One of the things that every school board aims to achieve is better student outcomes. There’s one thing to aim for and another to actually achieve it. The challenge is not in making the statement; it’s in proving it. And proof, in governance, comes down to measurement or, in better words, metrics.
Most boards have been using the same screen for decades: budget compliance, attendance rates, graduation rates, and maybe a few program changes. These are helpful, but they don’t tell you everything you need to know about a board’s performance in its main job, which is to improve what students know and can do.
Airick Journey Crabill, a national leader in governance reform, argues that if boards want to remain relevant and effective over the next decade, they must rethink what success looks like and how it’s tracked. He states that metrics define priorities and if that is off or ill-balanced, then so will be your focus, ultimately affecting the final outcome.
The Problem with Legacy Metrics
Content success metrics are usually designed for compliance and not so much for transformation. Financial audits and regulatory benchmarks may keep an organization in good standing with state authorities, but they do little to signal whether students are actually learning at higher levels.
When boards put too much weight on operational signs, they run the risk of mixing up stability with growth. AJ Crabill puts forward his concern, saying that a district can be financially sound and organized but can still fail to equip students for the future, which is a dangerous blind spot.
That distinction matters more now than ever. In the decade, there will be more competition for talent, changing needs in the workforce, and more pressure from communities expecting public education to adapt. In such a scenario, dashboards will not be enough to guide that adaptation.
Metrics Must Be Purpose-Built for Student Impact
To redefine success, boards must design metrics that keep student achievement, not adult convenience, at the center.
For Airick Journey Crabill, this means having clear, time-bound goals for literacy and numeracy gains that are broken down by student group to make sure everyone is fair. It signifies monitoring college and job preparedness with the same rigor as budget health.
Boards must also connect these metrics directly to decision-making cycles. If quarterly progress reviews reveal gaps, those insights should shape resource allocation, superintendent evaluation, and policy priorities in real time.
Beyond Academics: Whole-Student Readiness
Even if academic competency is still crucial, the next generation of school board metrics will need to reflect a broader definition of readiness.
Critical thinking, computer literacy, and social-emotional competence are among the abilities necessary for surviving in a complicated, linked economy. These are essential to Airick Journey Crabill’s mission and not “extras.” He says that they’re not preparing students for yesterday’s jobs; they’re preparing them for the future.
Integrating these metrics without lessening the emphasis on academic mastery is crucial. Boards should target a small number of high-impact outcomes that are closely watched rather than trying to measure everything.
Setting the Standard for the Next Decade
In the future, boards that view their metrics as a strategic compass rather than a checklist will be the ones that lead successfully.
This implies:
- Centering on student outcomes as the primary definition of success.
- Embedding metrics into policy so they endure beyond individual terms.
- Aligning decision-making cycles with regular performance reviews.
- Reporting transparently to build community trust.
- Guarding focus by limiting the number of core measures.
These steps demand discipline, but they also create clarity – both for the board and for the community it serves.
Transparency Is The Key
Metrics are powerful surely, but a lot of it depends on the transparency with which they’re reported.
More often than not, data is buried in lengthy board packets or presented in a way that obscures its meaning to the public. When communities cannot see a clear link between board priorities, the measures being tracked, and the results being achieved, trust erodes.
According to AJ Crabill, boards should make their performance criteria clear and accessible. He believes that if a parent, teacher, or taxpayer can’t quickly tell whether the district is on track to meet its goals, the board is responsible in some way.
Public dashboards, regular community briefings, and plain-language reporting can transform metrics from internal tools into shared commitments.
Closing Perspective
Public education faces a defining decade. Whether it’s a shift in demographics or technology or workforce needs, it all challenges schools to adapt at a pace that they haven’t experienced before.
The opportunity, as AJ Crabill frames it, is for boards to reimagine their role as stewards of measurable, enduring student success. He states that when a board defines success clearly and measures it relentlessly, it sends a message: We are here for the students. And here is how we will prove it.
The proof, ultimately, will not be in mission statements or campaign slogans. It will be in the metrics and in the outcomes those metrics drive.
