Gender, Race and Political Ambition: the Case of Ontario School Board Elections

Canadian Journal of Political Science (2020), 1–15 doi:10.1017/S0008423919001057

RESEARCH ARTICLE / ÉTUDE ORIGINALE

Gender, Race and Political Ambition: The Case of Ontario School Board Elections

Adrienne M. Davidson1* , R. Michael McGregor2 and Myer Siemiatycky3

1Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Kenneth Taylor Hall, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M4, 2Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street JOR700, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3 and 3Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street JOR700, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3 *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract The political underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in Canadian politics is well documented. One political arena that has yet to be examined in this respect, however, is school boards. Using data from a candidate survey conducted during the course of the 2018 Ontario school board elections, as well as demographic data collected on the entire population of school board candidates, we explore the unique characteristics of school board elections. The research note begins by describing the gender and racial composition of candidates and trustees in Canada’s most populous province. It then considers the ways in which school board elections may serve as a launchpad to higher office for either of these two traditionally underrepresented groups, as we explore the features of progressive political ambition, recruitment into school board campaigns and the relative electoral success of racialized candidates and women in this local office. While women do very well in school board elections, they are significantly less likely than their male counterparts to have the desire to move up to provincial or federal politics. Meanwhile, racialized candidates contest school board election in significant numbers and report similar levels of progressive ambition relative to their white counterparts, but they fare exceptionally poorly in school board elections.

Résumé La sous-représentation politique des femmes et des minorités raciales en politique cana- dienne est bien documentée. Un espace politique qui n’a pas encore été examiné à cet égard, cependant, est celui des conseils scolaires. À l’aide des données d’un sondage mené auprès des candidates et des candidats aux élections scolaires de 2018 en Ontario, ainsi que des données démographiques recueillies sur l’ensemble de la population des candidat-e-s, nous explorons les caractéristiques uniques des élections des conseils scolaires. La note de recherche commence par décrire le genre et la composition raciale des candidats et des administrateurs dans la province la plus populeuse du Canada. Sont ensuite examinées les façons dont les élections scolaires peuvent servir de tremplin vers des postes supérieurs pour l’un ou l’autre de ces deux groupes traditionnellement sous-représentés, en examinant les caractéristiques de l’ambition politique progressive,

le recrutement lors des campagnes et le succès électoral relatif des candidates et des candidats racialisés dans ces fonctions locales. Bien que les femmes affichent une remarquable réussite aux élections des conseils scolaires, elles sont beaucoup moins enclines que leurs homologues masculins à se lancer en politique provinciale ou fédérale. Pendant ce temps, les personnes racialisées se présentent en grand nombre aux élections des conseils scolaires et font état de niveaux d’ambition progressive semblables à ceux de leurs homologues blancs, mais leur succès est exceptionnellement bas dans les élections des conseils scolaires.

Keywords: school board elections, political candidates, gender, race, representation Mots-clés: élections des conseils scolaires, candidats et candidates politique, genre, minorités raciales, représentation

A considerable body of literature has identified a diversity gap related to the limited proportion of women and racial minorities among elected officials in Canada (Andrew et al., 2008; Bashevkin, 2009; Black, 2008; Black, 2011; Siemiatycki, 2016). Given the centrality of provincial and federal legislative bodies in the Canadian federal system, political scientists have tended to focus their attention on these institutions when investigating trends in political representation (Cutler and Matthews, 2005; Taylor and Eidelman, 2010). However, these elected bodies make up a small minority of elected positions within Canada. In Ontario, for example, while there are 121 members of Parliament (MPs) elected to the federal legislature and 124 members of provincial Parliament (MPPs) elected to the provincial legislature, there are roughly 3,300 municipal council positions, as well as 688 school board trustee positions. All told, higher political offices account for less than 6 per cent of all elected positions in the province. Research activity in the area of local electoral politics has increased significantly in recent years (Breux et al., 2017;Lucas,2015;McGregoretal.,2016; Siemiatycki, 2011), with much academic effort focused on the representation of women or racial minorities. This work has broadly concluded that women and/or racial minorities are underrepresented in local government, as they are at other orders of government (Bird, 2015;Birdetal.,2016;Breuxetal.,2018; McGregor et al., 2016;Spiceretal., 2017;Tolley,2011). However, despite the growing scholarly interest in Canadian local elections, there has been little attention paid to school boards and their elections (which are held concurrently with municipal elections). This scholarly oversight may stem from consistently low public visibility, low voter turnout and/or low levels of electoral competition due to high rates of acclamation and incumbency (McGregor and Lucas, 2019). Whatever the reason, school boards are nevertheless important from both a policy and politics perspective (not to mention that they have budgets that range from $40 million to $3.3 billion; Government of Ontario, 2018). While little empirical work in Canada has explored the link between school board politics and political career trajectories, school board elections are seen by some as political training grounds—a sort of political “farm team”—for higher office (Lorinc, 2015). If it is the case that school boards act as a pathway into political life, school board elections have the potential to help close the representation gap for women and racial minorities. School board elections have relatively low

barriers to entry (these include low nomination fees; the local nature of campaigning—and of service, if elected; and no requirement for party membership or nomination), which may make them particularly attractive as an entry point into politics for candidates from historically marginalized groups. Seeking and achieving local office can be particularly important for women and minority candidates. Jerome Black (2000) highlights that women (including minority women) candidates tend to be relatively more qualified than their male (and white male) counterparts across a range of features, including educational attainment, professional background and involvement in community and interest groups. While he does not explore the specifics of past political experience, Black does note empirical support for a “compensation” model for women and visible minority candidates, which suggests that past political experiences matter more for underrepresented groups.1 Thus, the political success of underrepresented groups at the level of local political offices could eventually lead to increases in their representation at higher orders of government, particularly if political parties use school boards as pools from which to pull potential candidates (Deckman, 2007; Duerst-Lahti, 1998). Based on our aggregate-level data, it appears that women and racialized candidate success varies considerably at the school board level, with implications for our understanding of patterns of political success and representation. As has been consistently articulated in the literature (Bashevkin, 1985;O’Neill, 2015), women candidates appear to do progressively worse electorally as we move up the hierarchy of elected offices. Based on our data (which we discuss in detail below), this trend is exacerbated by the inclusion of school board data. Women make up over 52 per cent of school board trustee positions, but their representation drops dramatically at higher orders of government (39.5% provincially and 33.9% federally).2 Conversely, the trend line reverses for racial minorities. While racial minorities make up just 6 per cent of Ontario school board trustees, their representation increases at the provincial (23.4%) and federal (21.5%) orders, such that their representation is approaching their share of the provincial population (which currently is approximately 29%). These patterns seem to suggest that factors shaping political participation and representation are different for these two groups. In this research note, we consider a series of questions that allow us to explore some of the roots of underrepresentation for women and racialized candidates. We first explore the literature on the representation gap, relying primarily on the literature on progressive ambition and recruitment as it relates to women and articulat- ing some considerations for racialized candidates. In the second section, we describe the gender and racial composition of candidates and elected trustees in the 2018 school board elections in Ontario in order to determine how well women and racialized candidates fare in these elections. Finally, we draw upon survey data collected during the 2018 campaign in order to explore how candidate recruitment and progressive political ambition (that is, desire to run for higher political office) shape decisions to run. We thus describe not only the current state of representation in Ontario’s school boards but also the extent to which these bodies may serve as a political launchpad for women and racial minorities in Ontario. We find that for these two groups, school board elections do not serve as a political entry point toward higher office; however, the reasons for this are different for each group.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ryerson University, on 07 Apr 2020 at 00:14:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919001057 4 Adrienne M. Davidson et al. The Representation Gap Despite considerable gains in electoral outcomes, women and racialized communi- ties continue to be chronically underrepresented in most political offices in Canada. Over several decades of research, political scientists have identified a host of structural and social factors that help to explain the representation gap. On the structural side of the equation, the representation gap has been linked to a variety of factors, including how political parties go about recruiting candidates, the way in which the incumbency advantage slows the replacement of “traditional” (white and male) politicians, and the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in professional fields that enable the social network and security from which to launch political careers (Darcy et al., 1994; Duerst-Lahti, 1998). On the social side of the equation, the relative lack of women and racialized politicians in office can reinforce the view that a political career is not suited to such candidates. This is exacerbated by social beliefs regarding the toll that political careers can have on family (Fulton et al., 2006) and different perceptions with respect to how well qualified women and racialized candidates have to be in order to be competitive (Fox and Lawless, 2011) —not to mention the way in which the media can shape narratives around the acceptability of women and minority candidates for office (Tolley, 2015; Goodyear-Grant, 2013). As a potential entry point into elected politics, school board elections are unique in several ways. First, in Canada, school boards are nonpartisan and not affiliated with local, provincial or federal political parties; the absence of political parties in school board politics means there is no formal nomination process or internal party dynamics to contend with, which removes a barrier that can impede women and racial minorities from running for the office. While political parties are becoming more proactive in recruiting racial minorities, particularly in diverse ridings, Tolley (2019) highlights that local party dynamics matter for this outcome: racialized candidates are much less likely to be nominated in ridings where the local riding association director is white. Meanwhile, political parties remain consistently less likely to encourage women to run relative to men (Lawless and Fox, 2005; O’Neill, 2015; Cheng and Tavits, 2011). Second, school board politics are remark- ably uncompetitive, with high acclamation rates. This is particularly important for our expectations regarding the participation of women. Evidence from both survey research and experimental research suggests that the competitive nature of politics can be a significant deterrent to women candidates (Prusyers and Blais, 2017; Preece and Stoddard, 2015) but may shape the experience of racialized candidates in different ways. Finally, the features of local political success may help inform our understanding of the patterns of underrepresentation across all orders of government. From a recruitment perspective, trustees are potentially attractive future candidates for political parties at federal or provincial orders; trustees have some degree of public profile, have experience running a successful political campaign and have governance experience. Indeed, two Ontario premiers—Mike Harris and Kathleen Wynne—began their political careers as trustees, as did many other politicians,3 so there is at least anecdotal evidence that school boards can serve as a stepping-stone for higher office. Understanding who runs and who wins in school board politics will provide new insight into this local office as a potential entry point into political

careers. With these features in mind, this research note seeks to expand our understanding of political (under)representation. In particular, we seek to answer the question: Are women and minorities using school board elections as the first step toward higher office, and if so, are they able to access this entry point to elected politics in the same way?

Data We evaluate these matters using two sources of data. First, we conducted a survey of school board trustee candidates who ran for office in the 2018 school board elections across Ontario.4 The survey was distributed six weeks in advance of the election date and remained open for a two-week period following the election. The survey was successfully distributed by email to 1,370 individuals, of the total 1,530 candidates who ran for school board trustee across the four school board types in Ontario (the remaining candidates did not have either publicly available or active email addresses to send the survey link to). The 10-minute survey was distributed using the Qualtrics survey platform. The questionnaire (which was available in both English and French) covered a range of topics, including questions about personal motivations for running for school board trustee and progressive political ambition, as well as questions about demographic characteristics. The survey questions we employed can be found in online Appendix 1. Of the 1,370 candidates who received the survey invitation, 418 (30.5%) com- pleted the questionnaire. This response rate is not atypical of a survey of this nature, and this sample size is more than adequate for our purposes. Importantly, on key demographics, survey respondents were generally representative of the candidate pool as a whole, including gender,5 race,6 incumbency,7 and election outcome.8 In addition to the survey results, a team of research assistants coded several characteristics of almost all candidates—including gender, race, incumbency status and win/loss status. Two research assistants were tasked with coding these characteristics using publicly available information, and a comparison of their observations show a very high rate of consistency (giving us confidence in the validity of their observations).9 Candidates were also coded for incumbency and acclamation, as well as final win/loss status. Using this approach, we were able to determine gender and race for nearly all candidates (97.9% and 88.7%, respectively).10 We are, of course, cognizant of the limitations of this measurement approach, but given the paucity of research on this topic, we suggest that the benefits outweigh any con- cerns about coding.11 Both gender and race are coded as binary variables. For survey respondents, gender is based upon self-identification (with standard “men” and “women” categories).12 For other candidates, gender was coded on the basis of the perceptions of research assistants. The race variable is also binary in nature, and candidates are coded as being either “white” or “racialized”—again, this is based upon self- identification among survey respondents and upon the coding decisions of research assistants for other candidates who did not complete our survey. In this study, we use the term racialized to encompass both visible minority candidates and Indigenous candidates. Statistics Canada categorizes visible minority relative to the Canadian Employment Equity Act, which defines visible minorities as “persons,

other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in col- our” (Statistics Canada, 2016a). In the results reported here, we have included candidates who self-identify as Indigenous within the non-white category. Among the survey respondents, very few (1.7%) identified as Indigenous, making it infeasible to consider them as a separate group within the analysis.13 Though the necessity of this simplification is regrettable, research suggests that Indigenous candidates face similar barriers to elected office as other racialized groups (Hunter, 2003; Tremblay, 2003). By keeping these respondents in our sample, we can ensure that the perspectives of Indigenous candidates are reflected in the final results. In the next section of this note, we turn to answer our research questions. First, we examine the share of candidates and electorally successful trustees who are identified as women or racial minorities, in order to determine how these shares compare to the population as a whole. Next, we conduct a series of t-tests, comparing the self-reported perspectives of women candidates (to male candidates) and of racialized candidates (to white candidates) with respect to their experiences of being encouraged or recruited to run and their progressive ambition toward other political positions.

Results How do women and racialized candidates fare when seeking trustee positions? Figure 1 shows the share of candidates and trustees in 2018 by gender and race. These figures are compared to the Ontario population as a whole (based upon data from the 2016 national census), with the height of the bars indicating the share of the population represented by the group. While there are differences between boards (see online Appendix 2), we do not consider this issue thoroughly here, as there is no way to accurately compare the candidate and trustee pools to the population of each school board, as school board boundaries do not align with the geography of census reporting. Perhaps the most striking result in this figure is that women do very well in school board politics, both in comparison to their share of the population and their representation at other orders of Canadian government. While men participate in school board elections as candidates in greater numbers (approximately 55.2% to 44.8%), women actually fared better electorally—securing more than half of the trustee positions in 2018. Such a finding suggests that women candidates have a much higher chance of winning than do their male counterparts. School boards are thus the only elected office in Canada where women outperform men. The story for racialized candidates is dramatically different. This group is hugely underrepresented among elected trustees, despite a robust presence in the candidate pool. Accounting for 29.3 per cent of Ontario’s population, racial minorities con- stituted 19.9 per cent of candidates but only 6 per cent of elected trustees. While this group runs at lower levels than one might expect based upon their share of the population, it is at the election stage where they are truly decimated—school board voters are simply not electing racialized candidates to trusteeships. One factor that is almost certainly important in explaining candidate success is incumbent status. Incumbents in local politics are well known to have a significant advantage over challengers (Kushner et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2017). This means

Figure 1 Candidate and Trustee Shares by Gender and Race

that success in 2018, for all candidates, was heavily influenced by challenger or incumbent status prior to the election. Incumbency bias has been used to help explain the slow ascension of women and other underrepresented groups into political office (Fox and Lawless, 2014); however, in the case of school boards, incumbency bias actually appears to help women but hinders racialized candidates. The success found by women in 2018 is not new, as women had high rates of incumbency going into the election. Though only 42 per cent of nonincumbent challengers were women, a full half of all sitting incumbents were women, which goes a long way toward explaining the success of this group in 2018. By comparison, only 5.5 per cent of incumbents were racialized. At the same time, 28.5 per cent of nonincumbent challengers fall into this category, which is a figure that matches the group’s share of the population almost exactly. While racial minorities are appar- ently eager to participate in school board politics, incumbency effects are clearly dampening their electoral chances.

Recruitment and progressive ambition Using data from the candidate survey, we turn now to consider how it is that candidates decide to put their name forward for office: Are women and racial minorities encouraged to enter school board politics? While some candidates are encouraged to run by others (either by formal officials—such as outgoing trustees—or by family and friends), other candidates report running of their own voli- tion. In essence, the question we consider here is whether there is a relationship between being encouraged to enter local politics and either gender or race. It should be noted that the recruitment variable included here is broader in nature than most conceptualizations of political recruitment; school board politics do not have a strong partisan link, and so formal recruitment (by a federal or provincial political party) is not a substantive factor in the electoral architecture. Table 1 contains the

Table 1 Candidate Recruitment by Gender and Race

Encouraged by others to run Men (n = 210) 29.0% Women (n = 191) 47.1% Difference 18.0***

White (N = 311) 37.0% Visible minority (N = 77) 33.8% Difference −3.2

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10

results of this analysis, showing the share of candidates who were encouraged by others to run.14 We also consider whether the differences between the groups are statistically significant, on the basis of independent sample t-tests. Table 1 shows that women candidates are considerably more likely than their male counterparts to report having been encouraged by others to seek a school board position. This could reflect a tendency for men to seek elected office based on their own ambitions or talent self-assessment, while women reach out to consult and take motivation from the encouragement of others (Crowder-Meyer, 2013; Fulton et al., 2006). While Black (2000) found marginal differences supporting greater encouragement for women and racialized women candidates, this result stands in contrast to the literature on political recruitment at other orders of government, which generally finds women are less likely than men to be recruited for political campaigns (Cheng and Tavits, 2011). By comparison, white and racialized candidates are no different from each other in this respect. We have thus far shown that women are relatively likely to be encouraged to run for trustee, and that when they do, they are comparatively likely to win. By comparison, racialized candidates do not appear to experience the same type of active recruitment; fewer racialized candidates run (both in real and relative terms), and when they do run, they are very unlikely to win. The next step in considering the role that local politics may play in reducing the gaps in underrepresentation is to consider whether gender or ethnicity are related to ambition beyond school boards: Do candidates view school board politics as an entry point into political experience and service, or is it the final stop in political ambition? To that end, survey respondents were asked if they had any interest in running for other positions in the future, and options included positions not only at the local level but also at the provincial and federal levels. Table 2 shows answers to this question on the basis of gender and racialization of candidates, allowing us to determine if either of these factors is related to the desire to hold elected office other than that of trustee. Again, we use t-tests to determine if differences are significant. There are several findings of note in Table 2. First, we see that race has no relationship to political ambition among school board candidates; all other things equal, race is unrelated to a desire to move up to higher political offices. This is an important null result for two reasons. First, it suggests strongly that ambition (or a lack thereof) cannot account for poor performance of racialized candidates at any level of government in Canada. Racialized candidates are putting themselves

Table 2 Political Aspirations by Gender and Race

City Councillor Mayor MPP MP Men (n = 210) 29.1% 11.9% 23.8% 17.6% Women (n = 191) 25.7% 7.3% 12.0% 11.5% Difference −3.4 −4.6 −11.8*** −6.1*

White (N = 311) 28.0% 10.3% 18.7% 14.8% Visible minority (N = 77) 31.2% 9.1% 19.5% 15.6% Difference 3.2 −1.2 0.8 0.8

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10

forward for school board elections, and they report levels of ambition for higher office similar to those of their white counterparts. Second, these results speak to a challenge for racialized candidates actually realizing their political ambitions for higher office. If school boards do indeed serve as a launchpad to higher office, the fact that only 6 per cent of trustees elected are racial minorities means that this pathway remains largely closed as a route to political office. All of this, of course, hinges upon the assumption that political parties either recruit from current and past school board candidates and/or that the experiences running in a local school board election act as a training ground for other orders of government. Though further research is required to better justify this assumption, as noted previously, there is at least anecdotal evidence in support of this claim. In contrast to these null results, we do see differences between men and women with respect to a desire to serve as either a provincial or federal elected official (though there is no difference between these groups regarding other positions in municipal government). We see compelling evidence that men are more likely than women to want to progress past the local level.15 This result mirrors work done in the US on school board members and progressive ambition in the state of Pennsylvania, in which the only significant difference between men and women candidates was progressive ambition for serving in the state legislature (Sweet-Cushman, 2018). Thus, while women do extremely well in school board elections, the ambition gap means that their success in these contests has a limited effect upon success at higher orders of government. Put another way, women are less likely than men to view school board elections as just the first step in a career in politics.

Discussion It is very well documented that women and racial minorities are underrepresented at the federal, provincial and municipal orders in Canada. To date, there has yet to be an examination of whether the same holds true of school boards. This omission is particularly problematic given that the patterns of representation in school boards politics run contrary to trends we see at other orders of government: women, in fact, do better in school board elections, while visible minority candidates (who have made considerable headway in provincial and federal politics) remain staunchly disadvantaged. This suggests that school boards do not serve as

a political launchpad for either women or racial minorities but that the reasons for this failure are different for the two groups. Though women perform exceptionally well in school board elections, we find no evidence to suggest that this will translate into success at other orders of government. Women are more likely than male candidates to be encouraged by others to run, they are relatively likely to be candidates (at least compared to federal and provincial elections), and when they do run, they are actually more likely to win than are men. However, women candidates for school board trustee are significantly less likely to report progressive ambition, with a general lack of interest in seeking either federal or provincial office. The story for racial minorities is quite different. For them, school board politics introduce important structural barriers that limit the capacity of this local political office to propel them into higher political positions. Despite participating as school board candidates in strong numbers, very few racialized candidates eventually gain trustee positions. In part, the low level of racialized trustees may be linked to the geographic distribution of candidates. While women candidates were generally distributed evenly across school boards in Ontario, racial minorities ran in only 28 out of the 72 boards. In particular, minorities were heavily concentrated in the English public school boards in the Greater Toronto Area (where they also make up a comparatively large portion of the population). Even within these regions, however, these candidates significantly underperform when compared to their share of the population. Clearly, then, geography is not the only factor at play, and more work is needed to explore the barriers faced by racial minorities seeking trusteeships. On an optimistic note, our data suggest that if racialized candidates do somehow become more competitive in school board elections, these contests could help propel them to higher office. Whereas women have comparatively little interest in moving past school boards, racialized candidates are no less ambitious than their white counterparts with respect to seeking higher office. The fact that so few minorities win school board races (and thus so few gain the invaluable experience that holding political office brings) renders school board elections an ineffective entry point to formal political careers. If minorities do manage to win school board positions in larger numbers, this may conceivably have a trickle-up effect in elections for higher office. At the same time, there is suggestive evidence that a lack of success at the school board level is not necessarily hampering the success of minorities at other orders of government. As noted above, the share of federal and provincial representatives who are racialized is much closer to the group’s share of the population. Such a finding provides further evidence that school boards do not serve as a pipeline for this segment of the population, and it could also suggest that school board elections are viewed differently by—and serve different functions for—different segments of the population.16

Conclusion We have considered here, for the first time in Canada, the question of whether gender and race are related to performance, recruitment experience and future political ambition among candidates for school board election. While our work represents a

substantial descriptive advancement on this topic, more work is needed to better understand the causes of our findings. To begin, there is most certainly value in multivariate analyses that consider the independent effects of gender and race, after accounting for a series of potentially confounding covariates. Are our findings regarding women, for example, driven by gender specifically or by some other factors that are related to both gender and election success, recruitment or ambition? As a first step in this direction, we have run a multivariate analysis using our survey sample, whereby the gender and race variables are included in a multivariate model, along with a series of sociodemographic controls (see online Appendix 3). This analysis reveals that the substantive conclusions of the bivariate analyses remain largely unchanged. Further research (perhaps using a larger dataset) should consider in more detail the controlled effects (or lack thereof) of our explanatory variables of interest and move toward better understanding the bivariate results observed here. Given the stark contrast between the performance of women in school board and other politics, there is particular value in considering what it is about school board politics that leads women to perform so much better in school board elections than elsewhere. Our survey data provide some introductory insights into why this might be and suggest that women candidates may have stronger ties to schools and school board politics than do men. Respondents were asked if they had children in the school system and if they had a child with special needs. On both fronts, women scored comparatively high. Forty-seven per cent of women candidates reported having children in the school system, compared to only 36 per cent for men. Women were also substantially more likely than men to have a child (or children) with special needs; 21 per cent of women responded yes to this question, compared to only 12 per cent of men (note that both differences are significant at p < 0.05). These findings suggest that women may have different reasons than men candidates to participate in school board politics, which helps to explain their high levels of participation in these elections. This attachment to school board politics, in particular, could also help to explain why women have less ambition to move on to higher orders of government. Other related questions are worthy of future consideration: Are school boards the electoral ghetto for women? Does the fact that political service remains “close to home” or the educational focus of trustee responsibility have particular resonance for women in a patriarchal order? Is it that higher-quality women candidates are drawn to this arena, or are voters more likely to support women in a role focused on education? Relatedly, why are women so frequently recruited for these positions, and why are women seemingly less likely to want to progress past the local level of politics? The questions requiring answers with respect to the performance of racialized candidates are different and perhaps more pressing, given the significant underrepresentation of this group on school boards: Why are so few racialized candidates successful in school board elections? Are voters less likely to support racialized candidates in elections where education is the focus? Does the nonpartisan nature of trustee elections (in which gender and ethnicity may become more important as voter cues) serve to benefit women but harm racial minorities? We are hesitant to speculate these matters based upon our data on candidates alone, as data from voters themselves are required to fully explore these

matters. Insights from both feminist and critical race theory would further enrich analysis of the empirical dynamics at play. Nevertheless, the answers to these questions have important implications for patterns of representation at all orders of government in Canada.

Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0008423919001057.

Notes 1 Under the compensation model, the expectation is that to succeed in electoral politics, members of underrepresented groups (including women and racial minorities) must surpass the qualifications of the dominant group. In other terms, women candidates and racial minority candidates must be perceived as exceptional or have generally more experience (educational, professional or political experience) than candidates from the dominant group (Black, 2000). 2 Representation also drops dramatically in other local political offices. In the 2018 municipal election, only 27 per cent of candidates for municipal office were women (Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2018). 3 We can find many examples of politicians for whom school boards are part of their political trajectory. The following list is by no means comprehensive, as it focuses primarily on recent politicians; moreover, it mostly accounts for those candidates who ran and won, largely ignoring those with school board back- grounds who may have run and lost and also largely ignoring municipal politicians outside of Toronto: (1) City of Toronto: Neethan Shan, Josh Matlow, Maria Augimeri, Tiffany Ford (ran and lost), Ken Lister (ran and lost), Chris Moise (ran and withdrew after cuts to city council size in 2018); (2) Ontario legislature: Marit Stiles, Peggy Sattler, Chris Glover, Liz Sandals, Catherine Fife, Michael Couteau, Soo Wong, Rosario Marchese, David Caplan, Elizabeth Witmer, Donna Cansfield, Leona Dombrowsky; (3) federal government: Kim Campbell, Olivia Chow, Shaun Chen. 4 Though our analysis is limited to candidates in Ontario, and we can think of no obvious reason why our findings would not apply to other provinces, further research is required to test the generalizability of our results. 5 Men in the survey sample: 51.4 per cent. Men in candidate pool: 55.2 per cent. 6 Racialized candidates in the survey sample: 15.5 per cent. Racialized candidates in candidate pool: 19.9 per cent. 7 Incumbents in the survey sample: 31.6 per cent. Incumbents in candidate pool: 28.0 per cent. 8 Winners in the survey sample: 49.3 per cent. Winners in candidate pool: 44.8 per cent. 9 Each of the two research assistants (RAs) was responsible for coding approximately 900 candidates (resulting in an overlap of 315 candidates in which both RAs coded candidates for gender and race). From this overlap, the coding accuracy for both race and gender was calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha. For the coding of gender, inter-coder reliability was very high with an alpha of 0.993; for race (white/racialized) the inter-rater reliability was nearly as high, with an alpha of 0.948. 10 The differences in coding on race and gender is a function of the availability of candidate information. For example, the gender of many candidates could be ascertained through local media coverage, where arti- cles would quote the candidate and refer to the gender of the candidate; however, if no images accompanied the article, race could not be otherwise determined. 11 We expect that any errors in coding on the part of research assistants would constitute noise, rather than bias, in our results. 12 Among survey respondents, a small number of candidates (0.5 per cent) reported belonging to neither of these groups. These respondents are, regrettably, not considered as a separate group here due to the limited sample size. 13 We note, however, that this figure of 1.7 per cent is below the group’s share of the provincial population, which is listed in the Census as 2.8 per cent (Statistics Canada, 2016b). We also decided against asking research assistants to code for Indigeneity, as this variable is extremely difficult for them to determine with any degree of accuracy (simply looking at a name or picture is insufficient for measuring Indigeneity self-identification).

14 The survey question used to measure encouragement/recruitment allowed respondents to specify the source of the recruitment; options included encouragement from (1) a political activist or party member, (2) family or friends, or (3) members of a community group. These categories are pooled together in Table 1, but when they are disaggregated, we find that our results remain unchanged—that is, women are more likely than men to have received all three types of encouragement. We also find no statistically significant difference in the effects of the source of recruitment; the difference between men and women is consistent across all types of recruitment. 15 This is true, as well, for women who have been actively encouraged to run for school board trustee. Using a bivariate analysis, we find that encouragement to run is not related to progressive political ambition (data not shown), mirroring experimental results that suggest that political encouragement or recruitment has limited impact on women’s political goals (Prusyers and Blais, 2017). 16 In the absence of candidate surveys of municipal, provincial and federal politicians that include past service on school boards in candidate political history, it is difficult to gain a more comprehensive picture of how school boards act as an entry point into politics for women and/or racialized candidates. According to data from the second wave of the Comparative Candidate Survey (CCS) of federal politicians in 2015, approximately 12.5 per cent of candidates for federal office previously served in local government, though the dataset does not disaggregate school board politics from municipal politics (CCS, 2019). Nonetheless, the data is suggestive of different pathways for women and racialized candidates; while approximately 10 per cent of women candidates reported serving in local government, only 3 per cent of racialized candidates reported similarly serving in local government (note: of the candidates that did not report their gender or ethnic background, nearly 17 per cent reported serving in local government). Additionally, we would expect these numbers to be higher for both women and racialized candidates running for municipal and provincial public office.

References Andrew, Caroline, John Biles, Myer Siemiatycki and Erin Tolley. 2008. Introduction to Electing a Diverse Canada: The Representation of Immigrants, Minorities and Women, ed. Caroline Andrew, John Biles, Myer Siemiatycki and Erin Tolley. Vancouver: UBC Press. Association of Municipalities of Ontario. 2018. “2018 Municipal Election—Fast Facts.” https://elections. amo.on.ca/web/en/stats. Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1985. Toeing the Lines: Women and Party Politics in English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bashevkin, Sylvia. 2009. Introduction to Opening Doors Wider: Women’s Political Engagement in Canada, ed. Sylvia Bashevkin. Vancouver: UBC Press. Bird, Karen. 2015. “‘We Are Not an Ethnic Vote!’ Representational Perspectives of Minorities in the Greater Toronto Area.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 249–79. Bird, Karen, Samantha D. Jackson, R. Michael McGregor, Aaron Moore and Laura Stephenson. 2016. “Sex (and Ethnicity) in the City: Affinity Voting in the 2014 Toronto Mayoral Election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 359–83. Black, Jerome H. 2000. “Entering the Political Elite in Canada: The Case of Minority Women as Parliamentary Candidates and MPs.” Canadian Review of Sociology 37 (2): 143–66. Black, Jerome H. 2008. “Ethnoracial Minorities in the 38th Parliament: Patterns of Change and Continuity.” In Electing a Diverse Canada: The Representation of Immigrants, Minorities and Women, ed. Caroline Andrew, John Biles, Myer Siemiatycki and Erin Tolley. Vancouver: UBC Press. Black, Jerome H. 2011. “Visible Minority Candidates and MPs: An Update Based on the 2008 Federal Election.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 34 (1): 30–34. Breux, Sandra, Jérôme Couture and Royce Koop. 2017. “Turnout in Local Elections: Evidence from Canadian Cities, 2004–2014.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 699–722. Breux, Sandra, Jérôme Couture, and Royce Koop. 2018. “Influences on the Number and Gender of Candidates in Canadian Local Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 1–19. Statistics Canada. 2016a. Dictionary, Census of Population, 2016, s.v. “Visible minority.” https://www12. statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/pop127-eng.cfm.

Statistics Canada. 2016b. “Total Population by Aboriginal Identity and Registered or Treaty Indian Status, Ontario, 2016 Census.” Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&Lang=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL= A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1341679&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110588&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0& SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2017&THEME=122&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0& D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0. CCS (Comparative Candidates Survey). 2019. Comparative Candidates Survey Wave II—2012–2018 [Dataset—cumulative file]. 2019. Distributed by FORS, Lausanne. Switzerland. http://forscenter.ch/ en/ (October 16, 2019). Cheng, Christine and Margit Tavits. 2011. “Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 460–71. Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 390–413. Cutler, Fred and Scott Matthews. 2005. “The Challenge of Municipal Voting: Vancouver 2002.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 1–24. Darcy, R., Susan Welch and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Deckman, Melissa. 2007. “Gender Differences in the Decision to Run for School Board.” American Politics Research 35 (4): 541–63. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 1998. “The Bottleneck: Women Becoming Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fox, Richard L. and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 59–73. Fox, Richard L. and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 499–519. Fulton, Sarah A., Cherie D. Maestas, Sandy L. Maisel and Walter Stone. 2006. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (2): 235–48. Goodyear-Grant, Elizabeth. 2013. Gendered News: Media Coverage and Electoral Politics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press Government of Ontario. 2018. Ministry of Education. “Education Facts, 2017–2018.” http://www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/educationfacts.html. Hunter, Anna. 2003. “Exploring the Issues of Aboriginal Representation in Federal Elections.” Elections Canada. Electoral Insight—Aboriginal Participation in Elections. www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=eim/issue9&document=p6&lang=e. Kushner, Joseph, David Siegel and Hannah Stanwick. 1997. “Ontario Municipal Elections: Voting Trends and Determinants of Electoral Success in a Canadian Province.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 539–53. Lawless, Jennifer L. and Richard L. Fox. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lorinc, John. 2015. “Class Dismissed: Do We Really Need School Board Trustees?” The Walrus, October 15. https://thewalrus.ca/class-dismissed/. Lucas, Jack. 2015. “Local Governance and the Local Political Career: A Sample Dataset.” Canadian Public Administration 58 (4): 605–17. McGregor, R. Michael and Jack Lucas. 2019. “Who Has School Spirit? Explaining Voter Participation in School Board Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 923–36. McGregor, R. Michael, Aaron A. Moore and Laura B. Stephenson. 2016. “Political Attitudes and Behaviour in a Non-Partisan Environment: Toronto 2014.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 311–33. Moore, Aaron A., R. Michael McGregor and Laura B. Stephenson. 2017. “Paying Attention and the Incumbency Effect: Voting Behaviour in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election.” International Political Science Review 38 (1): 85–98. O’Neill, Brenda. 2015. “Unpacking Gender’s Role in Political Representation in Canada.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 38 (2): 22–30. Preece, Jessica and Olga Stoddard. 2015. “Why Women Don’t Run: Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Political Competition Aversion.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 117: 296–308.

Pruysers, Scott and Julie Blais. 2017. “Why Won’t Lola Run? An Experiment Examining Stereotype Threat and Political Ambition.” Politics & Gender 13: 232–52. Siemiatycki, Myer. 2011. “Governing Immigrant City: Immigrant Political Representation in Toronto.” American Behavioral Scientist 55 (9): 1214–34. Siemiatycki, Myer. 2016. “Ontario’s Multiple Identities: Politics and Policy in a Diverse Province.” In Politics of Ontario, ed. Cheryl Collier and Jonathan Molloy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Spicer, Zachary, Michael McGregor and Christopher Alcantara. 2017. “Political Opportunity Structures and the Representation of Women and Visible Minorities in Municipal Elections.” Electoral Studies 48: 10–18. Sweet-Cushman, Jennie. 2018. “Where Does the Pipeline Get Leaky? The Progressive Ambition of School Board Members and Personal and Political Network Recruitment.” Politics, Groups, and Identities, November 8. DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2018.1541417. Taylor, Zack and Gabriel Eidelman. 2010. “Canadian Political Science and the City: A Limited Engagement.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 961–81. Tolley, Erin. 2011. “Do Women ‘Do Better’ in Municipal Politics? Electoral Representation across Three Levels of Government.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 573–94. Tolley, Erin. 2015. Framed: Media and the Coverage of Race in Canadian Politics. Vancouver: UBC Press. Tolley, Erin. 2019. “Who You Know: Local Party Presidents and Minority Candidate Emergence.” Electoral Studies 58:70–79. Tremblay, Manon. 2003. “The Participation of Aboriginal Women in Canadian Electoral Democracy.” Elections Canada. Electoral Insight—Aboriginal Participation in Elections. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=eim/issue9&document=p7&lang=e.

Cite this article: Davidson AM, McGregor RM, Siemiatycky M (2020). Gender, Race and Political Ambition: The Case of Ontario School Board Elections. Canadian Journal of Political Science 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919001057