Anaylsis of Seattle School Board Decision to Bring "Student Outcome Focused Governance"

 Several things are clear about this decision that the Seattle School Board made - not unanimously - last Wednesday night at their regular Board meeting.

• There is not a united front on this issue.

It seemed pretty clear that Director Chandra Hampson was the driver of this initiative and, on that night, wanted a united vote. But, true to form, when she realized she wasn't going to get that, she tried to make it personal. This is exactly what President Brandon Hersey said wasn't happening (and he seemed to laugh at Director Leslie Harris for her saying her hesitation wasn't "personal").  Hampson twice insinuated that some directors had "individual wants and desires" and it was that attitude blocking progress.

From the Board meeting, I got the vibe of "we gotta do something." Hersey, Rivera Smith, Hampson, Rankin - all seemedto say this. But the problem is we were never told if there were OTHER options. I tried very hard to keep up and I never heard of another idea. Personally, I could have thought of some other paths to try first before this one. 

Also, only Hampson gave any specific reasons why she likes SOFG. I didn't hear any real specifics from any other director. I will also note that Director Michelle Sarju had not a single thing to say the entire Board meeting, other than voting. I know it might seem that I'm picking on her - I'm not - but it's striking how silent she remains on every issue at every single meeting.

As well, Director Harris never got her question answered at the Board meeting and it's one that voters should ask - which districts that are already using SOFG have seen notable positive outcomes from it? Both Hampson and Hersey - who should know - ignored that question.

• A clear lack of public engagement.

There is NO, ZERO, ZILTCH excuse for this.  All this hand-wringing at this late date by Board directors falls flat. It's difficult to know how hard any individual director pressed the Ad Hoc Committee on this point. Even the former head of the Seattle Council PTSA, Manuela Slye, expressed concern about this issue at the Board meeting.

 

The Board could have had drafted press releases about SOFG. I did a search of the SPS News Archives and found no story about it. 

 

The Board could have asked the Superintendent to help them coordinate public engagement at the start of this school year. That clearly didn't happen.

 

I know from viewing some of the Ad Hoc Committee meetings on SOFG that public engagement was not high on the list. The only "engagement" I saw was Hampson demanding that everyone be on video for her mid-day meetings on SOFG. I politely declined and did not attend another meeting of hers.

It's laughable that NOW - after the vote - they will bring together a committee on public engagement. Keep in mind this is NOT going to be just to inform parents and the public about the changes coming under SOFG. 

It's more likely to inform parents and the public what public engagement will look like going forward in SPS.  

Meaning, it's likely that parents will be told NOT to contact their Board members with school-based concerns/situations. That's now the job of the Superintendent. So unless Superintendent Brent Jones is planning to expand the Ombudsperson office to handle all those diverted emails from parents, the answer to public engagement on an individual level seems to be - talk to the hand.

(I note that, under SOFG,  members of the PUBLIC can contact Board directors with issues because the public are clients of the directors while parents are clients of the Superintendent.)

I suspect public engagement will be VERY tightly controlled. There will be no open forums. There will be facilitators controlling the limited and hyper-specific topics at any given meeting.

Naturally, there will be NO more community meetings with individual directors. If a director does that, it will go against SOFG. Or, a director could have them but all it would be is "I'm listening." If there can be no action to back up that listening, it's a waste of any parent or member of the public's time to show up.

As well, I believe that the community engagement will start with specific communities even though there are parents with students in every school in this district. One good current example is Mercer Middle School which apparently is sorting parents for Parent-Teacher Conferences. 

• The struggle between being a united Board versus the fact that every Board member is elected singly. 

This will come into focus next November when a majority of the Board seats - Hampson, Rankin, Rivera Smith and Harris - will come up for election.  SOFG undermines that vote by vote for each member. 

 

It's puzzling that Director Liza Rankin called out Washington State law as being lax on professional development requirements for school board directors. I note there is a non-profit called the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA), a state agency, per chapter 28A.345 RCW. They have MANY school board director and board development opportunities. 

 

 If Rankin was so dismayed over the lack of legally required professional development for directors, why didn't she write a policy for SPS directors on her own? I'm sure the other directors would have welcomed it. 

On public engagement, watch for a full court press now that SOFG has been adopted. Why? Because now, especially for those members whose terms end next November, they need to get out the message about WHY this is a great move and WHY parents and members of the public should cool their heels while this at least 2-3 year process rolls out.  If they run, look for Hampson and Rankin to say they must be reelected because they know so much about SOFG and are needed to make sure it is enacted properly.

And that brings me to the next issue - the Superintendent.

• How will the Superintendent be held accountable for "outcomes?"

At the Board meeting, Hampson coyly alluded to some kind of recent accountability for Jones on some issue but there were no specifics. 

I know there will be some kind of matrix for his work but what will that look like from the outside? Will there be regular interval check-ins and explanations of how Jones is being held accountable? 

Because when we look at Seattle Excellence, the district's current strategic plan which started in 2019, I have seen no real public information about how that targeted universalism for Black boys in SPS is going. Surely by now there is data on that. 

If the Board is not holding the Superintendent accountable for that, why should anyone believe he will be held accountable under SOFG?

Lastly,

• The consultant at the heart of SOFG- A. J. Crabill

I am going to write a separate post on Mr. Crabill because there is quite a bit to say. Quite the character. But one thing to know right now is that he has the tendency to blame boards when things don't go well. It's THEIR fault it's not working for their district because they are not strictly adhering to SOFG guidelines. 

As well, from other districts' experience, he gets paid one sum if a board follows guidelines but he receives another - much larger sum - if they don't. That certainly works out well for him. (I do have a public disclosure request out for the contract but I suspect it's the same from district to district.)