The recent passage of Senate Bill 287 by the Indiana General Assembly marks a pivotal moment in the battle for transparency and local control in public education. The law allows school board candidates to declare their political party affiliation on ballots—a seemingly simple measure, but one that strikes at the heart of a deeply entrenched illusion: that public education is or ever has been “nonpartisan.”
In reality, the education system has long been steered by partisan actors, with the direction overwhelmingly tilted leftward. SB287 doesn’t inject politics into education—it merely reveals the politics already at play. And for voters—especially parents, taxpayers, and concerned Christians—it provides a tool to better discern who will represent their values in shaping the minds and morals of the next generation.
The False Claim of “Nonpartisan” School Boards
It sounds noble to suggest that school boards should be above politics. But this sentiment is often deployed as a smokescreen by those who already control the ideological direction of the education system. The largest teacher unions—the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)—are political juggernauts that consistently support Democratic candidates and progressive policy platforms.
In fact, over 94% of NEA’s political contributions in recent election cycles have gone to liberal causes. The AFT shows a similar pattern. These are not neutral institutions; they are deeply invested in shaping not just educational outcomes, but cultural and political values.
The worldview embraced by these unions increasingly reflects radical ideologies on gender identity, race, and family structure, and they demand ideological conformity in the classroom. Surveys suggest that over 60% of public-school teachers identify as Democrats. Is it any wonder, then, that the public education system often feels like an arm of the progressive movement?
The Federal Overreach: Title IX and the Rewriting of Family Roles
The Biden administration’s reinterpretation of Title IX is a prime example of ideological overreach cloaked in civil rights language. By insisting that schools affirm gender identity in ways that defy parental wishes and biblical teaching, the federal government has declared itself the moral arbiter of our children’s identities.
Rather than partnering with parents, this approach treats children as wards of the state, whose minds and bodies must conform to the state’s preferred ideology. This is not mere education—it is indoctrination. It imposes a worldview that is at odds with traditional moral convictions, Christian doctrine, and constitutional principles of parental rights and religious freedom.
The Myth of Neutrality: A Christian and Philosophical Rebuttal
From a biblical worldview, the idea of a neutral educator or policy is a myth. As Jesus said, “No servant can serve two masters” (Luke 16:13, ESV). Every teacher, administrator, and school board member brings a worldview to their decisions. Whether it’s a view that upholds God’s created order or one that seeks to dismantle it, neutrality is not possible.
Scripture identifies the family—not the state—as the primary institution for raising and educating children. As Deuteronomy 6:6–7 (ESV) says: “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children…” Christian parents are commanded to instruct their children in the ways of the Lord, not to surrender that responsibility to a secular bureaucracy hostile to their faith.
Philosopher Thomas Sowell has long warned that “there are no solutions—only trade-offs.” Likewise, Victor Davis Hanson has exposed how elite ideologies trickle down from academic halls into school policies that erode civic virtue and historical literacy. When local school boards become megaphones for progressive orthodoxy, they not only betray their communities—they weaken the very fabric of our constitutional republic.
SB287: A Tool for Informed Voting, Not Ideological Enforcement
Critics of SB287 argue that listing party affiliation will politicize school board elections. But that’s like blaming a mirror for your reflection. The politics are already there—SB287 simply makes them visible.
Importantly, the law does not require candidates to declare party affiliation. It merely permits them to do so. This empowers voters by giving them additional information—not to stereotype, but to assess whether a candidate’s likely worldview aligns with their own convictions about education, morality, and family.
This is especially relevant in Indiana, where many communities—especially rural and suburban—remain deeply conservative and Christian. These families want schools that reflect their priorities: academic excellence, respect for parental rights, and moral integrity, not progressive activism masquerading as inclusivity.
Parental Rights and Local Authority: The Frontlines of Cultural Renewal
Progressive ideology thrives in ambiguity, opacity, and centralization. It withers under light and local scrutiny. SB287 pushes in the opposite direction. It enables voters to identify those who may uphold their values, particularly as the political and cultural stakes in public education continue to rise.
Parental rights must never be viewed as negotiable. When school boards act contrary to the communities they serve—whether in curriculum, discipline policy, or gender ideology—they lose moral legitimacy. By contrast, school board members who honor the family’s God-given role, and resist ideological coercion, deserve our support.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Vote Values, Not Illusions
Indiana’s SB287 offers a necessary course correction. In an age when public institutions are increasingly co-opted by radical ideologies like wokeness and gender ideology, clarity is not dangerous—it is liberating. By allowing school board candidates to reveal their political affiliations, the law acknowledges the reality of our times: education is already political, and transparency is the first step toward accountability.
Voters should not be afraid to support conservative candidates who champion parental rights, moral clarity, and academic excellence. These candidates are far more likely to reflect the values of Indiana families—and resist the drift toward centralized, ideological governance.
Obviously, it is the Democrat party that supports radical leftist ideologies like wokeness and gender ideology.
Party affiliation is not the only factor I would consider. If a candidate is a former educator, this would reveal a tendency to trust current educators’ judgment. This means the candidate might not possess the skepticism needed to counter school administration as an advocate for the taxpaying parent.
I consider it a big red flag if the school board candidate is endorsed by federal, state and/or local teacher unions (NEA, ISTA and local affiliates like ENEA). Teacher unions are well-known supporters of leftist ideologies like wokeness and gender ideology. Their endorsement is a liability in my estimation.
Let us not forget: the culture war is being waged in classrooms. If we care about the minds and souls of children, we must engage it with wisdom, conviction, and courage.
I, for one, look forward to voting for Republican school board candidates who will stand for truth.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@basedchristianity.org
RELATED CONTENT
This post is related to a letter to the editor that I submitted to the local newspaper. Below is a pdf of the article.
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain some opinions I don’t agree with.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots.
You can always send me an email at rob@basedchristianity.org if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
If you have evidence that I am wrong about a material statement of fact, provide the evidence and I will gladly review it and make revisions if merited.
Obviously, there are some assertions that are matters of opinion that I will not change, but I always strive to be truthful. We are all capable of mistakes and misunderstandings on occasion, though.
Regarding depictions of Jesus, images accompanying the article may contain depictions of Jesus. I realize that some fellow Christians, particularly some conservative Presbyterians, consider these images to be a form of idolatry. I do not agree with their opinion on this matter. These images are for illustrative purposes and do not represent a form of worship.
I recommend these Youtube channels for good content on Christian matters: Founders Ministries, Ligonier Ministries, Grace to You, G3 Ministries, and Truth for Life. RC Sproul, Voddie Baucham, Alistair Begg, Kevin DeYoung, Albert Mohler, Tom Ascol and John MacArthur are well-known, trustworthy pastors and teachers with content across multiple forums.
Francis Schaeffer, Tom Ascol, Allie Beth Stuckey and Nancy Pearcey have some valuable materials related to cultural matters, as well.