Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coaches tell Buffalo board it spent about 6% of recent meeting time on student outcomes; urge refocus and monitoring cadence
Summary
Council of the Great City Schools coaches led a governance session and shown analysis of the board's March meeting that estimated roughly 6% of public meeting time focused on student‑outcome monitoring; coaches urged clearer goals/guardrails, public monitoring and reallocation of board time toward student outcomes.
Rodney Jordan and Cindy Ellburg of the Council of the Great City Schools led a two‑hour governance coaching session with the Buffalo board and described a five‑step cycle of accountability: community listening → board goals/guardrails → superintendent strategy → district execution → board monitoring. Jordan and Ellburg stressed that boards influence outcomes mostly through priorities, guardrails and monitoring, not by micromanaging operational tasks.
As part of the session the coaches presented a time‑use analysis of the board’s March 18 public meeting (total public meeting time estimated at about 126 minutes). They reported the board spent roughly seven minutes — about 6% of meeting time — discussing student‑outcome‑focused items (goal monitoring and assessment discussion). The coaches said the largest single chunk of that meeting was public comment (about 63 minutes) and that other time was taken up by operational items such as facilities, athletics and consent‑agenda Q&A.
Jordan told the board, "student outcomes don't change until adult behaviors change," and urged the board to prioritize collaboratively set priorities (clear goals and guardrails), publicly monitor progress on those goals, and align time, talent and treasury to those priorities. Cindy Ellburg and Jordan recommended regular monitoring reports and suggested a two‑day workshop for deeper skill building; the board agreed to pursue scheduling a full workshop before the end of May.
Board members reacted variably. Board member Hawkins said the 6% figure "is accurate" and attributed it to meetings being consumed by adult operational issues. Other members noted the importance of public comment and the need to ensure community representative input into goal‑setting; several members asked for coaching on how to ask monitoring questions that generate more actionable detail from staff rather than only high‑level summaries.
Next steps: Coaches asked the board to identify internal meeting time to reallocate toward goal monitoring, and to schedule a two‑day governance workshop to build monitoring skills and align the board's agenda with its stated goals.
