ESB Glossary Cross-Referencing

ESB Glossary — Cross-Referencing

Every term, concept, and distinction in the ESB framework with cross-references. Terms link to related terms via » arrows. Resources line lists GOTB chapters » ESB instruments where applicable. Intended for AI context injection — a subagent can look up any term and immediately see its connections.

A

Adult Behavior Change The central principle of the ESB framework: student outcomes don’t improve until the adults in the system change their behavior. This applies to every adult — board members, superintendent, staff. The board’s willingness to examine its own behavior is the starting point.

Student Outcomes, Board Work, Adult Inputs Resources: GOTB Ch4

Adult Inputs Resources and strategies observable at the beginning of a cycle that adults deploy. Examples: budget allocations, staffing assignments, adopted curricula/programs, professional-learning calendars, bus routes/fleet, facilities readiness, and other resources/strategies put in place before school starts. A measure of effort, not impact. ESB’s key move is to redirect board focus from adult inputs to student outcomes.

Inputs, Adult Outputs, Adult Outcomes, Student Inputs, Student Outputs, Student Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Adult Outcomes Measures of what adults know or are able to do at the end of the cycle. Examples: end-of-year audit results, whether the budget balanced, teacher/leader retention rates, certification/compliance completion, end-of-year safety/compliance findings. Not the purpose of the school system — student outcomes are.

Student Outcomes, Adult Inputs, Adult Outputs, Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Adult Outputs Measures of what adults have done or implemented in the midst of the cycle. Examples: quarterly financials and tax-collection reports, administrative/board corrective-action plan updates, implementation milestones, attendance at staff trainings, interim budget execution reports. Adult outputs are measures of implementation, not results.

Adult Inputs, Adult Outcomes, Outputs, Student Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Agenda Design The board’s meeting agenda should be the physical embodiment of its priorities. Strategic conversation (monitoring Goals/Guardrails) comes first, before public comment and operational updates. Most boards spend less than 50% of meeting time on student outcomes.

Monitoring, Goals, Guardrails, Board Work, Operational Updates Resources: GOTB Ch11

ESB Instrument (Time Use Evaluation)

Alignment The cascade of priorities from community vision → board Goals/Guardrails → superintendent Interim Goals/Interim Guardrails → staff Goal-aligned Initiatives. Alignment is NOT the same as agreement. Alignment = shared framework; agreement = same opinion.

Goals, Guardrails, Interim Goals, Interim Guardrails, Agreement, Community Vision Resources: GOTB Ch7, Ch8

ESB Instrument (Implementation Instrument)

Alignment vs Agreement A signature ESB distinction. Alignment means operating from a shared framework (same Goals, Guardrails, monitoring process). Agreement means sharing the same opinion. Alignment is achievable and necessary; agreement among 5-7 board members is rare and not required. ESB builds alignment through structure, not consensus.

Alignment, Distinctions, Board Holism Resources: GOTB Ch6, Ch7

Any Reasonable Interpretation The delegatee — the superintendent for Goals and Guardrails, and the board chair for the Delegation and Governing policies (when the board is not in session) — has the right to use any reasonable interpretation of board policies. An interpretation is reasonable when it provides an operational definition with defensible measures and standards. The board as a body judges reasonableness — individual board members do not. If the interpretation is reasonable but not what the board wanted, the board must change its policy, not override the interpretation.

Delegation, Monitoring, Guardrails, Goals, Policy Sizes Resources: GOTB Ch8, Ch11

Assessment Any systematic method of measuring what students know or are able to do. In the ESB framework, assessment is understood through multiple lenses: four types (Diagnostic, Formative, Interim, Summative), two scoring frameworks (Norm-referenced vs Criterion-referenced), and three expectation constructs (Proficiency, Growth, Comparison). Assessment is not inherently harmful — it is a tool that can be used well or abused. ESB’s position: assessment is essential for long-term memory creation and instructional improvement; standardized assessment is essential for performance transparency and system-wide improvement. The key is matching the type of data to its purpose.

Diagnostic Assessment, Formative Assessment, Interim Assessment, Summative Assessment, Norm-referenced vs Criterion-referenced, Proficiency, Growth, Comparison, Campbell’s Law, Goodhart’s Law Resources: GOTB Ch10

Diagnostic Assessment Assessments given before the beginning of an instructional cycle (or at the very start) that measure what knowledge and skills students have already accumulated. Generally administered in the opening weeks of each school year to inform instructional planning. Diagnostic metrics serve as inputs used to organize and structure instructional decisions for the rest of the first semester.

Assessment, Formative Assessment, Interim Assessment, Summative Assessment, Inputs Resources: GOTB Ch10

Formative Assessment Assessments given in the midst of an instructional cycle that measure student learning narrowly tailored to specific student expectations. Created and administered on an ongoing basis by teachers or campuses for the purpose of refining instructional practice. Formative metrics are types of outputs — they evaluate and refine the fidelity of implementation. Generally NOT aligned to summative assessment or metrics. Part of the continuous improvement cycle: teach, assess, reteach, reassess. ESB recommends using formative data for instructional refinement, not for predicting summative performance.

Diagnostic Assessment, Interim Assessment, Summative Assessment, Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch10

Interim Assessment Assessments given in the midst of an instructional cycle that measure a cross-section of knowledge or skills. Generally administered up to 2-3 times per year by campuses or school systems for predicting summative performance. Interim metrics are outputs that are explicitly aligned to the summative assessment or metrics. They function as leading indicators — used to predict summative results by tracking quantifiable progress at critical junctures. ESB’s interim goals and interim guardrails rely on this type of assessment data.

Diagnostic Assessment, Formative Assessment, Summative Assessment, Interim Goals, Interim Guardrails, Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch10

Summative Assessment Assessments given at the end of an instructional cycle that measure a cross-section of knowledge or skills over the course of a school year or curricular unit. Generally administered by school systems or states for evaluating school or school system effectiveness. Summative metrics track outcomes — they are used to evaluate whether the school system and chief executive were successful. When measuring what students know or are able to do, summative metrics are a type of student outcome and form the basis of board Goals.

Diagnostic Assessment, Formative Assessment, Interim Assessment, Outcomes, Goals Resources: GOTB Ch10

B

Board The school board as a collective body. In ESB, “the board” always means the group acting as one — never individual members. The board speaks with one voice through its adopted board actions (commonly as policy). Individual board members have no authority to instruct staff, the superintendent, or each other.

Board Holism, Board Work, Board as Body, Individual Board Member

Board as Body (vs Individual Members) The authority of the board is held and used as a body. The board speaks with one voice (policies, or minuted decisions for one-time actions). Individual members have no authority to instruct staff, evaluate the superintendent, or speak for the board. The chair has no authority over the board beyond what the full board grants. Board committees exist to help the board do its work, never to help the superintendent/staff.

Board, Board Holism, Chair, Committees, Delegation

Board Focus The board’s attention should be on student outcomes — not adult inputs, not operational details, not individual constituent complaints. The single most powerful action a board can take is to clarify priorities (Goals) then monitor progress toward them. Boards should spend at least 50% of meeting time on these two activities.

Goals, Monitoring, Student Outcomes, Board Work, Agenda Design Resources: GOTB Ch4, Ch11

ESB Instrument (Time Use Evaluation)

Board Holism See Board as Body.

Board Means Policies In the ESB framework, these are the board’s own conduct policies: the policies governing the board’s own job results, practices, delegation style, and discipline. Two of the four board-specific policy types fall here — Governing (how the board operates internally, its relationship with itself and with owners) and Delegation (how the board delegates to its officers, committees, and the superintendent).

Governance Process Policies, Board-Management Delegation, Delegation

Board Work The three categories of work that belong to the school board: (1) Goals — student outcomes to achieve, (2) Guardrails — boundaries not to cross, (3) Legal requirements — what the law mandates. Everything else is superintendent work. Board work is about creating conditions; superintendent work is about executing within those conditions.

Superintendent Work, Goals, Guardrails, Legal Requirements, Delegation Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch4

Board-Management Delegation In the ESB framework this is the board’s Delegation policy (one of the four board-specific policy types; Policy Governance calls it Board-Management Delegation): the board’s own conduct policies that define how the board delegates authority — to the superintendent, and to the board’s own officers and committees — clarifying who can do what on behalf of the board.

Delegation, Board Means Policies, Governance Process Policies, Chair

Board Diets A practice of streamlining how the board spends its meeting time so that more of it goes to strategic conversation about improving student outcomes, such as goal monitoring. The ESB materials mention several “diets” as examples (not a fixed or exhaustive set): a Committee Diet (retiring committees the board no longer needs), a Policy Diet (removing management-focused policies and keeping governance-focused ones), and a System Diet (dropping reports and activities that don’t serve Goal monitoring or Guardrail compliance). What the board keeps or removes is the board’s own judgment.

Committee Diet, Policy Diet, Agenda Design, Board Focus, Monitoring Resources: GOTB Ch9, Ch11

Budget In ESB, the budget is adopted at the goal level, not the line-item level. The board sets the total reduction/investment and the Guardrails (what must be protected). The superintendent manages the tradeoffs within those boundaries. The board monitors whether Guardrails were honored and whether student outcomes held steady.

Goals, Guardrails, Monitoring, Superintendent Work, Board Work Resources: GOTB Ch15

C

Board Chair The board chair (sometimes referred to as board president) has authority only as granted by the full board. The chair does NOT:

• Supervise or direct the superintendent

• Evaluate the superintendent or staff

• Have authority over other board members

• Speak for the board without authorization

The chair facilitates board meetings, ensures the agenda aligns with board priorities, and may address board member behavior during meetings per board policy.

Board as Body, Board-Management Delegation, Board Holism

Clarity and Coherence of Delegation In the ESB framework, this is a core principle of the board’s Delegation policy: delegation to the superintendent must be unambiguous — clear who is responsible for what. No subparts of the board (committees, officers) can be given jobs that interfere with, duplicate, or obscure the job given to the superintendent. The board does not delegate to staff below the superintendent. Every expectation belongs to exactly one delegatee.

Delegation, Superintendent, Committees, Board Holism Resources: GOTB Ch15

Code of Conduct One of the board’s own conduct policies — a Governing policy — that establishes a prioritized set of behaviors that are out of bounds for individual board members. It is the board-member-level analogue of Guardrails: whereas Guardrails define behavior out of bounds for the board as a collective body, the Code of Conduct defines behavior out of bounds for board members individually. Like a Guardrail, it describes behavior that is unacceptable even if it were to achieve results, and is only effective if monitored and enforced.

Guardrails, Board Means Policies, Governance Process Policies, Enforcement Resources: ESB Instrument (Governing)

Committees (Board) In the ESB framework, board committees exist only to help the board do its own work — never to help the superintendent or staff. Committees are useful for: (1) investigating a specific, time-limited governance question, (2) building community/stakeholder input. Committees should never review operational details, interview vendors, or dig into staff performance (those are superintendent work). Test: does the committee’s work feed into the monitoring calendar? Creation protocol: new committees are created by the board chair, and no committee may meet until the chair has (1) named the committee chair, (2) named the members, (3) defined measurable deliverables, and (4) set a due date for those deliverables.

Board Work, Superintendent Work, Monitoring, Delegation Resources: GOTB Ch15

Community The full community the board serves — and a board reveals whom it considers its community by whom it goes out of its way to listen to. As a list: all families and students who attend the school system (not limited to those within its legal boundaries), plus all persons who reside or pay taxes within the boundaries of the school system. Not just the people who show up to meetings, not just the loudest voices, not just supporters — the board represents the whole community.

Community Vision, Community Engagement, Community Outreach, Ownership Resources: GOTB Ch6, Ch19

Community Engagement Two-way communication hosted by the board at board meetings, where the community comes to the board so the board can listen for the community’s vision and values (which the board later translates into Goals and Guardrails). One of two board listening methods for ownership linkage — the other is outreach.

Community Outreach, Ownership Linkage, Community Vision Resources: GOTB Ch19

Community Outreach Two-way communication where the board goes to the community — to neighborhoods, community centers, places where people already gather. The board must do this because relying only on engagement (board-hosted meetings) means hearing only from those who can attend at the board’s convenience.

Community Engagement, Ownership Linkage, Community Vision Resources: GOTB Ch19

Community Vision The community’s long-term aspiration for what all children should know and be able to do. The board listens for this vision through engagement and outreach, then translates it into SMART Goals. Different communities have different visions — ESB doesn’t prescribe the vision, it prescribes the process for discovering and honoring it.

Goals, Community Engagement, Community Outreach Resources: GOTB Ch7, Ch19

Consent Agenda A tool for approving multiple routine or non-controversial items with a single vote and no debate, preserving board meeting time for strategic conversation (monitoring Goals/Guardrails). Items must be distributed 7-14 days in advance. Board members may request removal of items for separate discussion. Best practices: establish clear policies on what qualifies, exclude controversial/strategic items, pre-meeting Q\&A process 3-7 days prior, single-vote approval with chair introduction only.

Agenda Design, Board Focus Resources: GOTB Ch11

Campbell’s Law “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.” A key caution invoked in the ESB framework against attaching undue consequences to metrics. ESB’s recommended counter-strategies include: changing interim metrics every 1-3 years, relying on Strong Outputs (harder to game), and using metrics management already tracks for decision-making rather than novel data.

Goodhart’s Law, Strong Outputs vs Weak Outputs, Interim Goals, Monitoring Resources: GOTB Ch10, Ch17

Comparison (Goal Setting) One of three ways to construct expectations for student outcome goals (alongside Proficiency and Growth). Comparison asks whether a student has demonstrated growth or proficiency relative to another group — usually expressed as “closing the gap.” Example: “The percentage of 3rd graders who were two grade levels behind in reading who closed the gap between themselves and the overall 3rd grade average will increase from 40% to 70%.” ESB notes that most people default to proficiency-oriented goals and recommends explicitly choosing which expectation type to use for each student outcome.

Proficiency, Growth, Static Goals vs Cohort Goals, SMART Goals Resources: GOTB Ch10

Conditions The board’s job is to create the conditions for improved student outcomes, not to produce outcomes directly. Conditions include: clear Goals, enforceable Guardrails, a functioning monitoring process, an aligned superintendent, and board behavior that models the collaboration expected from classrooms.

Board Work, Adult Behavior Change, Goals, Guardrails Resources: GOTB Ch1

D

Delegation The board delegates authority to the superintendent for all operational means (within the Guardrails) and to the chair for the board’s own conduct policies — Governing and Delegation. Key principles: (1) delegate to a single point of accountability, (2) never delegate the same expectation to two people, (3) never delegate to staff below the superintendent, (4) the delegatee has the right to any reasonable interpretation.

Any Reasonable Interpretation, Clarity and Coherence of Delegation, Superintendent, Chair Resources: GOTB Ch15

Customer Support vs. Owner Support An ESB distinction defining who the board ultimately serves. Customer Support = helping individuals with complaints, requests, or problems (parent calling about a bus route, teacher asking for supplies). Owner Support = listening to the community’s collective vision and holding the system accountable for results. The board’s primary role is Owner Support — representing the community as owners of the school system, not resolving individual customer service issues (which belongs to staff). A board that spends its time on customer support cannot fulfill its governance duties.

Board Work, Community Vision, Community Engagement, Support vs Surrender Resources: GOTB Ch19

Decision Making Tree (Leaves/Twigs/Branches/Trunk/Base/Roots) A six-level decision hierarchy for creating organizational alignment, derived from Susan Scott’s “Fierce Conversations.” Each level defines the decision type and the staff and supervisor roles:

• Leaves (Decide & Implement; no consultation or reporting needed) — small routine decisions

• Twigs (Decide & Implement; consult pre, no report) — somewhat routine, minor effect

• Branches (Decide & Implement; consult pre, communicate mid) — definite effect on team/project

• Trunk (Decide & Implement; consult pre, communicate mid, report post) — major effect, mitigable risk

• Base (Recommend & Implement; receive approval) — major effect, high risk, supervisor approves

• Roots (Recommend & Implement; supervisor decides) — could do major damage, livelihood at stake Role types across the tree: Decide (I vote), Approve (I veto), Know (I have voice), Recommend (I explore options), Implement (I carry out).

Alignment, Board Work, Superintendent Work, Delegation Resources: GOTB Ch7

Distinctions (ESB Signature) One of ESB’s primary teaching methods. Two things that seem the same are actually different — naming the difference is the teaching moment. Signature ESB distinctions: Board Work vs Superintendent Work, Monitoring vs Managing, Goals vs Guardrails, Inputs vs Outputs vs Outcomes, Adult vs Student, Alignment vs Agreement, Knowledge vs Skill vs Mindset, Goals vs Means, Support vs Surrender.

(each distinction has its own entry) Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch4, Ch6, Ch7, Ch8

E

Early Inputs Plans for resources and strategies that occur prior to other inputs. Examples: annual academic plan drafts, staffing plans, and budgets (planning). Part of the temporal dimension of the Inputs/Outputs/Outcomes framework.

Inputs, Mid Inputs, Late Inputs, Planning Resources: GOTB Ch1

Early Outcomes Measures of results that are knowable immediately at the conclusion of the cycle before other outcomes are known. Examples: end of course performance, end of year attendance rates, balanced budgets, student/staff/family satisfaction surveys, and internal summative assessment results (results category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Outcomes, Mid Outcomes, Late Outcomes, Student Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Early Outputs Measures of participation in implementation prior to other outputs. Examples: student participation in classes, staff participation in professional development, staff participation in planned strategies (participation category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Outputs, Mid Outputs, Late Outputs, Student Outputs, Adult Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Effective School Boards (ESB) The governance framework developed by AJ Crabill for elected public school boards. Developed independently and grounded in widely-recognized principles of a policy-based approach to governance (board holism, ends/means separation, any-reasonable-interpretation, etc.), adapted specifically for school systems. Distinctive emphases: improving student outcomes, the board-work vs superintendent-work distinction, the adult-behavior-change principle, a community vision-and-values process, and school-specific monitoring cadences.

Policy Governance, Goals, Guardrails, Monitoring Resources: All GOTB

ESB Instrument (Implementation Instrument, Time Use Evaluation, Monitoring Question Instrument)

Ends In the ESB framework, these are the board’s Goals. The intended effects to be produced, the intended recipients of those effects, and the intended worth (cost-benefit). In ESB: the student outcomes the board expects to achieve, for which students, and at what cost/priority.

Goals, Student Outcomes, Ends Policies Resources: GOTB Ch7

Ends Policies In the ESB framework, these are the board’s Goals: board policies that define in writing the intended effects (student outcomes), recipients (which students), and worth (cost-benefit or priority). All three elements must be present at the broadest level. Clearly separated from the board’s own conduct policies.

Ends, Goals, Means, Policy Sizes Resources: GOTB Ch7

Enforcement A recurring ESB theme: a policy that isn’t enforced doesn’t exist in practice. This applies to Guardrails, codes of conduct, and board norms. The board’s failure to enforce is itself a board behavior that needs to change.

Guardrails, Code of Conduct, Adult Behavior Change Resources: GOTB Ch4

Executive Limitations In the ESB framework, these are the board’s Guardrails: policies that define boundaries on operational means — what would be unacceptable even if it worked. Always proscriptive (what NOT to do), never prescriptive (how TO do it). Must cover all unacceptable actions, not just some.

Guardrails, Means, Executive Limitations Policies Resources: GOTB Ch8

Exclusionary Criteria Criteria adopted by the board before a superintendent search to define who NOT to hire. Search partners are directed to never present candidates who trigger these criteria. Examples include: inability to distinguish student outcomes from adult inputs, misalignment with the board’s theory of action, and other clearly defined disqualifiers. Distinct from minimum qualifications — exclusionary criteria narrow the field by eliminating, not by including.

Superintendent, Board Work, Goals, Guardrails Resources: GOTB Ch4

F

Five Themes / ESB Framework The five continuous improvement practices of effective school boards identified in the research literature, forming the ESB101 framework:

• Focus Mindset — The board leads from the stance that school systems exist only to improve student outcomes, that student outcomes don’t change until adult behaviors change (starting with the board), and that the board represents the community’s vision and values.

• Clarify Priorities — The board adopts Goals (community vision) and Guardrails (community values) as written policies.

• Monitor Progress — The board monitors progress toward Goals and compliance with Guardrails through interim metrics and monitoring reports, spending ≥50% of meeting time on this.

• Align Resources — The board ensures that budget, time, and talent are allocated to Goal-aligned work.

• Communicate Results — The board reports back to the community at least twice per year on progress.

Adult Behavior Change, Goals, Guardrails, Monitoring, Budget, Community Vision Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch4, Ch6, Ch7, Ch8, Ch11, Ch15, Ch19

G

Goals (ESB) In the ESB framework, Goals are the student outcomes the board expects to achieve — described in SMART terms (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-focused, Time-bound). Goals describe what students should know and be able to do. They are adopted with a 3-5 year time horizon and do NOT reset with elections — new members inherit them. Policy Governance equivalent: Ends. Example: “Increase the percentage of third graders reading at grade level on the state assessment from 60% in June 2025 to 80% by June 2030.”

Student Outcomes, SMART Goals, Community Vision, Monitoring, Ends Resources: GOTB Ch7

Governance The work of a school system’s governing body. In the ESB framework, school systems exist to improve student outcomes, and governance is the board’s job of creating the conditions for improving those outcomes by representing the vision and values of the school system’s community. Governance includes oversight and the supervision of the board’s direct reports (e.g., the superintendent). It is distinct from management — the day-to-day running of the school system, which is the superintendent’s work.

Board Work, Goals, Guardrails, Monitoring, Oversight Resources: GOTB Ch1

Governance Process Policies In the ESB framework, these are the board’s Governing policies (one of the four board-specific policy types: Goals, Guardrails, Delegation, and Governing): the board’s own conduct policies that describe how the board operates — meeting conduct, agenda setting, decision-making, board member development, code of conduct, community engagement approach. These policies are directed at the board itself.

Board Means Policies, Board-Management Delegation, Code of Conduct

Goodhart’s Law “Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” A companion principle to Campbell’s Law, invoked in the ESB framework to warn against measuring-to-the-exclusion-of-meaning. ESB’s pragmatic response: change interim metrics every 1-3 years, use Strong Outputs, and anchor to metrics management already uses for ongoing decision-making.

Campbell’s Law, Strong Outputs vs Weak Outputs, Interim Goals, Monitoring Resources: GOTB Ch10, Ch17

Growth (Goal Setting) One of three ways to construct expectations for student outcome goals (alongside Proficiency and Comparison). Growth measures a student’s improvement from their own starting point — usually expressed as “grew by more than a grade level” or “demonstrated adequate/expected growth.” Example: “The percentage of 3rd graders who began the year below grade level in reading and who grew by at least 1.25 grade levels will increase from 40% to 70%.” Growth goals are fairer than proficiency goals for measuring schools serving students who enter below grade level.

Proficiency, Comparison, Static Goals vs Cohort Goals, SMART Goals Resources: GOTB Ch10

Guardrails (ESB) Boundaries the superintendent cannot cross. Proscriptive (what NOT to do), not prescriptive (how TO do it). Express the community’s non-negotiable values. Stop at the level where any reasonable interpretation is acceptable. Policy Governance equivalent: Executive Limitations. Example: “The superintendent shall not implement a budget that increases class sizes beyond 25 students per teacher.”

Executive Limitations, Goals, Monitoring, Any Reasonable Interpretation, Non-negotiables Resources: GOTB Ch8

H

Impact vs Intention A signature ESB framing. Board members almost always intend well. The question is whether their impact matches their intention. “Honor impact over intention” — validate the intent, then focus on the actual effect on students.

Adult Behavior Change, Student Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch4, Ch7

Individual Board Member (Role) Individual board members have no authority to: instruct staff, evaluate the superintendent, speak for the board, direct the chair, or make decisions. Their role is to participate in the board as a body — attend meetings, deliberate on policy, vote, engage with the community as directed by the board. Any authority exercised individually must be explicitly granted by the full board.

Board as Body, Board Holism, Chair

Inputs Measures of resources or strategies that are observable at the beginning of a cycle. In a school system, examples include books, buses, buildings, staff, plans, and any other resource or strategy measure that is generally known before the first day of school begins. Within the cycle of school systems, there is a value chain that begins with adult deployment of resources (inputs), continues through implementation (outputs), and ends with student measurable results (outcomes). This is analogous to how a journey begins with planning and allocating resources, proceeding on the journey, and culminating with arrival at a destination.

Outputs, Outcomes, Adult Inputs, Student Inputs, Early Inputs, Mid Inputs, Late Inputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Interim Goals The superintendent’s operational milestones that translate the board’s broad Goals into measurable progress points. Monitored through interim assessments. The superintendent proposes them; the board accepts them if they represent any reasonable interpretation of the Goals.

Goals, Monitoring, Any Reasonable Interpretation Resources: GOTB Ch7, Ch11

Interim Guardrails The superintendent’s operational boundaries that translate the board’s broad Guardrails into specific, intermediate constraints. Each interim guardrail must be predictive of its parent Guardrail and influenceable by the superintendent (and the superintendent’s team). The superintendent proposes them; the board accepts any reasonable interpretation. A Guardrail is deemed to have met its annual target when at least two of its three interim guardrails met their annual (or 5-year) target.

Guardrails, Monitoring, Any Reasonable Interpretation Resources: GOTB Ch8, Ch11

Initiatives (Goal-aligned / Guardrail-aligned) Discrete projects at the staff/implementation level designed to accomplish Interim Goals or Interim Guardrails. Each Initiative has: (1) a SMART objective, (2) one individual owner who spends ≥4 hours/week leading it, (3) school system resources allocated to it. Goal-aligned Initiatives are predictive of Interim Goals (~.5 correlation or higher). Guardrail-aligned Initiatives are predictive of Interim Guardrails. The set of all Initiatives tells the school system which specific people must interact to accomplish the Goals. Contrast with non-goal-aligned initiatives (routine operations like payroll, facilities maintenance) that keep the organization functioning.

Goals, Interim Goals, Guardrails, Interim Guardrails, Milestones, Playbook Resources: GOTB Ch7

ESB Instrument (Implementation Instrument)

Interlinking Chain of Accountability The board sits in the middle of a chain of accountability that runs community → board → superintendent. The board is accountable to its community: it must listen for the community’s vision and values and codify them as Goals. The superintendent is accountable to the board: the board must monitor progress toward those Goals. The board misuses its meeting time whenever it neglects either end of the chain — failing to listen to its community, or failing to monitor its superintendent — and every such miss weakens the alignment needed to improve student outcomes.

Goals, Monitoring, Community Vision, Board Work, Superintendent Work, Alignment Resources: GOTB Ch1

K

Knowledge vs Skill vs Mindset An ESB distinction. Knowledge = knowing what to do (information). Skill = being able to do it (practice). Mindset = being willing to do it (belief/identity). These are hierarchical — knowledge is easiest to change, mindset hardest. Training typically only reaches knowledge. ESB coaching reaches skill and mindset.

Distinctions, Adult Behavior Change, Board Work Resources: GOTB Ch1

Knowledge-based Failures One of three types of board failure in the GOTB framework (alongside Skill-based and Mindset-based). Knowledge-based failures occur when board members lack the information, training, or understanding needed to govern effectively — they have a knowledge deficit. Examples: not knowing the difference between Goals and Guardrails, not understanding how to read a monitoring report, being unaware of state law requirements. Addressed through professional development, onboarding, and access to relevant data.

Skill-based Failures, Mindset-based Failures, Knowledge vs Skill vs Mindset, Board Work Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch2

L

Late Inputs The initiation of activities using the planned resources and strategies that occur after other inputs. Examples: launching tutoring, opening newly staffed courses, beginning professional development cycles as the year starts (activities category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Inputs, Early Inputs, Mid Inputs, Activities Resources: GOTB Ch1

Late Outcomes Measures of the impact on the long-term vision knowable after all other outcomes are known. Examples: post-secondary success, successful health outcomes throughout early adulthood, successful career outcomes throughout early adulthood, demonstrations of maximization (vision category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Outcomes, Early Outcomes, Mid Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Late Outputs In-process result measures of implementation that occur after other outputs have taken place. Examples: interim assessment performance, end-of-term on-track indicators, quarter/semester grade distributions (midterms category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Outputs, Early Outputs, Mid Outputs, Student Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Legal Requirements One of three categories of board work (alongside Goals and Guardrails). What the law mandates the board must do — open meetings, financial audits, policy adoption, superintendent evaluation (where required by state law). These are non-negotiable but are NOT the purpose of the board — they’re constraints within which the board pursues student outcomes.

Board Work, Goals, Guardrails Resources: GOTB Ch1

M

Managing The superintendent’s job — directing operations, implementing strategy, making day-to-day decisions within the boundaries set by the board’s Goals and Guardrails. When boards manage, they stop governing.

Superintendent Work, Monitoring, Board Work, Oversight Resources: GOTB Ch4

Means Any decision that is not a Goals decision. Means covers all operational decisions — how to achieve the student outcomes the board sets. The board controls means through Guardrails — defining what the superintendent may not use or allow — not by prescribing preferred methods.

Ends, Executive Limitations, Guardrails, Means Policies Resources: GOTB Ch8

Mid Inputs The acquisition of planned resources that occur in the midst of early and late inputs. Examples: issuing RFPs and purchase orders, hiring to fill the staffing plan, selection of resources, procurement of curriculum/devices/fleet (resources category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Inputs, Early Inputs, Late Inputs, Resources Resources: GOTB Ch1

Mid Outcomes Measures of the impact of results that are knowable in between early outcomes and late outcomes. Examples: external summative assessment results (state or federal), annual audit findings, system accreditation ratings (impact category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Outcomes, Early Outcomes, Late Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Mindset-based Failures One of three types of board failure in the GOTB framework (alongside Knowledge-based and Skill-based). Mindset-based failures occur when board members hold beliefs, attitudes, or worldviews that prevent effective governance — they have the knowledge and skill but their perspective blocks action. Of the three failure types, mindset-based failures are the most harmful — but for that reason, addressing them also yields the greatest improvement. Illustrative examples: believing the board should manage the superintendent, prioritizing personal re-election over student outcomes, or refusing to engage with data that contradicts assumptions. Addressed through reflection, community listening, and direct feedback.

Knowledge-based Failures, Skill-based Failures, Knowledge vs Skill vs Mindset, Adult Behavior Change Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch2, Ch5

Mid Outputs Measures of implementation fidelity in the midst of early and late outputs. Examples: walkthrough/rubric ratings, completion of required implementation steps, other fidelity of implementation indicators reported during the year (fidelity category). Part of the temporal dimension.

Outputs, Early Outputs, Late Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Monitoring The board’s practice of checking progress toward Goals and compliance with Guardrails. An effective monitoring report has four elements: (1) The Goal — which specific goal/goal progress measure is being monitored, (2) The Data — data for the 3 previous reporting periods, current period, and target periods (preferably on a line graph), (3) The Interpretation — the superintendent’s understanding of system performance relative to the goal, (4) The Evidence & Plan — supporting documentation evidencing the superintendent’s assessment; if performance is off track, a clear description of next steps. Monitoring is a strategic conversation, not a management review. Effective board questions during monitoring are strategic in nature — focused on understanding how something aligns to the priorities — not technical (how something is measured) or tactical (how something is done).

Goals, Guardrails, Monitoring Report, Any Reasonable Interpretation, Monitoring vs Managing Resources: GOTB Ch11

ESB Instrument (Monitoring Question Instrument)

Monitoring vs Managing A signature ESB distinction. Monitoring = checking progress + compliance (board work). Managing = directing operations (superintendent work). The most common board failure is converting monitoring conversations into management advice.

Distinctions, Monitoring, Managing, Board Work, Superintendent Work Resources: GOTB Ch11

Monitoring Report The superintendent’s report to the board showing progress toward Goals and compliance with Guardrails. Four elements: (1) Priority — which Goal/Guardrail is being monitored, (2) Data — past, current, and projected performance on a line graph, (3) Interpretation/Evaluation — the superintendent’s assessment: on track, off track, or insufficient data, (4) Evidence — the source document(s) supporting the data. Every monitoring report should fit on one page (or one screen); if it does not, the metric is too complicated or the report includes unnecessary detail. If any element is missing, the board should send it back.

Monitoring, Goals, Guardrails, Superintendent Resources: GOTB Ch11

ESB Instrument (Monitoring Question Instrument)

Milestones Dates by when specific inputs or project deliverables are due. Tracked by managerial teams; NOT a governance instrument. When aggregated, the set of all milestones tells the school system how much real time must be dedicated to accomplish the Goals. Milestones are created by initiative owners and tracked through playbooks. Distinct from Interim Goals — milestones measure staff action completion (inputs), while Interim Goals measure progress toward outcomes (outputs).

Initiatives, Playbook, Interim Goals, Project Management vs Progress Monitoring Resources: GOTB Ch7

N

Non-negotiables What Guardrails protect. The community’s values that must not be compromised in pursuit of student outcomes. Not everything is negotiable — the board’s job is to identify and protect the prioritized non-negotiables.

Guardrails, Community Vision Resources: GOTB Ch8

Norm-referenced vs Criterion-referenced Assessment Two frameworks for interpreting assessment scores. Criterion-referenced: answers are compared to fixed standards — every student above a threshold gets the same rating. Ideal for determining mastery of predefined knowledge/skills. Norm-referenced: answers are compared to other students — a student can improve their raw score but see their rating decline if others improved more. Ideal for identifying relative student position. ESB recommends understanding the distinction to avoid conflating the two when setting Goals and interpreting data.

Proficiency, Growth, Comparison, Assessment, Goals Resources: GOTB Ch1

O

Operational Means All the day-to-day decisions and activities of running a school system — hiring, curriculum, scheduling, facilities, transportation. These belong to the superintendent, within the boundaries set by the board’s Guardrails.

Superintendent Work, Managing, Guardrails, Delegation Resources: GOTB Ch8

Operational Updates Reports the board receives about activities. In ESB, operational updates should be written reports distributed in advance — not presented in meetings. The floor is opened only for clarifying questions. They measure adult activity, not student outcomes.

Agenda Design, Board Focus, Adult Inputs Resources: GOTB Ch11

ESB Instrument (Time Use Evaluation)

Outcomes Measures of results that are observable at the end of a cycle. In a school system, examples include end-of-year average daily attendance, whether or not the financials balanced, teacher retention rates, summative assessments, and any other measures of school system results generally knowable at the end of the school year. The third stage in the value chain: inputs → outputs → outcomes. The impact of a program or strategy on the intended beneficiary. ESB’s claim: school systems only exist to improve student outcomes.

Inputs, Outputs, Student Outcomes, Adult Outcomes, Early Outcomes, Mid Outcomes, Late Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Outputs Measures of implementation that are observable in the midst of a cycle. In a school system, examples include attendance, budget updates, usage milestones, quizzes, mid-year surveys, interim assessments, and any other implementation measure that is generally knowable throughout the school year. The second stage in the value chain: inputs → outputs → outcomes. Outputs are not outcomes — they measure implementation, not impact.

Inputs, Outcomes, Student Outputs, Adult Outputs, Early Outputs, Mid Outputs, Late Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Oversight In ESB, oversight of the board’s one direct report — the superintendent — is a legitimate governance role: the board oversees the superintendent by monitoring progress toward its Goals and adherence to its Guardrails. What the board does NOT do is extend oversight below the superintendent — into the departments, operations, and staff the superintendent manages. The board oversees results through the superintendent; reaching past the superintendent to oversee day-to-day operations blurs the board–superintendent distinction.

Governance, Monitoring, Superintendent, Board Work Resources: GOTB Ch4

Ownership The board exists to represent the vision and values of the community as owners. Owners are the people with a long-term interest in the whole system’s success — in a school system that includes residents and taxpayers as well as the families and students the system serves. Many people are both owners and customers; which role they are in is a matter of how they show up in a given moment — a long-term, community-wide interest is owner behavior, while a short-term, transactional request to secure a service for one’s own child is customer behavior. Distinguishing owner issues from customer issues is the work of the board and its certified coach, not something owners are asked to do themselves. Owners are also distinguished from stakeholders: all owners are stakeholders, but not all stakeholders are owners.

Community, Ownership Linkage, Stakeholders, Customer Support vs. Owner Support Resources: GOTB Ch6, Ch19

Ownership Linkage The board’s deliberate, ongoing plan for two-way communication with the school system’s owners. Focused on Goals-related issues (the student outcomes the board sets — what students should know and be able to do). Methods designed to be representative of the full ownership, not reliant on self-selected voices. Two methods: Community Engagement (board-hosted) and Community Outreach (going to the community).

Community Engagement, Community Outreach, Ownership Resources: GOTB Ch19

P

Policy Governance® A well-known board-governance model articulated by John Carver, built around ten principles (Ownership, Position of Board, Board Holism, Ends Policies, Board Means Policies, Executive Limitations, Policy Sizes, Clarity and Coherence of Delegation, Any Reasonable Interpretation, Monitoring). ESB is consistent with these principles and adapts them for elected school boards. Policy Governance® is a registered service mark of its owners; ESB is an independent framework, not affiliated with or endorsed by them.

ESB, Ends, Executive Limitations, Board Holism, Monitoring Resources: PG Consistency Framework (PDF in Knowledge/resources/governance/)

Policy Sizes The board decides policies at the broadest, most inclusive level first, then adds detail only until it reaches the level at which it is willing to accept any reasonable interpretation by the superintendent. A key difference from Policy Governance: PG is exhaustive across all four policy types, whereas ESB is prioritized in Goals and Guardrails — the board adopts just one to three of each rather than trying to cover every possible goal or constraint — while remaining exhaustive in Delegation and Governing. Together these policies replace traditional documents like mission statements, strategic plans, and budgets.

Any Reasonable Interpretation, Goals, Guardrails, Governance Process Policies

Playbook A one-page template per Initiative that tracks the full cascade: Goal → Interim Goal → Initiative → Milestones → Metrics. Each playbook identifies the owning initiative, its outcome/output/input metrics, the initiative owner, budget impact, interdependent contributors, and the problem/solution rationale. Makes the strategic plan a living document that is updated in near-real time. Playbooks are superintendent/staff tools — the board does not adopt them.

Goals, Interim Goals, Initiatives, Milestones, Alignment, Strategic Planning Resources: GOTB Ch7

Proficiency (Goal Setting) One of three ways to construct expectations for student outcome Goals (alongside Growth and Comparison). A proficiency Goal sets a competency threshold and asks what percentage of students reached or exceeded it — usually expressed as being “on grade level” or “passing.” Example: “The percentage of 3rd graders demonstrating on grade level proficiency in reading will increase from 40% to 70%.” Proficiency is the framing boards most often reach for by default — which is exactly why board members should deliberately weigh it against Growth and Comparison and choose the framing that fits each student outcome.

Growth, Comparison, Static Goals vs Cohort Goals, SMART Goals Resources: GOTB Ch10

Position of Board The board is accountable to the owner community – all community members with a long-term interest in the school system – for whether it succeeds. It is not advisory to staff; it is an active link in the chain of command. All authority flows from the board. The board initiates the development of the community’s vision – the student outcome Goals – not the superintendent.

Ownership, Board Holism, Delegation

Professional Services Management The ESB framework for board oversight of external vendors, consultants, and professional service contracts. The board does NOT manage contracts directly — it sets Guardrails for procurement and monitors whether those Guardrails are honored. ESB guidance distinguishes between the board’s governance role (setting boundaries on spending and vendor relationships) and the superintendent’s management role (executing contracts, evaluating performance, ensuring compliance). Key Guardrails typically cover: competitive bidding requirements, conflict of interest prohibitions, performance standards, and reporting frequency.

Guardrails, Board Work, Superintendent Work, Risk Management Resources: GOTB Ch15

ESB Guidance Document (Effective Professional Services Management)

Project Management vs Progress Monitoring An ESB operational distinction. Project Management = tracking inputs/milestones — the day-to-day actions of staff to determine whether tactics are being implemented effectively. A management duty, not a governance duty. Common result: revision of implementation plans. Progress Monitoring = tracking outputs/interim metrics to determine whether the strategy is likely to deliver the desired outcomes. Happens at both managerial and governance levels (with different scopes). Common result: revision of organizational strategy. The board engages in Progress Monitoring, not Project Management.

Milestones, Monitoring, Managing, Initiatives, Interim Goals, Interim Guardrails Resources: GOTB Ch11

R

Reasonable Interpretation See Any Reasonable Interpretation.

S

SMART Goals Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-focused, Time-bound. This is the standard for board-adopted Goals. If a Goal doesn’t meet all five criteria, it’s not a Goal — it’s a platitude that benefits adults politically but not students.

Goals, Student Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch7

SMART Questions A framework for evaluating board member questions: Strategic (about strategic issues, not technical/tactical), Measure-focused (references specific metrics/data), Ask-oriented (open-ended, respectful tone), Results-focused (seeks to understand data, not share opinions), Time-bound (focuses on current or future performance at the appropriate time). The more of these five indicators a question meets, the more effective it is.

Technical vs Tactical vs Strategic, Monitoring, Board Focus, Question Discipline Resources: GOTB Ch11

Skill-based Failures One of three types of board failure in the GOTB framework (alongside Knowledge-based and Mindset-based). Skill-based failures occur when board members have the knowledge but lack the practical ability to apply it — they know what to do but can’t execute effectively. Examples: knowing they should monitor progress but not knowing how to interpret a data dashboard, knowing they should ask SMART questions but struggling to formulate them in real time. Addressed through practice, coaching, structured governance routines, and rehearsal.

Knowledge-based Failures, Mindset-based Failures, Knowledge vs Skill vs Mindset, Board Work Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch2

Stakeholders All parties with an interest in the school system — parents, teachers, staff, community members, businesses. ESB governs by the owner/customer distinction rather than by “stakeholder”: whether someone is acting as an owner or a customer depends on how they show up in a given moment — a long-term, community-wide interest is owner behavior; a short-term, transactional need is customer behavior — and many people are both. The board is accountable to its owners, and distinguishing owner from customer issues is the board’s job.

Ownership, Community, Ownership Linkage Resources: GOTB Ch6

Standards of Completion & Strategic Abandonment Two related resource-management strategies for freeing up time toward Goal-aligned work. Standards of Completion = adjusting expectations about what “done” means for ongoing non-goal-aligned initiatives (e.g., fixing a pothole in a day vs. a week vs. professionally vs. with gravel). Strategic Abandonment = sunsetting an initiative entirely. Both are necessary because staff time is finite — the set of all milestones tells the system how much real time is needed, and adjustments must be made without simply asking people to work more hours. Strategic Abandonment should be driven by strategy, not by staff turnover.

Initiatives, Milestones, Alignment, Goals Resources: GOTB Ch7

Static Goals vs Cohort Goals A goal-setting distinction. Static Goals track a fixed indicator over time, measuring different student cohorts each year on the same metric (e.g., “% of 3rd graders reading on grade level each year”). Cohort Goals track a defined group of students as they move through the system, measuring the same students with different assessments (e.g., “% of the class of 2028 reading on grade level when assessed in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade”). Most people default to static goals. Cohort goals provide insight into how a specific group improves over time.

Goals, Proficiency, Growth, Comparison Resources: GOTB Ch7

Student Inputs Resources and strategies observable at the beginning of a cycle that students deploy. Examples: students’ own course selections made before the term, student selection of learning pathways, opting into tutoring/enrichment cohorts at the outset, student-created plans for their own learning, student-led restorative practices plans, setting a personal study routine/plan at the start of the year. ESB focuses primarily on adult inputs and student outcomes, not student inputs.

Inputs, Adult Inputs, Student Outputs, Student Outcomes Resources: GOTB Ch1

Student Outcomes The sole purpose of the school system. Measures of what students know or are able to do at the end of the cycle. Examples: graduation rates, summative assessment results, AP/IB successful pass rates, college persistence, and other end-of-year measures of what students know or can do. Everything else — adult inputs, adult outcomes, student outputs — must be in service of student outcomes. The central distinction: school systems only exist to improve student outcomes.

Outcomes, Goals, Adult Behavior Change, Adult Inputs, Student Inputs, Student Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1, Ch4

Student Outputs Measures of what students have done or implemented in the midst of the cycle. Examples: classroom attendance, behavior incident rates, assignment/grade checks, benchmark and interim assessment results, on-track/credit-accumulation updates, mid-year student surveys. Student outputs are measures of implementation, not results.

Student Inputs, Student Outcomes, Outputs, Adult Outputs Resources: GOTB Ch1

Strategic Questions (Monitoring) Questions board members ask during monitoring conversations that focus on understanding how system performance aligns to the board’s priorities. Strategic questions examine the data to surface what worked, what didn’t, and what was learned. Examples: “Looking at the data in table 1, which strategy was most effective with our target student population?” “What is a strategy we deployed that didn’t work, given the data in table 2, and what did we learn?” Distinguished from Technical questions (how something is measured) and Tactical questions (how something is done). Effective monitoring conversations invest the majority of time on strategic questions.

Technical vs Tactical vs Strategic, Monitoring, SMART Questions Resources: GOTB Ch11

Strong Outputs vs Weak Outputs A metric quality distinction ESB applies to interim metrics. Strong Outputs measure implementation quality — e.g., “how many students are on-track”; Weak Outputs measure participation — e.g., “how many people attended.” ESB relies on Strong Outputs for interim metrics because they are much harder to game than inputs or weak outputs. Testing whether each interim metric is a Strong Output rather than a Weak Output is one of the standard checks the board and management team run when reviewing whether interim metrics adequately track progress toward a Goal or Guardrail. (Related anti-gaming practice: changing interim metrics every one to three years.)

Outputs, Inputs, Interim Goals, Interim Metrics Resources: GOTB Ch1

Superintendent The CEO of the school system, hired by and accountable to the board. The superintendent manages all operational means within the boundaries set by the board’s Goals and Guardrails. Has the right to any reasonable interpretation of board policies. Is evaluated through the monitoring process.

CEO, Delegation, Any Reasonable Interpretation, Monitoring Resources: GOTB Ch4, Ch11

Superintendent Work Everything that is not board work. Includes: hiring/evaluating staff, curriculum and instruction, budget implementation, facility management, daily operations, community engagement logistics. The board does NOT direct, evaluate, or interfere with superintendent work — it monitors whether student outcomes are improving and Guardrails are being honored.

Board Work, Managing, Delegation, Monitoring Resources: GOTB Ch4

Support vs Surrender A signature ESB distinction. Supporting the superintendent means giving them room to operate within the framework (Goals and Guardrails). Surrendering means letting them set the framework, define success, or establish the boundaries. Support = board holds the what, superintendent holds the how. Surrender = superintendent holds both.

Distinctions, Board Work, Superintendent Work, Goals, Guardrails Resources: GOTB Ch4

T

Technical vs Tactical vs Strategic Questions A three-level classification for board member questions. Technical Questions: ask how something is measured (e.g., validity of an assessment, psychometric properties). Tactical Questions: ask how or by whom something is done (e.g., which staff are trained, how staff feel). Strategic Questions: ask how something aligns to the Goals and Guardrails (e.g., which strategy was most effective for target students, what didn’t work and why). Board conversations should be strategy-focused; technical and tactical questions should be asked and answered outside board meetings via established systems.

SMART Questions, Board Focus, Monitoring, Board Work Resources: GOTB Ch11

V

Vision See Community Vision.

W

Worth (Cost-Benefit) A Policy Governance term: in PG, an Ends policy specifies three elements — the effect (intended result), the recipient (for whom), and the worth (its cost-benefit or relative priority). ESB does not construct its Goals this way; ESB Goals are SMART student-outcome targets built through Proficiency, Growth, or Comparison. “Worth” is therefore a Policy Governance concept, not an element of an ESB Goal.

Policy Governance, Ends, Goals

Z

Zero/Near-Zero-Based Budgeting A budgeting approach recommended after adopting new Goals/Guardrails, where the budget is built from zero (or near zero) each cycle rather than incrementally from last year’s baseline. Ensures maximum alignment between resource allocation and the new priorities. After the recalibration year, a normal incremental budget process is reasonable. Contrast with status quo/line-item budgeting which tends to perpetuate misalignment with Goals. Boards should be suspicious of budgeting processes that haven’t used this approach in decades.

Budget, Goals, Guardrails, Alignment Resources: GOTB Ch15