MN school board group: ‘Being neutral is harmful’

A national organization focused on training and electing Minnesota school board candidates is against neutrality in the classroom.

Founder and Executive Director Kyrstin Schuette of the School Board Integrity Project stated yesterday (Sunday) on Blois Olson’s Sunday Take show that school board candidates and leaders focused on taking politics out of school or being neutral is “harmful” and “an issue.”

“And what we’ve seen on the ground in these conversations and with candidates running for school board is that they don’t have a solution. They want to talk about how we need to take politics out of school or be neutral. But at the end of the day, that actually isn’t a reality that we’re looking at. And being neutral is harmful.” [Emphasis added]

Host Blois Olson gave Schuette an opportunity to clarify or recant her statement on neutrality in the classroom being harmful, but she doubled down.

Blois Olson: “Being neutral is harmful for a teacher in social studies class, question mark?

Kyrstin Schuette: “Yes.”

Olson: “No, no, no, no. Kyrstin, how can you say being neutral in teaching civics is harmful?

Schuette: “I didn’t say that teaching civics is harmful. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that when you have leaders on a school board who are neutral, we have an issue. Because, for instance, look at Anoka-Hennepin. I was actually one of the student plaintiffs against the neutrality policy in Anoka Hennepin in 2010 when we lost nine students to suicide over the course of a year. In the name of neutrality. Because in that situation, it made it so that teachers and educators could not intervene in anti-gay bullying, and it created a situation where it was harmful for LGBT students. And that is the reality, whether we want to admit it or not. And so, it’s not about being neutral when we’re teaching civics. [Emphasis added]
…
Olson: “Just so you know, when you said that before, you said neutrality in the classroom. Just so you know, you said neutrality in the classroom is… is bad. And that’s where I think parents are really frustrated, okay?”

Toward the end of the interview, Schuette rails against national groups that spend on local school board races — which, as a national organization, is exactly what the School Board Integrity Project does with funding from Education Minnesota’s PAC and other progressive/DFL-aligned PACs. Schuette justifies her outside spending, though, by arguing that it is modest compared to the amounts spent by other groups.

The Midwest Values PAC, whose mission is to support “progressive Democrats,” contributed $40,000 to the School Board Integrity PAC from 2024 to 2025. Other contributions came from the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee and the left-leaning The Majority Rules organization.

Also in play are the dollars the funders of the School Board Integrity Project spend. Education Minnesota’s PAC admitted in July to taking over $100,000 from both their national affiliates, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), to influence Minnesota school board elections.

Candidates affiliated with the School Board Integrity Project include Abbey Payeur, who is running against incumbent Matt Audette in the Anoka-Hennepin school district. She recently posted a YouTube video titled, “Our Schools are NOT for Sale,” stating that “enormous amounts of money” are being “poured into our school board elections” but is silent on the dollars spent on school board races by the organization she has aligned with and its political affiliates. (For example, the Anoka-Hennepin Education Minnesota Political Fund spent over $12,000 just on postcards for Payeur.)

The School Board Integrity Project’s recent stance against “neutrality” in the classroom and from school board members raises serious questions. If neutrality is dismissed as impossible or undesirable, what replaces it? And who gets to decide that?

With organizations and groups on both ends of the political spectrum — either directly or indirectly — spending to influence outcomes, communities face a dilemma. Some argue that since politics has entered the arena, all sides should have equal freedom to organize, spend money, and campaign openly under partisan banners. Others contend that introducing limits on spending and partisan activity is the only way to restore the original nonpartisan spirit of school board elections. Ultimately, communities must decide whether to embrace the new reality and regulate it fairly or to take deliberate steps to insulate education from partisanship altogether.