QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Question: One of my clients has a board member who is harassing staff and other board members during board meetings. They are asking me how they can prevent this. Ideas? -- Coach in California
TESBM: You don't have a bad board member problem. You have a values enforcement problem.
The organizing principle of effective school board governance is that student outcomes don't change until adult behaviors change. That principle applies to every adult in the system — including board members. If one board member's behavior is becoming the focus instead of the students being the focus, the board's job is to address that behavior the same way it would address any other barrier to student outcomes. If the board is not doing so, that's a failure of the board to honor its values more than it is a failure of the board member in question.
If your board has adopted Guardrails for the board (in addition to the Guardrails for the superintendent), then it's time to put them to work. If you haven't, your board's code of conduct is likely your best proxy though most are too vague. Ideally, the board has policy that describes adult behavior that is unacceptable on the journey toward improving student outcomes. But like any other Guardrail, it's only effective if it's monitored and enforced. If the board adopts a Guardrail against disruptive behavior but doesn't enforce it, that Guardrail simply doesn't exist in practice. The board isn't failing because of one member's behavior. It's failing because it won't enforce the boundaries it already set.
It's worth pausing to highlight one point: harassment in general isn't illegal. If we aren't talking about a protected class, then what you're dealing with is a public official whose message or style you disagree with. That simply needs to be endured as they have every right to express themselves however they want within the bounds of the law. Notice I didn't reference harassing behavior, I referenced disruptive behavior. Public officials can largely say whatever they want however they want within the bounds of the law. What they can't do, however, is disrupt the proceedings from proceeding. Even if your policies don't draw that distinction, your state laws likely do. So instead of trying to police opinions that public officials have a right to express, focus on defining what constructive vs disruptive behavior looks like and don't accept disruptive behavior.
So with that in mind, here are general principles based on what we see most often. First, the board chair needs to address the behavior in the moment. Not after the meeting. Not in a private conversation. During the meeting, with a clear statement: "Disrupting the meeting by speaking beyond your allotted time violates our board's code of conduct. Please honor the same rules that all board members must honor." This isn't a personal confrontation — it's monitoring. The board chair is checking whether the Guardrail is being honored. Second, the board needs a predictable process for escalating consequences. Start with a formal 1-on-1 conversation (most state laws allow this). Then, if necessary, a 2-on-1 conversation. Then, if necessary, escalate from there. Predictable processes create stronger accountability than informal conversations. Third, the board needs to document each incident and treat patterns as evidence. A single incident informs a conversation. A pattern informs an enforcement action.
The central distinction here is between the board's collective responsibility and an individual member's behavior. The board is collectively responsible for creating the conditions for improved student outcomes. Tolerating behavior that disrupts the board's ability to function directly undermines that responsibility. We recommend the board ask itself one question: what message are we sending to students about how adults should treat each other? Because that's the lesson they're learning when you don't enforce your values — whether you intend it or not.
Question: The superintendent asked me about my stance on regularly recurring 1-on-1’s with each of the board members. Your thoughts? -- Coach in Oklahoma
TESBM: This isn’t actually about the board or the superintendent at all. It’s about the application of attention to your client’s vision (Goals), values (Guardrails), and obligations (legal requirements). Focus them there — on board work — and a lot of these other questions become more clear.
All meetings should follow a very similar set of rules. And we do literally mean all meetings: board meetings, committee meetings, 1-on-1 meetings, board member meetings with individual staff members, before the meeting meetings, after the meeting meetings — all the meetings.
First, start from the assumption that the meeting is not aligned with a focus on improving student outcomes so, by default, you shouldn’t be having it. This is not to suggest that meetings are inherently good/bad/right/wrong; notice that’s not the assertion at all. The assertion is that meetings are not inherently aligned with a focus on student outcomes and so, by default, shouldn’t happen.
Second, define the deliverable that the meeting is intended to provide. In the case of a committee, it should be some document and/or recommendation that is being brought back to the full board. In the case of a board member/superintendent meeting, I’m often told that the purpose is relationship building but I don’t buy that for a second. If that was truly the purpose, it wouldn’t take place at the board offices, it’d take place over dinner at the board member’s home with their family or the superintendent’s home with theirs. If the purpose is truly purely about human relationship, that’s the more obvious venue. Talk about each other’s kids and grandkids, complain about potholes in the street together, talk about your hobbies or favorite cars or foods or whatever, braid each other’s hair; you get the picture. As I said, I suspect these things aren’t purely about building human relationships. You have to have the discipline and clarity to actually define the actual deliverable that the meeting exists to provide.
Third, define the due date. Whatever the deliverable is, by when should it come due? Meetings with deliverables with no due date lack urgency. This is what leads to “that should of been an email” being a 3hr meeting.
It’s worth noting that no individual board member has any special right to the superintendent’s time. If the superintendent doesn’t want to meet with individual board members, they‘re not obligated to do so unless the board as a whole directly votes to require them to do so.
Question: How do you calibrate with the superintendent on monitoring report templates before the monitoring calendar launches? -- Coach in Arizona
TESBC: Report templates are not about presentation. They are about ensuring the board consistently gets the information it needs to govern. If that purpose is not clear, calibration turns into preferences -- what looks good, what feels good -- rather than what actually supports decision-making. So the first conversation is not, “What should the template look like?” It is, “What must the board know to determine whether we are on track toward our Goals?” Once that is clear, calibration becomes more straightforward. A few more guidelines:
Clarity of evidence matters as well. What data will be included? How will it be displayed? What comparisons will be used? If those decisions are not made up front, reports will vary in quality and interpretation becomes inconsistent.
It helpful to align on what the board will not receive. Many reports become overloaded because there is no shared understanding of what is unnecessary. Discipline here protects focus.
A small number of well-designed templates is usually more effective than a large number of customized ones. Consistency allows the board to spend less time interpreting format and more time understanding performance.
Timing and communication matters. Ideally, this calibration should happen before the monitoring calendar begins. And ideally, the board’s implementation timeline calls out when and how this process takes place so it’s not surprising or distressing for anyone.
Once reports are in motion, changing templates midstream creates confusion and weakens comparability over time. Strong report templates do not emerge from design preference. They emerge from clarity about what the board needs to know and agreement on how that information will be presented consistently.
When that alignment is in place, monitoring becomes more focused, and evaluation becomes more straightforward.
Question: We feel pressure to stay connected to the industries that have historically defined our community, but we also know the future may look very different for our students. How can we balance those expectations without getting stuck in the past? -- Coach in Pennsylvania
TESBC: This is a real tension, and it shows up in a lot of communities. The mistake boards make is thinking they have to choose between honoring the past and preparing for the future. That framing will keep you stuck. The better move is to anchor both conversations in the same place: what students need to know and be able to do to live a choice-filled life, whatever choice they make.
From there, a few things tend to help.
I know this is hard to hear from some in the community, but you have a moral and ethical obligation to start with students, not industries.
It’s natural for communities to organize around what has historically driven the local economy. But the board’s role isn’t to preserve industries, it’s to educate students. When you start with student outcomes, the conversation shifts from “Which industry do we support?” to “What skills, knowledge, and capabilities will students need?”Translate legacy into skills, not loyalty. Many legacy industries still offer valuable lessons -- work ethic, technical skills, problem-solving, collaboration. The board can honor that by ensuring those transferable skills are part of the system, without tying students to a single pathway.
Create space for multiple futures. Not every student will stay in the community, and not every industry will remain unchanged. A strong system prepares students for options—local opportunities, emerging industries, higher education, entrepreneurship. That’s how you avoid being locked into the past.
Be clear about what the board is—and isn’t—deciding. The board shouldn’t be choosing winners between industries. That’s not governance. Your job is to set clear expectations for student outcomes and let the system design pathways that meet those expectations.
Acknowledge the tension openly. Communities respect honesty. You can say, “We value our history, and we also have a responsibility to prepare students for what’s next.” When that’s said consistently, it reduces the sense that one side is being ignored.
If the board is clear that its role is to prepare students for success in a changing world, then honoring the past becomes a source of insight, not a constraint on the future.
INTERESTING READS & LISTENS
Understanding your data: a guide for school governors and academy trustees
Dr. Audrey Young speaks on why governance training is essential for effective school board leadership
Need help brainstorming interm guardrail ideas? This might actually be a really useful place to look.
BOARD MEETING ANALYSIS
A subscriber asked us to watch the January meeting of a school board in Wisconsin. Here are the highlights from the Regular Board Meeting:
Total Minutes: 53mins
Minutes Focused on Student Outcomes: 0mins
Key Topics: Teacher pay, Budget planning, Staffing reductions, Reports
What Coach Celebrates:
The board efficiently handled procedural and voting items, keeping the meeting concise.
Community engagement was robust, with substantial participation in both open forums.
Enrollment data was shared, which—if aligned to Goals—could serve as a foundation for future monitoring conversations.
What Coach Recommends:
Redesign the agenda to ensure at least 50% of meeting time is dedicated to Goal monitoring, as this is the primary behavior correlated with improving student outcomes .
Convert presentations (e.g., enrollment) into formal monitoring reports tied to specific student outcome Goals, including interim data and superintendent strategy.
Establish and follow a predictable monitoring calendar so each meeting includes structured progress review.
Train board members on SMART question asking to improve the quality of monitoring conversations .
Ensure that all agenda items are explicitly aligned to either Goals, Guardrails, or statutorily required duties; remove or relocate items that do not meet this threshold.
UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES
Effective Board Member Requests/Concerns
Board members, as representatives of the vision and values of the community, are going to have questions, concerns, and requests related to things they hear from the community. What are the best ways to manage all this in a manner that doesn’t dilute the board’s focuse on student outcomes? Let’s talk about it!
11am central on Friday, June 12, 2026
Did you miss last month's 30-minute free webinar? Email Greg for a make-up session on any of our growing list of topics, including governance policy, delegation policy, effective budgeting, superintendent evaluation, professional services management, strategic planning, consent agendas, and more.
BONUS MATERIALS
For paid subscribers, here are links to additional resources (to gain access to the links below, please consider subscribing):
Additional details about the analyzed meeting:
Board Meeting Video
Meeting Agenda
Strategic Plan
Time Use Analysis
Guidance documents related to this issue:
Effective Policy Leadership
Effective Research Analysis
Effective Conflict Navigation
Question we can answer? Submit it to our coaches
Want a school board meeting analyzed? Send us the video.
Was this forwarded to you? Subscribe to the newsletter.
Enjoying? Forward this to regional / state / national colleagues