← Back to all questions

Your board should set one to three student outcome goals, each tied to a metric already tracked in your district's data systems, and require the superintendent to draft interim targets that show progress at least four times during the school year.

The power of using existing data systems is simple: you get reliable numbers without asking anyone to build new tracking infrastructure. Most districts already collect attendance rates, graduation percentages, proficiency scores on state assessments, and course passage rates. These are not optional additions to your monitoring work. They are the foundation. When a goal references data your district already gathers, the superintendent can report against it at every monitoring cycle without extra burden on staff. The board gets trend lines that are comparable over time, not one-off measurements designed for a single board presentation.

The most common mistake is asking the superintendent to create new metrics. Boards will say something like "we want to measure student well-being" without identifying the existing data source that would quantify it. The superintendent then faces a choice: either build an entirely new tracking system, which consumes staff time and produces unreliable first-year data, or stretch an existing metric to fit the goal, which degrades the quality of your monitoring. Neither outcome serves your students. Instead, ask first: what does our data already tell us about this outcome? Then build the goal from that foundation.

What this looks like in practice: your board identifies math proficiency as a priority. The superintendent pulls three years of state assessment data showing the current proficiency rate. The board sets a goal of increasing that rate by a specific number of percentage points by June of the next school year. The superintendent drafts interim targets, say, a three-point increase by October, another three by January, another three by March, and commits to presenting progress data at each of your four quarterly goal-monitoring meetings. The board reviews each report, asks what would change the trajectory if the data were different, and calibrates expectations accordingly. This is not complicated, but it requires the superintendent to own the drafting and the board to own the calibration.

One honest complication: you may discover that your existing data systems do not track the outcome you care about most. If your district has never systematically measured something like ninth-grade credit accumulation or student engagement, you face a real constraint. In that case, your board should set a first-year goal focused on building the measurement infrastructure itself. Not on achieving a specific outcome that you cannot yet reliably track. This feels less satisfying than a traditional outcome goal, but a board that monitors progress toward a metric that does not exist is monitoring nothing. Name the infrastructure goal explicitly, hold the superintendent to a timeline for implementing the tracking, and plan to set an outcome goal in year two once the data exists.

Here are the steps to make this happen:

1. At your next regular meeting, ask the superintendent to list every student outcome metric your district currently tracks across all data systems: attendance, assessment results, graduation rates, course passage, discipline incidents, anything with a number attached.
2. From that list, select one to three outcomes where the current performance is unacceptable and where improvement would meaningfully change student trajectories. Keep the number at three or fewer. Your board cannot monitor more than three goals with rigor.
3. Direct the superintendent to draft interim targets for each goal: specific, time-bound milestones that represent meaningful progress toward the annual goal. Specify that you want to see these interim targets at your next meeting.
4. Confirm that your meeting calendar includes at least four goal-monitoring sessions spaced throughout the school year. If it does not, add them now.
5. When you receive the first monitoring report, ask the question that makes this work valuable: "What would change if these numbers were different six months from now?" The answer reveals whether your goal is driving decisions or just measuring them.

Once your board commits to this process, everything shifts. You stop approving goals that cannot be monitored and start overseeing progress that actually changes how your district operates. The superintendent stops guessing what the board wants and starts presenting structured data that shows whether strategies are working. Your meetings move from vague discussions about student success to specific conversations about measurable results. The cost of not doing this is straightforward: a board without data-driven goals is a board that cannot hold anyone accountable for student outcomes, and your students are the ones who pay the price.