Superintendent Keisha Murphy presented a consolidated, revised set of superintendent goals during the Cincinnati Public Schools Board of Education meeting on Feb. 1, outlining targets tied to state standards and the district's strategic plan.

Board members pressed for clearer, measurable benchmarks and a consistent scoring approach that the board can use during the superintendent's annual evaluation.

Murphy told the board she combined previously separate goal sheets to match Ohio standards for superintendent evaluation, grouping items under continuous improvement, communication and collaboration, policies and governance, instruction and other areas. She said instructional goals pulled the five targets from the district strategic plan into the instruction section and that several numeric targets had shifted following board feedback. "Goal 1 around third grade reading, you'll see I hope you can see that's blue is a shift based on some feedback," Murphy said.

Board members asked for greater precision and a rollout timeline. Board member Klassick suggested adding a measurable instrument from instructional rounds next year to gauge curriculum use and recommended reassessing numeric targets when the state report card is released in the fall rather than changing them midyear. "I don't want to feel like we're putting a superintendent in a position where we're moving the goalposts in the middle of the game," Klassick said.

Vice President Bolton and several other members urged using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) language where possible. Murphy said she could provide SMART formulations for areas where baselines are available but cautioned that for some topics she lacked immediate baselines in her first months on the job.

Members also debated whether the five goal areas should be scored collectively or separately. Murphy said her preference would be to treat the five domains as part of a single, weighted evaluation of the superintendent's overall work: "If I had my dream ... I would love it if they could be considered or weighted evenly, in the overall evaluation of my work as a as a complete body of work." Board members signaled interest in defining a consistent rubric with discrete rating bands (for example, numerical tiers such as 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) rather than a binary satisfactory/unsatisfactory outcome.

Several members requested a schedule for revisiting and finalizing the metrics, with multiple board members asking that goal reassessment align closely to the state report card release in September/October. Murphy and Treasurer Wagner were directed to present additional details on the instructional goals and scoring mechanics at a future meeting.

The board did not take a vote on the evaluation metrics at the Feb. 1 meeting; members said they expected the topic to return for further discussion and finalization.

Looking ahead, board members asked for more explicit sub-goals under the non-instructional standards so the board can consistently evaluate progress across all five domains rather than only the instructional measures. Several members emphasized that the board should produce a coordinated annual calendar for goal setting and reassessment tied to state data releases.