At a public forum, superintendent finalists said improving student academic performance requires stronger curriculum alignment, better data systems and more classroom-level monitoring.

Why it matters: Candidates argued that district gains depend on a robust through line from central office goals to classroom practice; without aligned curriculum and data teams, they said, schools will be designed to produce current outcomes rather than higher student achievement.

Candidates’ approaches: Dr. Schwartz pointed to a prior four-year period of rapid growth in the district and credited sustained curriculum investment, alignment and a stable core of leaders. “Teachers had the materials. They had aligned curriculum,” he said, and urged restoring a district-level through line that connects central office, building leaders and classroom teachers.

Dr. White described using the Data Wise process in other districts and recommended a systematic, root-cause approach to identify problems, test interventions and course-correct. He said district results should not be a surprise if monitoring is done throughout the year.

Dr. Lewis framed achievement improvements around equity and subgroup monitoring. He said he examines subgroup data first, arguing that if subgroups do well the general population will follow. He emphasized urgency and clear, measurable expectations tied to professional development and accountability.

Monitoring and visibility: All three urged frequent school visits and classroom walkthroughs to verify implementation. Candidates said district and school data teams should review progress and work with teachers, paraprofessionals and office staff to surface accurate, actionable evidence.

No formal commitments: The forum served as candidate statements of approach; no curricular adoptions, budget allocations or board actions were taken.