BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Halo Effect, and Self-Serving Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 14.6% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 647 faulty-reasoning hits from 485 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.5% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,870 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

The governance of America’s public schools belongs to no single authority. 
It is shared, negotiated, and contested across many institutions. 
Yet, the local school board stands apart. 
School boards are the most accessible of our democratic institutions, offering a forum where residents engage with neighbors they elect to serve. 
At their best, they draw on local knowledge to meet their community's needs. 
At their worst, they lack capacity, accountability, and representation, and are prone to conflict and dysfunction. 
This initiative examines U.S. school boards during a pivotal time in their history: the pandemic and culture-war conflicts of the 2020s. 
REPORT 1 
Local control, national conflict: School boards in the COVID-19 and culture-war era 
In the early 2020s, school boards confronted conflicts over the pandemic and a host of issues related to race, gender, and sexuality. 
We examine those conflicts from three complementary vantage points: media reports, board member surveys, and election results. 
Read the report 
REPORT 2 
A survey of America’s school board members 
We surveyed a nationally representative sample of school board members, asking about their experiences campaigning and serving in office, which issues are most important to them and their constituents, and how they feel about the state of public education. 
Read the report 
LOOK INSIDE 
Chapter 1: Media reporting on school board conflicts 
Education 
Jon Valant, Ariell Bertrand, Rachel M. 
Perera, Nicolas Zerbino 
June 5, 2026 
Chapter 2: School board members’ views of the COVID-19 and culture-war era 
Education 
Jon Valant, Ariell Bertrand, Rachel M. 
Perera, Nicolas Zerbino 
June 5, 2026 
Chapter 3: A case study of school board elections in Florida 
Education 
Jon Valant, Ariell Bertrand, Rachel M. 
Perera, Nicolas Zerbino 
June 5, 2026 
LOOK INSIDE 
Main findings from a survey of America’s school board members 
Education 
Jon Valant, Rachel M. 
Perera, Nicolas Zerbino 
June 5, 2026 
Results tables: A survey of America’s school board members 
Education 
Rachel M. 
Perera, Jon Valant, Nicolas Zerbino 
June 5, 2026 
WATCH THE EVENT 
The past, present, and future of America’s school boards 
Education Policy 
Past Event 
June 08 
2026 
Monday, 11:30 am - 1:00 pm EDT 
Online only 
Acknowledgements 
The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings is grateful for the support of the Spencer Foundation. 
The research reported in this report was made possible by a grant from the Spencer Foundation (#202300189). 
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Spencer Foundation. 
Brookings is committed to quality, independence, and impact in all of its work. 
Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment, and the analysis and recommendations are solely determined by the scholars. 
The authors thank Purnima Aggarwal, Kelsey Brown, Rosalia Dalton, Elizabeth Gellman, Gabrielle Harris, Alex Hubbard, Annabelle Kim, Jamie Klinenberg, Emma Mills, Brianna Paliz, Sally Park, Analisa Pines, Ayanna Platt, Estan Rodriguez, Simon Rosenbaum, Brock Schultz, Claire Siegel, Sana Sinha, and Rebecca Wagner for their excellent research support. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brookings: 4.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.0%Brookings: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Brookings: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 12.4%Brookings: 4.9%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.9%Brookings: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Brookings: 3.0%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 3.3%Brookings: 1.8%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 7.8%Brookings: 5.2%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 10.5%Brookings: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Brookings: 1.2%Halo Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Brookings: 1.1%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.0%Brookings: 3.6%Appeal to Authority8.0%This article: 2.5%Brookings: 1.8%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.6%Brookings: 5.4%Hasty Generalization14.6%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.7%Brookings: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion2.7%This article: 4.3%Brookings: 0.7%Begging the Question4.3%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%Brookings: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.9%Brookings: 0.1%Special Pleading3.9%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.0%Brookings: 1.0%Unattributed Quote8.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.1%Brookings: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice10.1%This article: 2.7%Brookings: 2.3%Indoctrination2.7%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Brookings: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.3%This article: 1.9%Brookings: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.9%

485 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers22%attributed speech378writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJon Valant • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNicolas Zerbino • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJon Valant • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNicolas Zerbino • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJon Valant • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNicolas Zerbino • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJon Valant • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNicolas Zerbino • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRachel M. Perera • 2 words • 0.0% coverageRachel M. Perera • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBrookings • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Foundation • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBrookings • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBrookings • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brookings

65%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words46% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Brookings: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Brookings: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Brookings: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Brookings: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Brookings: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.