Board approves DMG monitoring framework for district power goals; two members vote no

The Batavia Board of Education voted to adopt final recommendations from DMG for a district goal-monitoring framework Wednesday, approving a set of ‘‘power goals’’ and a biannual reporting cadence that staff said will underpin an online data dashboard and regular presentations.

The motion to approve the recommendations was moved by Aaron and seconded by Rob; the roll-call vote recorded multiple yes votes and two no votes. The meeting minutes show the motion passed after the roll call: "Rosales Thomas yes Arlandi yes Sliger no Gilbert? Yes. Garrels? Yes. Spassigy? No." The board president called the motion passed following the tally.

Staff described the framework as a board-level ‘‘North Star’’ that organizes district priorities — including literacy (ELA), student belonging and operational health — into measurable targets and monitoring protocols. Presenters said the monitoring plan includes use of national and state assessment comparators (for example, the ACT for secondary scores), a district ELA rollout (with a limited field test this year), and the Panorama tool to capture student voice and social-emotional measures.

On the ELA rollout, staff said about 22–24 elementary teachers will participate this year in a field test; they cautioned the first year of large curriculum changes can show an ‘‘implementation dip’’ before gains appear. Staff said an ELA SALT team of teachers and administrators will monitor field-test data and advise on timing and broader implementation. ‘‘We really have empowered the ELA SALT team, which is a group of teachers and administrators, to look at the data as it comes in from the field test and start to make decisions about what's next,’’ a staff presenter said.

The monitoring plan also emphasizes triangulation of data: staff told the board they plan to combine student, parent and teacher inputs (Panorama, 5Essentials and other tools) to get a fuller view of belonging and other indicators. Presenters said some school-building report-card items and district report-card metrics remain required and will be incorporated into the dashboard.

The board discussion that preceded the vote included operational questions about reporting cadence and committee scheduling. One board member raised a substantive governance concern, saying the board as a whole had not previously convened to set a shared district vision and asking whether the proposed monitoring framework reflected the seven board members’ individual priorities. The commenter asked for more time for a full-board conversation about vision before adopting a monitoring framework; however, several other board members and staff said the plan reflected community and DCC (district coordinating council) input and that DMG and district staff had incorporated prior feedback.

Several trustees voiced support for the building-focused reporting approach, saying the presentations had prompted productive conversations at the school level and enabled staff and principals to identify where to focus improvement efforts. Staff said the first formal presentations under the new cadence would occur in November (building-level) and December (district-level) unless the board prefers a different schedule.

The board approved the DMG recommendations in a roll-call vote; the motion passed with two no votes recorded. Staff will finalize the dashboard, arrange the first cycle of reports and continue working with administrators and the DCC to prepare building- and district-level presentations.

Ending: The board approved the monitoring framework and directed staff to finalize dashboards and the reporting calendar; dissenting trustees asked for additional full-board discussion of district vision and how the board’s priorities are reflected in the power goals.