Seattle School Board Meeting, 10/12/2022, Part Three

Boy, am I glad I broke this coverage up in sections. The final part of last week's Seattle School Board meeting proved illuminating. This is because we see the cracks in the Board and the disingenuousnessof a couple of Board members.

I also want to point out that the Board and the district have provided mostly lip service to inform parents and the greater community that they intend to move to a Student Outcome Focused Governance method AND what it will mean to all those people and communities. 

This latter part of the meeting was taken up with Introduction items. These are new BARs (Board Action Reports, basically a document for work or initiative that will later be voted on by the Board that the Superintendent and staff will then follow through on, if approved) and there were three of them. They were:

• Approval of Revised Student Outcomes Focused Governance Goals and Guardrails. Approval of this item would approve the revised Goals and Guardrails as attached to the Board Action Report.

• Acceptance of the Board Ad Hoc Governance Committee’s Recommendations for Implementation of Student Outcomes Focused Governance. Approval of this item would accept the recommendations of the Board Ad Hoc Governance Committee for implementation of Student Outcomes Focused Governance, as summarized in this Board Action Report, with attached supporting documentation. During implementation, the Board President and Superintendent will adjust or modify the plan and timeline as needed.

• Partial suspension and temporary modification of Board Policy Nos. 1240, Committees; 1220, Board Officers and Duties of the Board; 1250, School Board Student Members; 1310, Policy Adoption and Suspension, Manuals and Superintendent Procedures; 1400, Meeting Conduct, Order of Business and Quorum; 1420, Proposed Agendas and Consent Agenda; 1620, Board-Superintendent Relationship; and 2015, Selection & Adoption of Instructional Materials; and Board Procedures 1620BP, Board-Superintendent Relationship Procedure, and 1630BP, Evaluation of the Superintendent.

First, these "goals and guardrails" are part of the lauded Student Outcome Focused Governance....which has yet to be approved. A bit of the cart before the horse but that appears to be the MO of this Board. 

What are these?

Vision: Every Seattle Public Schools’ student receives a high-quality, world-class education and
graduates prepared for college, career, and community. 

To note, elsewhere it says,  The community will also have other things it values beyond the vision. 

But then it is stated, The goals and guardrails that emerge from effective school board work serve as the north star against which all decisions and all monitoring are evaluated.

It's unclear to me if 1) the community will have opportunities to tell the Board what else they value and 2) if that will just be time wasted telling the Board if they have already narrowed that vision.

The Board’s goals, as aligned to the vision, are:

• The percentage of Black boys who achieve English Language Arts proficiency or higher on the
3rd grade Smarter Balanced Assessment will increase from 28% in June 2019, to 70% in June
2024.
• The percentage of Black boys and teens in 7th grade who achieve proficiency or higher on the
7th grade Smarter Balanced Assessment in math will increase from 23% in June 2019, to 45% in
June 2024 and to 70% in June 2026 – essentially doubling over 3 years and reaching the
targeted 70% in 5 years.
• The percentage of Black boys and teens in each cohort/class who graduate and also successfully
completed at least one advanced course will increase from 52% in June 2019, to 62% in June
2024

Again, this is great but my question is this - if this was started in June 2019 and we are now done through June 2022, how come there isn't any real accountability on how this is going? The district HAS data; so why not explain exactly where each of those goals are.

Here are the so-called guardrails:

In attaining the Board’s goals, the Superintendent shall not:

• The superintendent will not allow school and district initiatives to go forth without engaging
students of color furthest from educational justice and their families, following stakeholder
engagement principles that are utilizing current adopted best practices.

• The Superintendent will not allow implementation or adoption of any programming that does not
prioritize educational and racial equity.

• The superintendent will not allow adult behaviors in central office, school buildings, or classrooms
that are misaligned with district-wide vision, values, and anti-racism initiatives.

• The superintendent will not allow the use of disciplinary actions as a substitute for culturally
responsive behavioral and social emotional supports for students, with and without disabilities.

• The superintendent will not allow any district department, school building, or classrooms to
provide unwelcoming environments.

Now what all those phrases like "anti-racism" and "unwelcoming environments"  mean is unclear. It would seem, again, that the Board has the cart before the horse. And, I note that Director Hampson's key policy - on anti-racism - isn't even on the agenda anymore

Also interesting is that the SOFG plan WILL have Board director ethics within it. That's probably good to have after the Hampson/DeWolf HIB issue. 

What does the Board want to see in using SOFG for Board meetings?

Shorter BARS. There will be a two-tier system, short form and long form, depending on topic. Now the short form will be for "grants, contracts, final acceptances, legal requirements" and other miscellaneous items that "do not require extensive review." Well, I guess since the Board raised the limit of when they oversee spending - from $250,000 to $1M - it shouldn't be surprising that they think contracts don't need much of a review at all. 

They say that most of the BARs so far in 2021-2022 have not been about policy work. So far there have been 124 and 65 of those were state law/funding, 51 were policy requirements and 8 were by Board preference. So the majority WERE legally required and/or part of Board policy? I don't get it their unhappiness. Those BARs won't go away.

What also is troubling is that in the documentation, there is a long list of the number of days the Superintendent/staff have to get info to the Board, based on directors' requests. I'm suspicious about such a complicated formula. 

On Board resolutions, SOFG says , "This is not a wise method of governance." I wouldn't call resolutions "governance." Resolutions are a way to the Board to speak to issues of the day and stand with community. I think this might come as quite the surprise to many COI and school groups when the Board declines to issue a resolution important to them. 

About input from the public at Board meetings:

The School Board desires to hear the viewpoints of stakeholders throughout the district and considers the
responsible presentation of these viewpoints vital to the efficient operation of the district. 

Because the Board is not the district ombudsman, stakeholders are encouraged to fully utilize meetings with school officials, site councils, and administrative procedures to communicate and resolve issues with the school administration prior to presenting the issue to the Board.

The way I read that is that 1) if a member of the public complains to the Board about a school issue, the Board will not engage if that member of the public cannot prove they have tried the other routes. And 2) not every school has a site council and principals get to have meetings at will. Parents may not have much they can do at the school level. 

On Community Engagement

1) The Board takes responsibility for owner engagement and frees the Superintendent and the District
to focus on customer service, family engagement and partner engagement.
2) The Board creates a proactive engagement opportunity for community rather than a reactive one.
3) The Board learns to engage as a team, rather than as individuals

Now I don't see an explanation of how the Board plans to be more "proactive" given they barely interact with the public as it is.  

And what is the use of assigning directors to regions if they can't really engage with their communities on their own?

Here's more on this from the documentation:

This governance model will return oversight on student outcomes to the board in full view of the public
and operational and managerial functions to the Superintendent, with board oversight. 

This will make it easier for the board, district, and public to identify, diagnose, and address long standing issues, engage productively with each other and the community, and provide more time for the Board to collaborate with other districts in advocacy around state and federal issues that impact public schools.
Some changes will be immediately apparent; others will take time. 

Here are some changes you might see when a Board chooses to turn its governance attention to proactive behaviors that focus on outcomes for students:
• Significantly increased time at board meetings discussing student outcomes
• Transparent reporting to the public on student progress
• Shorter and streamlined board meetings and fewer committee meetings
• Teamwork among the board, superintendent, and senior staff
• A clear distinction between the board’s role and the superintendent’s role
Transparent reporting to the public on the board’s progress in each of the four areas mentioned above

Well, of course there will be fewer committee meetings - they are getting rid of most of the committees.

As well, I wonder what this "teamwork" will look like. 

All action taken by the School Board shall become official at the time it is taken. All school business shall be transacted at Board meetings, and members shall avoid commitments through personal interviews with
individuals which might tend to hamper or embarrass the trustees or to prejudice their decision.

The Board should create, maintain, and implement an annual community engagement calendar.

Community Outreach is defined as: Two-way communication between the board and community
members that focuses on the community’s vision and values and that occurs at a meeting hosted by
community members.

I am sad that the days of being able to go to a director's community meeting and meeting other parents/community and listening to many issues are now gone. I also hope that if the Board is going this route, that they realize if they say yes to one group, they MUST say yes to all.

SOFG will also require Board members to tell the Superintendent about any school visits.

Community Engagement Background and Definitions per SOFG Framework:
Community Engagement (with “Owners”) is defined as: Time invested by the Board in two-way
communication between the Board and community members

Customers: The organization’s recipients of services and/or transactional beneficiaries -- such as
students and staff -- for whom the staff is better positioned to address and/or resolve issues in a timely
and effective manner. In a school system, customers and owners can be the same people, and therefore
care must be taken to distinguish customer issues from owner issues.

This would be parents and, to some degree, students.

Owners: The organization’s moral and legal authority—such as residents and taxpayers—for whom the
board is better positioned to address and/or resolve issues in a timely and effective manner. In a school
system, owners and customers can be the same people, and therefore care must be taken to engage
them in a way that distinguishes between owner and customer issues (Customer issues being best addressed by the Superintendent and staff.)

This would be communities and the general public. 

Board Discussion on SOFG

Director Song Maritz said that they are adding an operations guardrail working with the Superintendent.  She did ask about the phrasing of "not allow operational systems to give unreliable service."

Director Rankin asked well asked about defining "unreliable." 

Jones said as they look at interim guardrails, they will be talking about transportation (bus reliability for example), tech issues (ticket response for example) and HR (substitutes for example). He said there are likely other areas. For myself, I might throw in Nutrition as well as safety.

Director Rivera Smith had a number of questions. To be clear, Hampson, Rankin, and Song Maritz are the Ad Hoc Committee and have been in the weeds with this a long time. So when Rivera Smith asked some questions, Hampson looked at her with distain and said they had done all this back in June. (The implication being that Rivera Smith would know this if she were paying attention.) 

And yet when Rankin asked about when this was to be voted on, no one seemed miffed about that question and Rankin is even on the Committee. I felt a definite sense of irritation from Hersey and Hampson over Rivera Smith's questions (or volume of them, I can't say.)

Oddly, when Rankin asked about questions before the vote, Hersey said, "We should go offline to discuss." This was a pattern in this part of the Board meeting where members talked about discussions away from the public. The Board meeting is where they SHOULD be openly discussing items so the public knows what the thinking is. Hersey went on saying, "If you have questions or concerns, communicate with Director Song Maritz; that's the best way to do it." 

Nonetheless, Rivera Smith persisted. She asked about individual school initiatives and how that would fit/be codified into the work. She said there should be some sub-document for "things to live somewhere." Jones noted this.

Hampson jumped in and said the guardrail definitions are "strategic, not tactical" and based "on the community's value." Which again, has not been defined nor asked about.

Then they discussed the second intro item - the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations.

Director Harris asked to speak, saying she wanted to be clear that there was nothing personal in her remarks but that she has a difference of philosophy with the Ad Hoc Committee. 

She said she DID believe they needed new systems because, historically, there have been issues but she also believes "our voters did not vote us in to make these kinds of wholesale changes." She said they are fundamentally accountable to voters and parents and students in Seattle. 

She stated, "This will probably pass but I won't be joining in on that."

Rankin said she wanted to respond to Harris. Rankin said she those many issues in the past are addressed by these recommendations and she hoped Harris had the time to read the package, being careful to say she knew Harris does her homework. She offered a conversation with Harris. She said she thought they had not been elected to continue to do the same but to do better.

Harris thanked her and said she had read everything and would be declining the offer.

Then there came a very large issue with SOFG. Rivera Smith spoke up again and asked about the suspension of any policy-making while committees are suspended. (After the vote, all committees, save two, will be suspended from doing any work until July 2023.) 

Hampson said if it were a legally required policy, sure, that could happen but "not random, non-legal policies."

Rivera Smith persisted, saying that now they have student board members and she has been working with them on their concerns in order to bring them forward as possible policies. She thinks the Board not making any non-legal policies under this suspension would hurt that work.

Hampston said she understood that but that they don't want to keep two parallel systems going at the same time because of how hard it would be for staff. 

Hampson said that there was nothing stopping Rivera Smith or any other Board member from working with students.

Rivera Smith countered that she did "not want to vote away my right to bring policy forward." She said these student board members were only here for THIS year. 

Rivera Smith said this was hard for her because she agrees with 95% of SOFG but giving away the ability to make policy was "a hard one for me."

Hersey said he understood her hesitation. But he claimed there were so many policies that most of the Board likely didn't know them all and that it was unlikely "that policies are being followed 100% of the time." He, too, told Rivera Smith that nothing was barring her from working with students. 

Then, to my surprise, he said but they are just three of 50K students.  He also made this claim - "My frustration I think is that we all know what we are doing is not working well at all and we have been presented an opportunity to try something different - not permanent, just different."

Try to get him to say that a year from now. I can almost guarantee that the Board members who are gung-ho on this will claim that they've invested so much time and effort and money, that they have try this for at least 10 years. (Hampson says there's a two-year period to get it fully on-board.) 

Then again, to my astonishment, he said "Student voice is great, fantastic, we can include their voice but if the system is not set up for them that's the appropriate outcome." Huh?

He said he was channeling Roosevelt (which one, he didn't say) and that he wanted "to show you rather than tell you." He said that the data showed they are "not getting outcomes for children." He again said, "suspension and temporary" are in the documentation.  

He said the public should know "that we have to take risks for big payoffs." He said he was "looking forward to the day at the end of my term, to say, 'Hey, that was dope'." He said it was akin to students in the classroom who "must engage with the unknown."

Rivera Smith said she agreed with so much in SOFG but if there is "no massaging of this paragraph, then..." She said she didn't want to wait for student voice policy and "why should they wait a year for a policy?" 

Hampson said she would "love to work with" her on this and see if there can be "a better understanding of the outcomes you seek." Then she also surprised me by saying "students are customers and we need for that to be served well by the Superintendent." Wait, what? Why this HUGE push for student board directors and their voices if student needs/issues are to be oversee by the Superintendent?

 She said that staff was "desperate for us to create this space" and that she had "a list of things I want to do while still on the Board." 

Now why am I astonished by what both Hersey and Hampson had to say to Rivera Smith's pushback?

Because over and over, Hampson and Hersey pushed and pushed for more student voice and pushed and pushed for actual student board members.  Hampson talked ad nauseam about "student voice" but when it comes to these students actually being able to do something other than be figureheads for those two - well, nevermind. I find it really self-serving. 

The final item was suspension of some parts of current Board policy which had no discussion.

Board Director Comments

Here's where it got even more interesting. 

Hersey went first and expressed that he was trying very hard to be a good president, mindful that he was the only man on the Board and the only Black man on the Board. He said he tried to be respectful to all directors but that people sometimes spoke out of turn. He asked that they give him a chance and "not degrade the value of the conversation." He claimed it didn't happen when he wasn't president. (I would say maybe not but DeWolf certainly did cut people off from talking.) He asked that they "let him do his job" and "if I mess up, let me know."

He said his status as the only man on the board made him step back and consider how men treat women in this society and "I'm the youngest person on the Board by a bit." 

Then, after nearly five hours of near silence, Director Michelle Sarju spoke up. She said that last week, "You could see that that riveting situation where my behavior was really not representative of how I hope to behave as a board member. I could give many righteous and just reasons but that’s not the point. 

 I got caught up in my emotions that exhibited behavior that I don’t believe is representative of how I want to model for students."

She said it was a "public apology to Luna (Crone-Barón, a student board director) and also to Hersey.

She said that she and Hersey had a 35 minute conversation about the incident. She said she did something "that I tried very hard not to do" and "I marginalized Hersey by pointing out his age. It is not right and doesn’t matter if fact is fact "and that she wanted "to be in my integrity and model what it looks like to be elected official but also an adult and elder."

Then she turned to the student board member there and said, "I hope Nassar you won’t have to witness that and I can’t promise it won’t happen again." She went on about Nassar exhibiting good behavior for kids in elementary and middle school, almost lecturing Nassar. She finished by saying, "You can always check me and we are colleagues on this dais."

It was an interesting apology with a lot of sidebars to it. 

I did ask the Board office what meeting this was so I could view it as Sarju suggested but alas, they told me to write to her and ask. Sarju never answers emails so that's out.

Director Harris said she had had a good lunch with the Mayor's Special Rep, Tim Burgess. Burgess is in charge of Memorial Stadium as well as the DOJ consent degree. 

Then she veered off into advocacy for dual language programs especially in her region, saying they don't have "the political pull of other communities." No idea who she is speaking of. 

She also said that yes, SPS enrollment numbers are down but "we didn't lose that many students as we expected to" this year. Well bully for that, I guess. She seems to blame the loss on gentrification. 

Rivera Smith said it was the end of the month celebrating Hispanic heritage and she was pleased with the number of schools who "actively celebrated." 

Wrap-Up

If you read this far, then you know that the die is cast for SOFG.  Basically it means:

• Big changes in how parents and the public will interface with the Board and the district. 
• Big changes in the amount and depth of information coming out to parents and the public. 
• Fewer opportunities for informal interaction with Board members. It's gonna get a lot more buttoned up.

One last thing. There had been a couple of "cohort governance meetings" scheduled for next week but it was noted that they would be closed to the public.  I believe it was stated on the Board calendar because there could be a quorum of directors. There was no explanation as to why they would be closed; I did ask and there was no reply. And now they have disappeared off the Board calendar.  Hmmm.