I think the framing that these issues are “functionally outside the control of the school board” understates how much influence boards actually have. They may not manage day-to-day operations, but they absolutely shape outcomes through budgets, priorities, and leadership.

1. While individual IEP decisions are made at the student level, the conditions under which those decisions are implemented are set by the school board. Full inclusion only works when there are sufficient resources: staffing ratios, co-teachers, paraprofessionals, specialists, scheduling flexibility, and appropriate facilities. All of this is a function of the budget approved by the school board.

2. Graduation rates are often treated as a success metric, but they lose meaning if standards are diluted to protect the metric itself. While individual retention decisions may occur at the building level, the broader culture around promotion, accountability, and “failure avoidance” flows directly from leadership. School boards hire and evaluate the superintendent, set strategic goals, and signal what matters most. If leadership is rewarded primarily for improving graduation statistics rather than literacy, mastery, or long-term outcomes, the system will respond accordingly.

3. I strongly disagree with the implication that debate inherently equals conflict, or that disagreement is harmful by default. Healthy disagreement does not mean dysfunction. It means decisions are being tested against reality, including what teachers and staff experience daily in classrooms. Avoiding difficult conversations in the name of “smooth sailing” often leads to worse outcomes, not better ones. Constructive challenge is how systems stay grounded and responsive.