What We Review
We analyze public school board meetings using publicly available materials: meeting minutes, agenda packets, and meeting recordings where available. We do not use non-public documents, private communications, or insider information.
Every factual claim in a review is traceable to a public source linked in the review. If we cannot find a source in the public record, we note that explicitly rather than inferring or speculating.
How We Score
Each meeting is scored on five criteria for a composite score of 0–100. The criteria are weighted to reflect their relative importance to effective board governance. The five criteria and their weights are:
- Focus Mindset (0–10) Does the board's meeting conduct reflect orientation toward student outcomes as the board's primary purpose? We look at agenda structure, how the meeting is opened and closed, and whether board members' comments and questions reflect a student-outcome frame.
- Clarify Priorities (0–20) Did the board demonstrate clear, prioritized outcome goals during the meeting? Boards score higher when they reference specific, measurable outcome targets — not just broad values or themes — and when those priorities visibly structure their deliberations.
- Monitor Progress (0–40) Did the board receive and meaningfully engage with data on student outcome progress? Receiving a data report is not enough — boards score higher when members ask substantive follow-up questions, probe for root causes, or draw explicit connections to stated goals.
- Align Resources (0–20) Did the board's resource decisions — budget, personnel, time — connect explicitly to stated student outcome priorities? We examine whether agenda items involving resource allocation include explicit links to outcome goals, or whether those decisions are treated as administrative routine.
- Communicate Results (0–10) Did the board communicate with the community about outcome goals and progress? This includes how the board handles public comment, whether it proactively shares outcome information, and whether its public-facing communication emphasizes student results.
Important Caveats
This is analytical assessment, not an official rating. Scores reflect one reviewer's analysis of one meeting.
One meeting does not represent overall board quality. Boards may perform differently across meetings, under different conditions, or in different stages of their governance development. A low score in one meeting is not a verdict on a board; it is an observation about one meeting.
Our Commitment to Transparency
Every review links to the source materials on which it is based. We score on the record.
If we cannot find evidence for a criterion in the public record, we score it low — but we note this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; a board may have done good work that did not appear in the minutes. We can only score what is visible in the public record.
We welcome correction from board members, superintendents, or community members who believe we have misread the record. If a correction changes our score, we publish a correction notice alongside the original review. Contact us at contact@schoolboardreview.com.