If parents can't understand your board reports, the reports aren't working — no matter how accurate or thorough they are. Technical language isn't a sign of rigor. It's often a sign that the document was written for the people who produced it, not the people who need to use it. Making reports clearer doesn't require sacrificing accuracy — it requires separating two distinct purposes: technical reporting for staff and board members who need precision, and community communication for families who need to understand what's happening with their children's education.
The jargon-to-plain-language rule
Every piece of education jargon in a community-facing document should be replaced with plain language that means the same thing. This isn't dumbing it down — it's translating. Some common swaps:
- Proficiency rate → percentage of students reading on grade level (or meeting grade-level standards in math)
- Cohort → group of students (or "this year's third graders")
- Disaggregated data → results broken down by student group
- Benchmark assessment → a test given during the year to check progress
- Summative assessment → the end-of-year test
- SGP (Student Growth Percentile) → how much a student grew compared to students who started at the same level
Go through your current reports and flag every term a parent with no education background might not know. Then rewrite each one.
The parent test
Before publishing any community-facing results document, apply this test: hand it to a parent who is not involved in district work and ask them to read it. When they're done, ask them to explain the main results back to you in two sentences. If they can't, the document needs more work — not the parent.
This test will feel uncomfortable the first time you do it. That discomfort is useful information. It tells you exactly where plain-language translation is still needed.
Two-track reporting
The most effective approach is to maintain two versions of results reporting that serve different audiences. The board report carries full technical detail, precise terminology, and complete data tables — written for board members and staff who need to make decisions based on specific numbers. The community summary conveys the same results translated into plain language, minimal jargon, focused on what parents actually want to know: how are kids doing and what's the plan? These documents should convey the same truths. They should simply do so in different registers. A community summary that says something different from the board report isn't a translation — it's a distortion.
Technical precision has its place
None of this means eliminating technical depth. Your board members and district staff need precise data to make sound decisions. That precision belongs in board reports, data dashboards, and staff briefings. It just doesn't belong in the one-page summary you post to social media or hand out at a parent meeting. Know which document you're writing and write it for its actual reader.
Steps to take
- Give your superintendent explicit direction about what community-facing documents should look like — vague feedback ("make it more readable") doesn't produce change. Say: "This document is for parents who are not educators. A parent should be able to read and understand it in ten minutes."
- Require plain-language translations for every technical term in community-facing materials. Go through the current report together and flag every term a non-educator parent might not know.
- Ask staff to answer three questions in plain language for every goal: what was the goal, what was the result, and is your board on track?
- Review a draft before it's finalized and apply the parent test yourself — hand it to a parent not involved in district work and ask them to explain the main results back to you.
- Adopt the community communication format in board policy so it becomes a standing expectation rather than something that has to be renegotiated each year.