top of page

ACPS School Board Corner

ACPS School Board Election Reform: Staggered Terms, Turnover, and What Happens Next

  • 3 days ago
  • 11 min read

Updated: 20 hours ago


By: Kelly Carmichael Booz and Dr. Ashley Simpson Baird


Nearly three years ago, we wrote about why the Alexandria City School Board was considering staggered terms. Since then, a lot has happened—and a lot hasn't. We're writing this update because there is growing community energy around School Board reform, and we want to make sure that energy is informed by the full picture.


We welcome it. Parents are paying attention, organizing, and speaking up at City Council meetings. That matters. But to get this right, we need to make sure we're solving the right problem—and directing our advocacy to the right place.


Where ACPS School Board Election Reform Stands 


On November 7, 2024, the Alexandria City School Board unanimously adopted a resolution with the eight members present, requesting that the City Council amend the City Charter to:


  • Transition School Board terms from three years to four years, and

  • Transition from concurrent elections to staggered terms, with one member from each district elected each year.


The resolution was the product of years of deliberation—not months, not weeks, years. The work on this issue spans four School Boards, going back to 2018, and includes formal work sessions, a community survey, public hearings, listening sessions, and two adopted resolutions (2018 and 2024).


The 2024 resolution is itself a formal request to Council and was followed by a letter from the school board chair on December 12, 2024,  to Council requesting consideration.  It asks Council to amend the City Charter—and it has been sitting with Council since November 2024.


Since then, the Board has continued to lay the groundwork. In December 2025, Board Members Kelly Carmichael Booz and Ryan Reyna joined Vice Mayor Sarah Bagley and Councilmember Abdel-Rahman Elnoubi in proposing a pilot model for joint City Council–School Board subcommittees—a new structure for the two bodies to collaborate on shared challenges with defined scopes and timelines, with regular updates to the long-standing City/Schools Subcommittee. 


In January 2026, the Board's Governance Committee prepared a briefing paper for current members and a draft memo to Council specifically requesting an ad-hoc committee on election reform and a City Charter amendment. That memo has not yet been formally transmitted—the Board has been focused on the budget process—but the substance of the request has been clear and consistent since the 2024 resolution and letter to council.



Council has not yet taken up the Board's request.


This is the bottleneck. The School Board cannot change its own election structure. Under Virginia's Dillon Rule, any change—whether to board size, term length, or election cycle—requires City Council to initiate a City Charter amendment, hold a public hearing, and then the Virginia General Assembly must approve it. The School Board has done its part. We now need Council to act—and 2026 is the year that matters if we want anything in place before the 2027 elections.


We've spoken with both of Alexandria's new General Assembly members, and both have expressed openness and support for carrying this legislation during the 2027 session. The path is there. What's missing is Council action to start the process.


Community Calls for Reform


A petition circulating among ACPS parents calls on the City Council to take two steps: reduce the size of the School Board and increase its compensation. We appreciate the energy behind this effort and share the petitioners' urgency. Here's how these ideas fit into the broader reform picture.


Board Size


The petition calls for reducing the Board from nine members to a smaller number, arguing that a smaller board would increase accountability and produce more competitive elections. We understand that instinct. And it's worth noting that the 2018 Board resolution explicitly asked Council to explore reducing Board size—so this is not a new conversation.


A little history: Alexandria's school board was expanded from six to nine members in 1964, when it was still appointed. The expansion was intended to allow for broader representation on the Board, particularly of Black Alexandrians. We transitioned to an elected board in 1994, which is when the three-district structure was established. The nine-member size has been in place for over sixty years.


However, when the 2022–2024 Board took a deep look at the evidence, the data told a more nuanced story. The research reviewed by the Board did not identify board size as a primary driver of governance instability or student outcomes. The evidence consistently pointed to election timing, term length, and concurrency as the dominant factors driving excessive turnover.



Some context on where Alexandria sits:


  • ACPS has nine members, which is larger than the Virginia average (about six) but comparable to neighbors like Loudoun (9) and Prince William (8). Fairfax has 12. Arlington, in contrast, has a five-member board with staggered terms.

  • Nine-member boards work effectively in other districts when paired with staggered terms. New Rochelle, New York, for example, operates successfully with nine members and staggered five-year terms.

  • Reducing Board size without addressing concurrent elections would not solve the core turnover problem. You could have a seven-member board and still see a majority turnover in a single election.

  • In a city as diverse as Alexandria—with proportions of English learners (39%) and economically disadvantaged students (52%) that are above the state average—reducing the number of elected representatives raises real questions about maintaining adequate representation.


The previous Board did not reach consensus on reducing the Board size, and for that reason, it was intentionally omitted from the 2024 resolution. The Board focused the resolution on the two structural features most directly linked to instability: term length and concurrent terms.


That said, Board size is a conversation that City Council has the authority to pursue. If Council believes a smaller board would serve Alexandria well, that is a charter amendment they can advance—and the School Board has expressed openness to that dialogue. But our strong recommendation, grounded in the evidence, is that staggered terms and four-year terms should come first. Reducing size without staggering is treating a symptom, not the cause.


Compensation


The petition also calls for increased School Board compensation, and we agree that this is important. We're pleased to share that the Board has already taken action on this front.


In March 2025, the Board adopted a new compensation policy (BHD and BHD-R) that establishes a formula tying Board member salary to 75% of a first-year ACPS teacher's salary (this would translate to $42,905.36 in FY26). Board salaries will be reviewed the year prior to each election year and adjusted if they fall below that benchmark.

 

This was long overdue. Alexandria School Board members have been paid $15,000 per year since at least 2012—more than a decade with no increase—even as City Council voted to raise their own salaries from $37,500 to $68,000 starting in 2025. That created a 353% gap between Council and School Board compensation. Council members also each receive a half-time assistant for constituent services at $32,000–$36,000 per year—more than double what a Board member makes annually. Every comparable jurisdiction in the region has adjusted school board salaries in recent years; Alexandria was the only one that hadn't.


An important clarification on how this works: under Virginia law (§ 22.1-32), the School Board sets its own salary through an affirmative vote of the Board. This is not a decision that City Council makes. The statute is specific: for a school board representing a city, any salary increase must be approved prior to December 31 of the year preceding an election year. With the next School Board election in November 2027, that means the current Board must vote on a salary increase by December 31, 2026.


There's another important wrinkle: under the statute, no salary increase may take effect during an incumbent member's term of office. But—and this is notable—that restriction does not apply if school board members serve staggered terms. Under Alexandria's current concurrent structure, any salary increase the Board votes on this year cannot benefit sitting members; it can only apply to the Board that takes office after the 2027 election (i.e., January 2028). If Alexandria had staggered terms, the Board would have much more flexibility to keep compensation aligned with the BDH/BHD-R formula on an ongoing basis—yet another practical benefit of the structural reform we're seeking.


It's also worth noting the structural disadvantage school boards face compared to city councils on this issue. Council can vote itself a raise in an election year, so long as the vote is complete by June 30, with the increase taking effect during the following term. The School Board, by contrast, must act by December 31 of the year before the election year—a full year earlier. This asymmetry, combined with the mid-term restriction, is part of why Board compensation has stagnated for so long. Previous efforts to address compensation through the budget process were cut because—rightly so—everyone wants funding to go to staff and schools. The new BDH/BHD-R policy is designed to break that cycle by establishing a transparent formula that doesn't require the Board to fight for a raise each time.


The case for staggered terms: a quick refresher


For those who haven't followed this issue closely, here's the short version of why staggered terms are the most important structural reform available.


Under the current system, all nine School Board members serve concurrent three-year terms. Every three years, every seat is up for election at the same time. Since 1997, this has produced an average turnover of about five members per cycle—including multiple cycles where six or more seats changed hands.


Based on our research and interviews with prior School Board members, it appears that the majority of these mass turnovers occur because the incumbents have decided to retire from the School Board instead of voters choosing different candidates.


The consequences are real:


  • Superintendent instability. Since transitioning to an elected board, ACPS has experienced six superintendent departures, with several occurring shortly after major Board transitions. ACPS's average superintendent tenure of roughly 2.75 years is well below the national average of about five years—and significantly below what research says is needed for sustained improvement.

  • Loss of institutional knowledge. New board members—no matter how talented—face a steep learning curve. When six of nine members are new at the same time, the burden on staff is enormous, and the quality of decision-making suffers.

  • Disrupted initiatives. Multi-year efforts to improve student outcomes—like literacy programs, English learner services, and math achievement—require sustained leadership. Wholesale governance turnover puts those investments at risk.


Why this matters even more in a district like ours


This isn't an abstract governance debate. It has real consequences for students—and the research shows that districts like ACPS, with high proportions of English learners and economically disadvantaged students, are disproportionately harmed by leadership instability.


ACPS serves one of the most diverse student populations in Virginia: approximately 40% of our students are English learners, more than half qualify for free or reduced-price meals, and our student body is approximately 40% Hispanic, 30% Black, and 25% White. Recent academic research (e.g., Redding & Carlo, 2025) found that superintendent turnover produces measurable drops in student test scores—and that these negative effects are most concentrated in urban, high-poverty, and diverse districts, like ACPS.


For English learners specifically, program continuity is critical. Initiatives like dual-language immersion, tiered literacy interventions, and structured EL programming require three to five years of sustained implementation before they can produce valid outcome data. When a board experiences wholesale turnover, the new board often pauses existing initiatives to conduct reviews or shifts direction entirely. For an EL in second grade, a one-year pause in a literacy intervention isn't a minor disruption—it's a setback that compounds over time.


The same is true for economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities, who depend on multi-year strategies that require consistent leadership and policy coherence. Research consistently shows that sustained leadership over five or more years is a prerequisite for meaningful improvements in student achievement, particularly for historically underserved groups.


Staggered terms act as a shield for these programs. With only three members changing at a time, the institutional memory about the value of long-term investments stays on the dais. The board is less likely to abandon a multi-year initiative simply because of a change in political dynamics. The students who most need stability are the ones who suffer without systems designed for continuity.



Staggered terms address this directly. Under the Board's proposed model, one member from each district would be elected each year to a four-year term. Only three of nine seats would turn over in any given year. A majority of experienced members would always remain in office to onboard new colleagues and maintain continuity.


This is not unusual. Approximately 90% of Virginia school boards serve four-year terms. Roughly two-thirds use staggered elections. Every comparable peer district—Arlington, Falls Church, Harrisonburg, Winchester, and Loudoun—uses staggered terms. Alexandria is the outlier.



A note on engagement and accountability


We hear the frustration some families feel about communication and responsiveness from the Board, and we take it seriously. Some of that frustration is itself structural.


By Board policy, members generally do not respond to public comments during meetings. The Chair reads language before each public hearing, explaining this—not because we aren't listening, but because that's how the process is designed. We hear what's said. We take it into account. And where follow-up is needed, the Chair works with the Superintendent and Clerk to respond after the meeting.


But we also have to be honest about resources. The Board is staffed by a Senior Clerk and a Clerk. That's the entire support staff. No constituent services office. No communications team. Most Board members work full-time jobs and have families. We've launched a board-operated website to improve communication, and we've worked to change how we engage the community on issues like redistricting. We're doing what we can with what we have—and yes, we can always do better.


We'll also say this: there are times the Board makes decisions that don't go the way some members of the community want. That's not necessarily a failure of engagement—it's governance. We hear many perspectives, weigh competing needs across the entire division, and sometimes the responsible decision isn't the most popular one. That's the job. And it's a job that becomes harder, not easier, when the entire Board turns over every three years, and institutional knowledge walks out the door.


What we need from the community


If you care about School Board reform—and clearly, many of you do—here is the most impactful thing you can do right now:


Ask City Council to act on the School Board's resolution.


The School Board has done the research. The School Board has held the public hearings and the work sessions. The School Board has unanimously adopted a resolution. The School Board has formally requested a partnership from Council. What we need now is for Council to form the ad-hoc committee and begin the charter amendment process, and move this forward in time for the 2027 General Assembly session.


If you are signing petitions, speaking at Council meetings, or emailing the Mayor and Council—and we hope you are—please include staggered terms and four-year terms in your ask. This is the reform with the strongest evidence base, the broadest board-level consensus, and the clearest path to implementation. And it's the reform that has been sitting on Council's desk, unanswered, since 2024 and 2018.


Council can certainly take up board size as well—that's their prerogative and a conversation we're open to having. But we cannot let the conversation about board size become a reason to delay action on staggered terms. Delaying this foundational reform until all related questions are resolved risks perpetuating the very instability we're all trying to fix.


The clock is ticking


We want to be direct about the timeline. For any structural change to take effect before the 2027 School Board election:


  • City Council needs to initiate a charter amendment process in 2026.

  • That amendment must be submitted to the Virginia General Assembly for the 2027 session.

  • The General Assembly must approve it.


If Council doesn't act this year, we lose another cycle. The next School Board election under the current concurrent structure will happen in 2027, and we'll likely see the same pattern of wholesale turnover we've seen in seven of the last ten elections. The Board that takes office in January 2028 will start from scratch—again—and this conversation will restart—again.


Four School Boards have now said this structure needs to change. Let's not make it five.


How to reach City Council


Email the Mayor and Council to express your support for School Board election reform, including staggered terms and four-year terms:



Further reading


For those who want to go deeper, the following materials document the Board's work on this issue:





Kelly Carmichael Booz and  Dr. Ashley Simpson Baird represent District B on the Alexandria City School Board and have co-led the Board's work on election reform.


bottom of page