School governance is hard these days, with boards tackling complex questions about public health, education, and budgeting amid a great deal of uncertainty. At minimum, what’s happening across the country is distracting; often times, it’s been downright alarming. But these outbursts will have longer-term effects on school boards that are more troubling: They will change who runs for local school boards and who wins those seats, in many cases for the worse. And this will be happening right as school districts are seeing a major infusion of federal funds, with board members poised to make high-stakes decisions about how schools respond to the pandemic’s impacts.

We’re already seeing changes in who runs for their local school board. Candidates emboldened by recent protests are turning elections into referenda on their adopted hot-button issues—issues that overshadow the real needs of students. Some are finding clear paths to victory, with worn-down incumbents and wary potential challengers staying out of the fray.

However, firebrand candidates can win contested elections, too, even in places where their views are far outside the mainstream thinking. The reason is that local school board elections aren’t like elections for other offices. In a high-profile election for, say, president or governor, most voters are familiar with candidates and turnout is relatively high. They might lean on party identification as a signal of which candidates align with their preferences. Fringe candidates can win, but it’s rare to see a far-right candidate win a race in a left-leaning jurisdiction or vice versa. Higher turnout and greater familiarity buffer against surprising outcomes.