Spring Data Review — The Third Progress Monitoring Check-In of 2028
2028-05-03
Last week, your board confirmed the calendar. The data points were named. The format and availability dates were confirmed. The decision protocol was reviewed.
Now the data is here.
This is the third Progress Monitoring check-in of 2028. It is the most consequential one yet.
Here is why.
What three data points tell you that two could not
The January check-in gave your board the fall baseline. You knew where students started the year. You set measurable goals from that baseline.
The March check-in gave your board the winter growth snapshot. You saw the trajectory for each adopted goal. You knew which interventions were gaining momentum and which were tracking below the projected rate.
The May check-in gives your board the spring benchmark. Three data points — fall, winter, spring — tell a complete story that two data points cannot.
Here is what I mean.
With two data points, you have a line. You know whether the trend is up, flat, or down. You can project forward and make a rough estimate of year-end outcomes. But you do not know whether the trajectory is accelerating, decelerating, or holding steady.
With three data points, you have a curve. You know not just the direction but the rate of change. You can answer the questions that matter most for year-end decision-making:
- Is the intervention producing accelerated growth in the spring semester, or has it plateaued?
- Are the subgroups that were off track in winter catching up, falling further behind, or holding at the same gap?
- Which goals are on track to meet the year-end target, which are within striking distance with an adjustment, and which are unlikely to reach the target without a fundamentally different approach?
The May Progress Monitoring check-in is where the board stops observing trends and starts projecting outcomes with confidence.
How the board reads spring data
Here is the exact format I recommend for the May data review.
Step one: One-page goal dashboard.
The superintendent prepares a single page for each adopted goal. The page has four elements:
- The goal statement and the year-end target
- The fall baseline data point
- The winter growth data point
- The spring benchmark data point
No commentary. No interpretation. Just the numbers, in sequence, so every board member sees the same data in the same format.
Step two: Year-end projection for each goal.
The superintendent presents the projected year-end outcome based on the spring trajectory. This is not a guess. It is a calculation: if the growth rate from winter to spring holds through the final quarter, where does the goal land?
Some goals will project above the target. Some will project at the target. Some will project below.
The board needs to see all three categories clearly.
Step three: Board discussion — maintain, adjust, or escalate.
For each goal, the board answers one question: Given the spring data and the year-end projection, does the board maintain the current course, adjust the strategy, or escalate to a structural conversation?
A goal that is on track or above target: the board confirms the current direction and asks the superintendent to report on sustainability — is the intervention scalable, or does it depend on a specific resource that may not be available next year?
A goal that is off track but within striking distance: the board asks the superintendent to propose specific adjustments — increased intensity, targeted reallocation, extended timeline — and report back within two weeks with a revised projection.
A goal that is significantly off track: the board acknowledges that the year-end target is unlikely to be met and asks a different question — what does the board need to learn from this goal for the next goal-setting cycle? What structural factors — resource allocation, strategy selection, implementation fidelity — contributed to the gap, and how does the board prevent the same gap from recurring in 2029?
What I watch for in May data reviews
I have facilitated spring Progress Monitoring check-ins in districts across the country. I have watched boards handle spring data well, and I have watched boards handle it poorly.
Here is what separates the two.
The boards that handle it well do not spend the meeting arguing about the data. They accept the data as presented — verified by the superintendent, reviewed by the administration, and presented in the one-page format — and they move immediately to the decision question: What does this mean for our goals?
The boards that handle it poorly spend the meeting interrogating the data methodology. They question the assessment, the sample, the timing, the comparison. They burn the meeting time that should be spent on decision-making by debating whether the data is true — a debate they are not equipped to resolve and that produces no outcome for students.
I have watched a board in Springfield (MO) handle this well. Their board president opens the May data discussion with a single statement: “The superintendent has verified this data. Our job is not to verify it again. Our job is to decide what to do with it.” That single sentence saves thirty minutes of debate and redirects the entire meeting to productive decision-making.
What the board produces from the May check-in
The May Progress Monitoring check-in produces one written finding.
The finding names each adopted goal, the spring data point, the year-end projection, and the board’s decision: maintain, adjust, or escalate.
This finding goes into the board packet as the foundation for the June superintendent evaluation conversation. It tells the superintendent — and the community — that the board reviewed the data, made decisions, and recorded those decisions for the record.
A board that produces this finding enters the June evaluation with evidence. A board that skips it enters the June evaluation with impressions.
What comes next
The May data review answers the question of where the district stands relative to the adopted goals. Next week’s piece answers a different question — whether the dollars the board allocated in the April budget produced the results the board expected.
The spring data is on the table. The year-end projections are calculated. Next week: the Budget Outcome Review.
Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Your free CTA: Reply to this email with the keyword SpringData and I will send you the Spring Data Review Toolkit — the one-page goal dashboard template, the year-end projection worksheet, the maintain-adjust-escalate decision protocol, and the written finding template referenced in this piece. Use it to conduct the third Progress Monitoring check-in of 2028.
Your paid CTA: I offer a Spring Data Review Facilitation Session — a single virtual session with your board president, superintendent, and data team to finalize the one-page data dashboards, run the maintain-adjust-escalate protocol for each goal, and produce the written finding for the May board meeting. Reply to this email for pricing and availability.
This is piece 1 of 5 in the Spring Data Review & Evaluation Preparation arc. It builds from the April 26 Calendar Check (view the April 26 piece), where the board confirmed the data points, the format and availability dates, the decision protocol, and the evaluation evidence timeline. This piece opens the spring Progress Monitoring check-in — the third of 2028 and the most consequential for year-end projections. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.