Sampson, 2020;Collins, 2021;Sampson & Bertrand, 2020;Tracy & Durfy, 2007) by highlighting public values undergirding school rezoning. We identified commenters' competing values and visions for school diversity, which were heavily shaped by districts' rezoning goals and processes.…”

“…These meetings are also tightly structured with prearranged speakers or strict time limits, discouraging spontaneous commenting or lengthier contextualization of policy issues. Researchers are also limited by smaller sample sizes, making cross-case analysis difficult because residents are usually from the same city (Collins, 2021).…”

“…However, there are physical and emotional barriers associated with public commenting at such forums. Participation in public meetings often necessitates additional time, resources, or social capital to navigate the innerworkings of local politics (Collins, 2021). These meetings are also tightly structured with prearranged speakers or strict time limits, discouraging spontaneous commenting or lengthier contextualization of policy issues.…”

“…These meetings are also tightly structured with prearranged speakers or strict time limits, discouraging spontaneous commenting or lengthier contextualization of policy issues. Researchers are also limited by smaller sample sizes, making cross-case analysis difficult because residents are usually from the same city (Collins, 2021).In this study, we leverage a unique data set of written public comments submitted through online district surveys or at the conclusion of face-to-face meetings. In theory, written public comments should increase public participation, especially among marginalized groups, because there are fewer barriers to submitting a written public comment either in person, online, or at a meeting.…”

“…In theory, written public comments should increase public participation, especially among marginalized groups, because there are fewer barriers to submitting a written public comment either in person, online, or at a meeting. Additionally, written public comments, unlike verbal comments, enable communities of color to voice concerns without threat, white intimidation, or racial microaggressions (Collins, 2021;Sampson & Bertrand, 2020). Yet despite broader engagement in other disciplines (e.g., Livermore et al, 2018;Pang & Lee, 2008;Shapiro, 2011), educational policy scholars have underexamined written public comments to interrogate group expression in school policymaking.We critically examined 3,339 public comments from two neighboring school districts, one urban and one suburban, undergoing rapid demographic shifts where school board and district officials sought to address racial and/or socioeconomic diversity, among other priorities, through rezoning.…”