The Data Review Decision Protocol — How to Turn Data into Written Governance Decisions in One Meeting

The Data Review Decision Protocol — How to Turn Data into Written Governance Decisions in One Meeting

October 8, 2027

The board has reviewed the data packet. The superintendent has presented the data. The board has asked questions. The community is watching.

Now comes the moment that determines whether the October data review was a governance action or a staff presentation.

The board makes written decisions on every goal.

I have watched boards spend forty-five minutes reviewing data and then adjourn without a single written decision. The board reviewed the data. The board discussed the data. The board thanked the superintendent for the data. And the board left the room with no record of what the data meant for governance.

That board held a data presentation, not a data review.

Here is the decision protocol every board should use in the October data review. It takes thirty minutes for a board with five or fewer goals. It takes the board that skips it the rest of the governance year to recover.

The three-decision framework

For every goal, the board makes one of three decisions, recorded in writing before the board moves to the next agenda item:

Decision one: Accept the current trajectory. The board reviews the data and determines that the current pace of progress is acceptable. The goal is on track, or the variance is within an acceptable range. The board does not direct a change. The board records: “Accepted trajectory for Goal X — no change directed.”

This is not a passive decision. It is an active governance judgment that the current direction is producing acceptable results. The board should record the data point that supported the judgment and commit to reviewing the trajectory at the next data review.

Decision two: Direct a change. The board determines that the current trajectory is not acceptable and directs a specific adjustment. The board records: “Directed change for Goal X — [specific adjustment], to be completed by [date], with progress check at [next data review date].”

The directed change must be specific enough that the superintendent can implement it and the board can verify it. “Improve reading scores” is not a directed change. “Direct the superintendent to implement the Tier 2 intervention pilot identified in the summer professional development plan in the three lowest-performing elementary schools, with implementation data presented at the November check-in” is a directed change.

Decision three: Request more information. The board determines that the data is insufficient to make a governance decision. The board records: “Requested more information for Goal X — [specific question], with information due by [date]. Decision deferred to [next data review date].”

The request must be specific enough that the superintendent knows exactly what information to deliver. “Tell us more about reading” is not a specific request. “Provide disaggregated reading proficiency data by student subgroup for the three elementary schools below the district average, with trend data from the past three years” is a specific request.

Why written decisions matter

The written decision is not about documentation. It is about accountability. A board that makes a verbal decision during a data review has not made a decision that can be tracked, verified, or revisited. A board that records written decisions has created a governance record that the board president, the superintendent, and every board member can reference at the next data review.

Here is what I have seen happen in boards that use written decisions: the November data review starts with a review of the October decisions. “Did the board accept the trajectory on Goal One? Yes. Did the board direct a change on Goal Two? Yes — and here is the data showing whether the change was implemented.” The board’s decisions drive the governance cycle.

Here is what I have seen happen in boards that do not use written decisions: the November data review starts from scratch because nobody remembers exactly what the board decided in October.

The facilitation protocol

The board president or data review facilitator should follow this protocol:

Present each goal’s data (five minutes per goal)
Board discussion and questions (five minutes per goal)
Board president calls for a decision from each board member: accept, direct change, or request more information (two minutes per goal)
Board president records the decision and the supporting data point (one minute per goal)
Move to the next goal

The entire protocol for a board with five goals takes approximately sixty-five minutes. The board that allocates ninety minutes for the data review — including the decision-making protocol, the community-facing summary drafting instructions, and the next data review date confirmation — leaves the room having governed.

Your free CTA: Reply to this email with the keyword DataDecide and I’ll send you the Data Review Decision Protocol Kit — including the three-decision framework template, the written decision recording form, the board president facilitation script, and the community-facing summary template.

Your paid CTA: I offer a Data Review Facilitation Coaching Call — a sixty-minute session with the board president covering the decision protocol facilitation, the written decision recording practice, and the community summary communication strategy. Reply to this email for pricing and availability.

This piece continues the October 2027 Governance Execution series. The arc kickoff set the three-month execution plan for October through December — the data review, the fall progress check, and the year-end governance reset. This piece covers the decision protocol that turns data into governance decisions. The next piece in the series covers executing the first full data review meeting. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.