School bonds—among the most contentious for districts to handle, since they deal directly with residents’ pocketbook issues—are a frequent target for misinformation.
Now, as district leaders ask voters to approve school bonds, more of them are planning at the outset to explicitly counter falsehoods before they get out of hand.
As inflation strains household budgets, bond proposals touch on two sometimes competing priorities for community members: a desire to limit the size of their property tax bills and the chance to affect educational outcomes for a generation of children.
The emotions that come with those decisions, and the complicated jargon associated with bonds, create a fertile environment for falsehoods to grow, district leaders said. In some cases, opponents intentionally spread disinformation to stir up confusion.
“Running a referendum, you just feel the weight of the noise and the detractors,” said Daniel Bittman, the former superintendent of the Elk River, Minn., district. “We planned for [misinformation] on the front end.”
Multiple rumors were caught up in a district’s bond proposal
Elk River’s experience countering misinformation offers an object lesson for districts struggling with contentious issues in a polarized political environment and the lightning-fast spread of rumors on social media.
The district’s efforts to win approval for a $223 million bond in 2019 started a full two years before voters headed to the polls, Bittman said. It worked with consultants to assess community perceptions and priorities before devising a plan. Among the key strategies Elk River settled on: creating a website to debunk myths and serve as “the” key source of information about the proposal.
In hearings and online, supporters of the referendum heard a wide array of rumors: that the district would direct more money to some schools than others, for instance. Or that the financial need was caused by students transferring in from other districts. Other national rumors were woven in too, like concerns that schools were teaching critical race theory, and even one about litter boxes in school restrooms (a lie that has plagued districts around the country).
Elk River needed to be prepared to respond, and quickly, Bittman said.
School bond campaigns can be magnets for misinformation
And as false information becomes increasingly sophisticated, responding to it is an increasingly necessary skill set for district leaders and communications officials.
In a January 2024 survey of about 400 school communications officials conducted by the National School Public Relations Association, 96% of respondents said the spread of misinformation was an issue, up from 81% in 2020, and 78% said their district had faced a challenge related to the spread of false information in the last 12 months.
In some cases, social media users and district critics intentionally share disinformation, respondents said. Forty-one percent of respondents said the false information spread about their district was “part of a deliberate, coordinated effort to deceive by people or groups who know the information to be untrue.”
Others said misinformation is spread unintentionally when people misinterpret materials like complicated policy language or financial data.
Both of those issues come into play when school boards pitch bond referenda to the public.
The concerns come at a key time for schools, which are juggling financial tensions related to enrollment declines, the end of federal COVID-relief aid, and inflation. Those tight margins leave little room for facilities costs without support from voters.
Districts proposed 2,300 bond issues in 2024, and about a quarter of them failed, according to data from the Amos Group, which sells school finance data to companies that contract with districts.
“We want to make it easy for people to find accurate information,” said Betsy Fuller, the spokesperson for the Lakota Township district in Liberty Township, Ohio. “If they hear something that doesn’t sound right, they can come to us and find out what’s actually going on. It’s about continuously building that credibility and engaging the public.”
The Lakota district has a general “rumor has it” page to address misinformation it hears from parents and the public. As the school board considers a bond referenda, Fuller has used the page to address related issues like transparency and to challenge the notion that “Lakota is always asking for more money.”
“The last time the District was on the ballot was in 2013 for general operating and permanent improvement funds,” the page said. “The last time the District was on the ballot for a bond initiative was in 2005.”
Winning voters through frequent communication
After surveying the community, Elk River’s campaign organizers estimated that about 10% of voters would likely never support the request, and another 10% were already committed to voting “yes.” They would focus their efforts on the winnable 80% in the middle, Bittman said.
Early in their planning process, organizers identified key community members influential in business, civic work, and parent groups. Those influencers regularly communicated with campaign backers about both false information and legitimate concerns they heard, and district leaders created presentation slides and talking points to address it. Some supporters quietly lurked in private community Facebook groups to monitor discussions and keep up to date on the evolving discourse.
When an issue surfaced repeatedly, the district included it on its fact-checking website.
The district also made videos to explain what would happen if the bond passed, and what would happen if it didn’t. Site-specific materials showed the changes that would be made at every school if the issue was approved, and flyers walked community members through the logistics of the voting process.
Bittman also determined that face-to-face interactions would help build credibility. At one point, he stopped at every house with a “vote no” sign in the yard to knock on the door and ask to discuss the residents’ opposition.
“It took about 30 seconds for word to get out that I was going to people’s houses,” Bittman said.
On the referendum’s website, voters could request for Bittman to provide a presentation to their group, no matter the size. The smallest presentation he did amounted to just two people in a living room.
“I just appreciated that they wanted to learn more and were interested,” Bittman said. “I was grateful for those opportunities. It was exhausting, but it was also really rewarding.”
Elk River’s strategies worked: Voters eventually approved the referendum.
But the story has an interesting coda, indicative of just how powerful online misinformation can be.
Organizers of the bond campaign identified 34 “high flyers” who had most frequently spread misinformation online about the proposal. About half of them were from out of state and had nothing to do with the district at all, Bittman said. Those social media users seemed to be opposed to taxes and critical of public schools in general.
“My guess is that they’ve been involved in lots of disruption,” he said.
