Writing Goals That Actually Work — the ACTS framework for board goals
November 8, 2027
Most board goals are resolutions dressed up as targets.
I have read hundreds of board goal sets. The pattern is universal. “All students will achieve academic excellence.” “Every student will graduate college and career ready.” “The district will ensure equity and access for all.”
Those are not goals. They are values statements. Values matter. Goals are different.
A goal is a specific, measurable target that the board uses to make governance decisions. Without a real goal, the board cannot hold itself or the superintendent accountable. Without a real goal, the data review protocol, the budget alignment, the escalation framework — all the practices from the October sub-arc — have nothing to measure against.
Here is how to write goals that actually work. The ACTS framework. And here is why November is the month to start.
Three common goal-writing mistakes
Before the solution, the diagnosis. Boards make three mistakes when writing goals.
Mistake one: goals are too broad. “Improve student achievement” is not a goal. It is a direction. A goal needs a specific outcome, a specific population, and a specific timeline. “Increase third-grade reading proficiency from 62 percent to 75 percent by June 2028” is a goal. The board can monitor it, assess progress, and make decisions about it.
Mistake two: goals are not owned by the board. Many goals are written by the administration and presented to the board for approval. The board adopts them without debate. The result is a goal set that reflects operational priorities, not governance priorities. The board does not own the goals because the board did not write them.
Mistake three: goals are disconnected from data. Boards adopt goals in January based on what they hope will happen, not what the data says is possible. A goal that is aspirational but disconnected from current trajectory is a wish, not a target. The board cannot assess progress against a wish.
These three mistakes explain why most board goal sets sit on a shelf. They are too broad to track, not owned by the board, and not grounded in data.
The ACTS framework (Accountable, Clear, Trackable, Specific)
Here is the framework that fixes all three mistakes.
A — Accountable. The board owns the goal. The board writes it. The board adopts it by vote. The board reviews progress against it at every data review. An accountable goal has a named board liaison — one board member responsible for tracking the goal’s progress and reporting at each meeting. Accountability means the board cannot pass the goal to the superintendent and walk away.
C — Clear. Anyone reading the goal can understand what success looks like. No jargon. No educationese. No weasel words. “Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient on the state reading assessment” is clear. “Foster a culture of literacy excellence” is not. Clear goals eliminate interpretation.
T — Trackable. The goal includes a measurement source and a review frequency. The board knows exactly what data it will see and how often. “The board will review district-wide reading assessment data at each regular meeting” is trackable. “The board will monitor reading progress throughout the year” is not. Trackable goals have a data source and a schedule.
S — Specific. The goal names the outcome, the population, the baseline, the target, and the timeline. “Increase the percentage of third-grade students scoring proficient or above on the state reading assessment from 62 percent (spring 2027) to 75 percent (spring 2028)” is specific. Every element is defined. No ambiguity.
A board goal written with ACTS takes about thirty minutes to draft. That thirty minutes will save the board hours of confusion across the entire governance cycle.
November drafting cycle
November is the month to draft goals. Not January.
Here is the November drafting cycle.
Week one of November: the board reviews the data from the October progress monitoring cadence. Every piece of data from the October 4, October 11, October 18, and October 25 posts is relevant. What did the board learn about student outcomes? What did the board learn about budget alignment? What escalated? What did not? The data set from October is the evidence base for November goal drafting.
Week two of November: each board member drafts one goal using the ACTS framework. The board president provides the ACTS template with the four elements labeled. Board members draft individually, then share drafts with each other. Drafting alone prevents groupthink. Sharing reveals gaps.
Week three of November: the board holds a goal-drafting workshop. This can be a regular meeting or a special session. The board reviews each draft goal against the ACTS framework. Goals that do not meet all four criteria are revised or rejected. By the end of the workshop, the board has a draft goal set.
Week four of November: the board shares the draft goal set with the superintendent for feedback. The superintendent reviews for feasibility, alignment with state requirements, and resource implications. The board considers the feedback but retains final authority over goal language.
This cycle produces a goal set that is ready for adoption in January. It gives the board and superintendent a month to work through differences before the adoption deadline.
Connecting goal language to data monitoring framework
The final requirement: goal language must connect directly to the data monitoring framework the board is already using.
Here is the rule. Every goal should name the data source the board will use to monitor progress. If the goal is about third-grade reading, the data source is the state reading assessment. If the goal is about chronic absenteeism, the data source is the district’s attendance reporting system. The data source is written into the goal itself.
Here is why this matters. When the data source is in the goal, the board cannot switch metrics mid-cycle. The superintendent cannot present different data than what the goal references. The board cannot change the measurement because the numbers are not what it hoped.
A goal that says “increase third-grade reading proficiency as measured by the state reading assessment” ties the board’s hands in a good way. It creates accountability. It prevents the kind of goal drift that the mid-year check from last week’s post is designed to catch.
Every goal in the board’s set should pass this test: can the board look at the progress monitoring dashboard and know immediately whether this goal is on track? If the answer is no, the goal language needs revision.
November drafting builds the January goal set. The goal set drives the entire governance cycle. Start drafting now.
Your free CTA: Reply to this email with the keyword ACTSgoals and I will send you the ACTS Goal-Writing Template — a one-page framework with the four ACTS elements, a goal-drafting worksheet, and the November drafting cycle calendar. Use it to draft your board’s 2028 goal set.
Your paid CTA: I offer a Goal-Writing Workshop Facilitation — a ninety-minute virtual session where I facilitate your board through the ACTS framework, review and revise draft goals, and produce a written goal set ready for January adoption. Reply to this email for pricing and availability.
This is post 6 of 12 in “The Governance Operating Cycle: Fall Execution” arc running October through December 2027. The October sub-arc (Data in Motion) covers data review, budget alignment, escalation protocol, and progress monitoring cadence. The November sub-arc (Goal Alignment and Superintendent Partnership) covers mid-year accountability check, goal writing, superintendent check-in, and the Thanksgiving governance reset. The December sub-arc (Year-End Governance and 2028 Preparation) covers the organizational meeting, year-end review, goal adoption prep, and the 2028 lookahead. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Backlinks: This piece is the natural culmination of the November sub-arc opener following last week’s mid-year accountability check (November 1). It builds directly on the October data review practices — the data from posts 1-4 is the evidence base for November goal drafting. It connects forward to the superintendent check-in (November 15) and anchors in the Goal Clarity domain of the ESB Framework — the discipline of writing goals that are specific enough to drive governance decisions and trackable enough to monitor systematically.
Note to RedTeamer: This piece is part of the Fall 2027 governance arc (Oct-Dec). Voice fidelity target: newsletter/TESBM register — AJ’s instructional, direct-address cadence with short declarative openings, “Here is what” patterns, and coaching authority. Verify CTA keyword uniqueness across the full arc (keywords: OctInPractice, BudgetAlign, Escalate, Cadence, MidYear, ACTSgoals, SuptCheck, ThanksgivingReset, OrgMeeting, YearEndReview, JanGoals, 2028Priorities).