The Second Data Review Is Different From the First — Here’s What’s Changed
May 5, 2027
February’s first data review was about establishing a cadence. The board agreed on the data format, the trajectory comparison, the decision recording protocol. The question was simple: are our adopted goals on track, and if not, what adjustments does the board need to make?
May’s data review is different. The board has five months of student outcome data. The board has a budget-to-actual report in the goal-alignment format set up in April. And the board has the mid-year governance check-in findings, which identified specific adjustments the board committed to making. The May data review asks a more demanding question: are the board’s resource allocation decisions producing the trajectory the board committed to in January?
That’s the difference between monitoring and evaluating. February was monitoring. May is evaluating.
What the May data review includes that February didn’t
Three elements are new in May.
Five months of trajectory data. February’s review had two months of data — January and February. That’s enough to establish a baseline but not enough to identify a trend. The May data review has data from January through May — five months of student outcome data for each adopted goal. The board can see not just where students are, but whether the trajectory line has been moving in the right direction month over month. A goal that has shown improvement in four of the last five months is on a trajectory that should continue. A goal that has shown improvement in one of the last five months is not on a trajectory — it had a single good month and needs a structural change, not more time.
Budget-to-actual data in goal-alignment format. The February review didn’t include budget-to-actual data because the fiscal year was only two months old and the monitoring infrastructure hadn’t been set up. The May review includes the first full budget-to-actual report in the format the board agreed to in April. The board reviews each goal’s budget allocation against actual spending, alongside the goal’s student outcome data. The question becomes direct: for the early literacy goal, the board allocated $X. The district spent $Y so far — 45% of the budget consumed at 40% of the fiscal year elapsed. Student reading proficiency is tracking at 1.2 percentage points above trajectory. Are the resources producing the result?
The mid-year adjustment results. The February data review produced the board’s first recorded decisions. The board committed to adjustments — reallocation of meeting time, redistribution of board member contributions, calendar integrity improvements, communication discipline reinforcement, governance model alignment exercises. The May data review is the first opportunity to evaluate whether those adjustments produced results. Did the board complete every governance event on schedule in March and April? Has board member participation balanced since the February check-in? Did communication discipline hold during the budget cycle? The May data review incorporates this information because it affects how the board evaluates the superintendent and how it closes the governance year.
How the format changes
The February data review format was straightforward: goal, data, trajectory, decision. The May format needs to accommodate the additional data streams.
The format I recommend for May:
| Component | Source | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Adopted in January | What did the board commit to? |
| Student outcome data | January through May | Where are students now? |
| Trajectory comparison | January baseline to May | Is the line moving in the right direction? |
| Budget-to-actual | Goal-alignment report | Is the resource allocation on track? |
| Resource-to-outcome check | Combined analysis | Are the resources producing the trajectory? |
| Board decision | Recorded in minutes | What does the board direct? |
The board reviews each goal through this six-component lens. The resource-to-outcome check is the new column — it’s where the board connects the student outcome trajectory to the resource allocation trajectory. A goal that shows improving outcomes and on-track spending is working. A goal that shows improving outcomes and underspending means the board should ask whether more resources would accelerate improvement. A goal that shows stagnant outcomes and full spending means the resources aren’t working and the board needs to consider reallocation.
What the board should prepare
The May data review requires more preparation than February’s because the data is more complex. Here’s what I recommend the board do in the week before the meeting.
First, confirm that the budget-to-actual report is prepared in the goal-alignment format. The superintendent should have the report ready five business days before the data review meeting. Board members should receive it with the agenda packet.
Second, each board member should review the data individually before the meeting. The February review was exploratory — board members learned the format together. The May review is evaluative. Board members need to come prepared with observations about each goal’s trajectory and any resource-to-outcome discrepancies they’ve identified.
Third, the board president or data review facilitator should prepare the decision record. The February decisions should be on the table. The question for each goal is not just “what do we decide now?” but “did our February decision produce the result we expected?” A board that evaluates its own past decisions is a board that is learning.
What the data review produces
A successful May data review produces three things.
First, recorded decisions for each goal. The board either confirms the trajectory is on track, directs an adjustment to the resource allocation, directs an adjustment to the goal strategy, or schedules a deeper review for a specific goal at a future meeting. Each decision is recorded in the board minutes with the rationale.
Second, a documented connection between resource allocation and outcome trajectory. The board leaves the meeting able to answer the question: for each adopted goal, are the resources producing the expected results? That answer goes into the governance records and the community progress report.
Third, specific input into the superintendent evaluation. The data review reveals whether the district is executing the board’s direction effectively. That information is governance data — not personnel data — that the superintendent evaluation process incorporates.
Your free CTA: Reply to this email with the keyword DataReview2 and I’ll send you the Second Data Review Facilitation Guide — a complete meeting script covering the six-component review format, the February-to-May comparison framework, the budget-to-actual integration protocol, the decision recording template, and the board member preparation checklist.
Your paid CTA: I offer a Data Review Facilitation Coaching Session — a ninety-minute planning call covering the combined outcome-and-budget review format, the board member preparation process, the decision recording system, and the integration of data review findings into the superintendent evaluation. Reply to this email for pricing and availability.
This continues the May Governance to Impact arc: spring execution and fiscal year close. Monday’s piece opened the arc with the May-through-June sprint framework. Today’s piece covers the second data review. Monday May 10’s piece covers the practical framework for combining budget-to-actual data with student outcome data in the data review meeting. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Backlinks: This piece is the practical execution of the second data review previewed in the Apr 26 Spring arc closer and the Jan 27 governance roadmap. The six-component review format extends the February data review methodology from the Feb 3 and Feb 5 pieces. The budget-to-actual integration leverages the monitoring setup from the Apr 21 post-adoption budget monitoring piece. The mid-year adjustment evaluation connects to the Apr 14 mid-year check-in and the Apr 19 five-indicator evaluation piece. The decision recording protocol continues the standard established in the Feb 3 first data review piece.