SOFG Recommendations Get Board Approval (and the Mouse That Roared)

Once again, I slogged through nearly 3 hours of the last Board meeting to bring you the most important highlights (and there are several). I will do a separate post with analysis about what I think it all means.

There were four directors in attendance and three coming in virtually. President Brandon Hersey was one of them and boy, did he sound sick. Director Leslie Harris was also under the weather. They were both visible but, without explanation, Director Michelle Sarju was not present nor was she on video. She was there via audio only.

Superintendent Comments

Nothing that interesting from Superintendent Brent Jones but he did say that he, some senior staff and some Board members all attended the recent Council of Great City Schools conference. (I have done a public records request for the who went and the costs. That's a lot of people to send.) He also referenced Blaine K-8 as "in Ballard" and it's in Magnolia.

The student board director for the evening was Franklin senior, Jenna Yuan. She stated that she and the other student board directors were working on a student newsletter as well as an Instagram account. She reminded AP students about exam registration, SAT scores being available on Nov. 3rd and student safety when walking during darker days when the time change occurs. 

Committee Reports

Hersey said the meetings had been cancelled "due to director obligations" but I suspect it is more that the Board is getting rid of most of the committees. 

Public Testimony

• Two 5th graders from Bryant Elementary complained about the difference among K-5 schools in the ability for kids to wear costumes to school for Halloween. Bryant does not allow it but no reason was given why not. They said that they had written a petition to ask for a change but, as it was being circulated on the playground, someone took it, ripped it into pieces and buried it. They held up the torn pieces. They did mention that some schools have a "Booktween" where students are allowed to dress up as their favorite book characters. I think that a good middle ground.

• Chris Jackins said that the SOFG work, "taken together, look like martial law or a coup." He said that power would be taken from individual directors and the public and given to the superintendent and board president. He said not allowing directors to continue to put forth new policies restricts their free speech rights as well as infringing on their rights under state law as elected board directors. 

He also continued to point out how current BEX school renovations see a shrinkage of playground space for K-5 schools.

• There were three different SPS Nutrition employees who work in different elementaries who came forth to complain about a new SPS directive that chocolate milk be one of two milk alternatives for breakfast (the other being 1% milk). Although the chocolate milk is non-fat, it also contains 11 grams of sugar. Coupled with the cereal choices, in that one meal, a student would come close to the recommended level of sugar for kids in a day which is 24 grams.
  

They pointed out that most other districts do not serve chocolate milk for breakfast. One woman said she was told she would be "disciplined if she did not enforce" this new rule. She said she "simply could not comply." The speakers were Michelle Thompson, Jo-Nell Simonian and Nancy Buran.

• Another kitchen worker, Christina Cusick, complained about the hourly wages they are paid and claimed they were being paid 13% below market wages. And, like other hourly SPS workers, she has two jobs. 

• There were a couple of speakers against the new SOFG governance and one who applauded it but questioned the public engagement. One speaker, Pat Griffith, said it was about the twin issues of "trust and community engagement" which she said are crucial to the plan's success. She asked for them to pause on this work until there are steps towards that engagement. Another speaker, Joanna Cullen, a member of the League of Women Voters, said there just wasn't transparency on this issue. She said now was not the time for the Board to "relinquish operations" oversight. She said that "empowered communities also promote good student outcomes." Manuela Slye said the work was "critical" but said "we want authentic engagement" and that the board had "missed an opportunity to engage with the wider community. "

• Cherylynne Crowther, a Special Education parent, said that family engagement was important and asked for an org chart especially one for Special Education. Why the district can't do this is no mystery; it's a choice they make to avoid accountability. You'd think the Board would hold the Superintendent's feet to the fire on this issue.
•  Ms. Crowther also asked that they share the guide, Getting to Results; A Guide to Special Education in SPS, that the Seattle Schools Special Education PTSA created on navigating services that had been translated into the top 10 languages used in SPS. 

Consent Agenda

As you may recall, the Consent agenda of any board is usually there to move general items, defacto items, etc into one pile with one vote covering all of them. That is what previous Seattle School boards have done. Generally, the Consent agenda vote would come before public testimony.

This Board has decided to hurry things along by putting in nearly every item they can into the Consent agenda basket.  That certainly makes it more convenient for both the Board and the Superintendent. However, it takes an important function out of the public's hands. Namely, one last chance to give viewpoints/information to the directors that might influence their vote on a particular item. 

Under this Board, the Consent agenda position on the main agenda might come before OR after public testimony; I've seen both. But if it its vote comes before public testimony, well, there goes that opportunity. 

What can also happen is that any director, for any reason, can pull one or more items off the Consent Agenda. The president of the Board has to accept that, do it, and move that item to an individual vote.

That's what happened Wednesday night with the three Student Focused Outcomes Governance (SOFG) items that had been placed on the Consent Agenda. Director Leslie Harris had them pulled off and then the Board voted to accept the rest of what was on the Consent Agenda. 

One odd aside here was that when they took that vote, when it came to getting Sarju's vote, there was silence and President Hersey prodded her. You then heard her audio and she said, "I'm in a crisis, what do you need, am I voting?" with the sound of an unhappy child. Hersey said yes and she voted "aye." No idea what was happening but I think it safe to say she was not totally present for that vote. 

The three items pulled off the Consent Agenda were:

1) Approval of Revised Student Outcomes Focused Governance Goals and Guardrails.

2) Acceptance of the Board Ad Hoc Governance Committee’s Recommendations for Implementation of Student Outcomes Focused Governance

This item came with an amendment from Director Lisa Rivera Smith. 

3) 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.

Hersey then went to the first item, the SOFG "Governance Goals and Guardrails."(If you use the link for this item, it gives you the details. Basically, this item would add an "operational" guardrail which would include items like transportation and clean up some language in other guardrails.)

Something to be noticed about the three items is a key phrase in it "The Superintendent will not allow..." That's pretty blunt wording. 

President Hersey then asked Harris about her concerns in pulling these three items off. 

Harris stated that she had heard from many community members who said they do not understand this process and that it was her hope that they could put forth a "short version on this" and added that she would be voting for this change. 

Revised SOFG Goals and Guardrails

Director Vivian Song-Maritz, who was a member of the Ad Hoc committee that worked on this initiative, said that the revised guardrail was about operational systems. She stated that she worked with the Superintendent on this guardrail.

Director Lisa Rivera Smith, in the first of many times during this portion of the meeting, came into the conversation. (She is the mouse that I refer to in the title of this post.) She said she had emailed Jones from the last Board meeting discussion on "what would be considered an initiative." She said, "Coming out of the last meeting I had the impression that there would be a definition of what initiatives are so no future confusion. Dr. Jones did reply and I’ll let him explain."

Jones said he was referencing Guardrail 1. Rivera Smith said that she didn't see that attached to this action "and it would be good to have them there to refer back to that as we carry this out."

This would be the first time, but not the last, that Rivera Smith stood up for clarity on items as well as making sure that if someone was to go to look at what was in any given item, there would be all the information someone would need. Naturally, the now-stripped down minutes probably won't shed a lot of light on the discussion but at least the materials will be there. 

The vote was taken and all seven directors said aye. It passed 7-0.

Acceptance of the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations and Amendment 1. 

During any Board meeting, amendments must be discussed and voted on before the actual items since any given amendment that passes will generally changed that item. The Board discussed Rivera-Smith's amendment first.

Rivera Smith said she accepted the SOFG report. However she said she declined to accept Recommendation 2 in its current form which was:

“Board Members will not introduce new policy work outside of what is legally required and which drives the effective completion of Student Outcomes Focused Governance Model implementation while standing committees are suspended."

Rivera Smith said they discussed this two weeks ago and she brought forth this amendment to exclude just that part in the recommendations. She said, 

"I feel it is irresponsible to ask board members not to bring forward any policy work that they feel is necessary or would benefit the district; I don’t agree on a moratorium on such work. The logic was to make room for other work, however still an inalienable right of ours to work on policy that we see as necessary and I appreciate consideration of this."

Director Liza Rankin then chimed in that it seems like "semantics." During this portion of the meeting Rankin stated her case in a two-fold reasoning, neither of which seemed to fly. 

First she seemed to be trying to minimize the effect that the SOFG work might having, saying, "Nothing in this is changing any policy or binding us anywhere." She continued saying that it makes their work "more efficient." She also said that the members of the Ad Hoc Committee "took on responsibility for the full Board to consider." She didn't seem to consider her word "consider." It was almost like her saying, "look how hard we worked; how dare you challenge any of it." 

She then called on Greg Narver, legal counsel, to weigh in on whether keeping that rec in would disallow the Board to continue to make policy.  

Narver came to the podium and explained that it was for the members of the Ad Hoc Committee to speak to intent but it was the work of prioritizing some things and deprioritizing others by putting them on the back burner. He said the Board would not be giving up its power under state law but it would send a message to staff and the public about the focus for the district. He said, "If unforeseen circumstances come up, the Board retains the power to make necessary policies."

Harris then queried as to who would decide whether or not a policy needs to be brought forward.

Hersey came in and said it would be the president of the Board and the Superintendent (which is exactly what was stated in documentation two weeks ago). He said just one director could bring forward a policy (which is a change from the normal two) and that "“If someone brings something forward to me you know I’m not going block you, know what I’m saying?”

Yes, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Hersey and Hampson's goal that night was to get this SOFG passed and I'm pretty sure they would shade any argument as Hersey did.

Harris came back and said, "I like to believe in my heart of hearts that you would not block but I guess then my next question how in fact is this transparent to the General Public, our staff, our voters and our families? It would appear that we will not have committees at the end of this evening if you count the votes. How is this transparent?"

Hersey put on a tight grin and said, "No one thinks it's personal and no one uses that word but you. It's just work."

Director Chandra Hampson then weighed in, something along the lines of Rankin, saying that the Committee had been meeting through June and "it was open to all the Board" and that "the intent of this structure is to drastically increase transparency and accountability." She said they were setting agendas, not policy.

Narver came back in saying that specific to the adoption of policy, the state statute sets out a plan of reasonably describing the policy, taking public comment and giving Board members time to consider that public comment.

Hampson said that another component was to push staff to get us to 14 days of lead time and this would do that before an item is introduced. She said there are only five days currently. 

What she leaves out is a very complicated schedule of days when directors can ask staff for information as well as the fact that if the Board president and superintendent decide that request isn't valid/important, they can ignore it. 

Rivera Smith said she wanted to stick with what her amendment was about.  She said the language says “board members will NOT" introduce new policy work and so " I feel it’s too strong and I am not comfortable with that language. For me to get to faithfully take this on, I want us to not accept that part of it. I think this is fair and if it’s flexible, why not adhere to this?"

I'll interject here to say that this was all a civil discussion and, in fact, I wondered where the normally dour and feisty Director Hampson went to. But Hampson knew what she needed to get done and so perhaps, Hampson checked herself some that night.

But then Hampson got into it. She said that although they had discussed this two weeks ago she "just" saw this amendment last night and "wasn't aware it was still a concern." 

"One of the things I wanted to point out is that I do believe it important that we provide this respite for ourselves and staff to focus." "Any action we take and specific actions will take place to do the work together and then spending the next 12 + months before we make any massive policy changes."  

She said it just “temporary suspension” during that time to have focus to our core policy manual about how we do our business, what we are considering shifting to and “socializing” of it. She then said something that she has mentioned in the past  - "There is no public engagement policy and no structure for that."

"I hear that there may be things you want to work on but this is not based on individual needs and wants and it should be doing it based on what’s going to work for us as entire Board. And, at the same time, I believe this work you are interested in are part of core policy manual. I don’t see them conflicting."

Quite the word salad there.

She went on, commenting that "we have a history of considering all kinds of resolutions and we are all guilty of it, right, with resolutions and policies that we think are gonna be the one to cause ultimate change instead of coming together and talking about core things to focus on."

To note, SOFG thinks poorly of resolutions so look for those to go by the wayside unless Hampson or Hersey are on-board.

Rivera Smith thanked Hampson saying,  "I'm hearing two things - that there isn't a conflict and yet you guys don't want to pass the alternative motion." She continued, "I’m trying to protect all of us to work on any policy that they feel is necessary."  She worried that then “we shall not do that” will dampen that ability. If there is flexibility about this, why would this be a non-starter?"

She then had some good things to say, speaking of a conversation with Hersey, about being protective of staff bandwidth because "there's a lot to be accomplished in this next year. If I did have some policy work, I would not expect help from staff, clearly there’s a routing process that nobody wants to skip over - legal, financial, etc. - but why is staff necessary to do Board work outside of routing?" She then mentioned getting help from the Board office staff.

Song Maritz came in, saying it was "strong" language and, "as a member of the Committee" that she did not see how relinquishing this language would interfere with the contents of the recs. She then added, "So I feel prepared to do that to help the process forward."

Harris said she worried about the student voice piece and "what about the assignment plan and the weighted staffing formula? Don't those relate directly to student outcomes?" 

And here's where it got VERY interesting.

Hersey said they were getting away from the amendment but those were good questions that had been asked before.

Hampson came in, saying that the work Harris spoke to would remain under the authority of the Board and "how do we resource and draw boundaries to potentially impact student outcomes." She continued, "Neither of us have data that (student assignment boundaries" have impact on students but we know they have an impact on how families feel." She said, "These are decisions we need to make with good engagement and out of this process, we get much stronger community engagement as a Board."

Harris said she was under the impression that the weighted staffing standards work was "starting now." She said she was trying to figure out how Board members could bring resolutions forward "if we don't have Board committees to go through." She also countered, "Do we have data that student outcomes have increased exponentially because of SOFG?" (I assume she means in other districts since it hasn't really been implemented in SPS.)

Hampson comes back, saying "resolution is not good governance and doesn't formally hold the superintendent accountable for things (as we found out in the last month..." She then looked at Jones and smiled. I am not sure what she was referring to and it sure would have been helpful for the public if she had explained. 

She said that policy is "a stronger form." So how to explain that she helped develop a recommendation that would suspend most policy-making and make it dependent on the Board president and Superintendent. 

Hersey tried to back her up on this but clearly, the power for policy-making would be weakened under this particular item.

Rankin said that "policy making doesn't happen a lot" (with a "yup" from Hersey). She said that Washington state has "low requirements for professional development for Board members." She went on, "I'm hesitant to get rid of that in the amendment" and it feels like "already a foot out the door."

Rivera Smith quietly stated that "it's a leap of faith to work as a board and you do have that commitment from me." "I know things need a drastic change and we have the potential to do great things." 

Hersey asked for the vote.  

Song Maritz said she wanted to respond to Rankin's comment, saying "from my perspective as a small group and now the full Board and now to keep the foot in the door of this amendment and keep this moving."

The student board director, Jenny Yuan, who had been sitting quietly and listening to all this then asked to speak. She said she thought "Lisa" was making sense. She said, "I think that if the Board has some flexibility and it's good to have that on paper so there are not future disagreements."

Hersey then took the vote. Rankin was up first and there was a long silence. She said it was "a trust issue moment." "I want to build trust and, for me, it's a violation of trust to vote for the amendment but I don't want to violate my relationships with Lisa." She abstained.

The vote was 4-2-1 for the amendment which passed. 

Acceptance of recommendations of the Ad Ho Committee on SOFG

Hampson decided to deliver yet another lengthy statement, thanking the committee members and staff for the work. She said it was "a positive shift, not about closing gaps but closing the belief gap." She said they need to "decolonize our system to serve students based on their needs." She said there's the belief that the district can't fix society and therefore can only get so far with some students. "This model insists, yes, we can."

Rivera Smith said she wanted to again "reiterate and acknowledge our commitment to do better." She said it was a pity that there has been all this work for over a year and "people think we're just doing this just today. I agree it was not covered by the media and that is regretful and we have a lot of work to do."

I'll pause here to say two things. 

One, I have been covering it.  And I have been the ONLY one covering it and yet it is quite the drastic change. 

Two, there was NOTHING stopping district communications from putting the word out. For Director Hampson to say "all the meetings were open" is lame.  Most were in the middle of weekdays. The agendas were not helpful and the documentation quite dry. Good communications WERE available but the Board and the Superintendent CHOSE not to avail themselves of it.

Rivera Smith finished by saying it will be "very disruptive and it changes everything" and could be "discomforting to people."

Hersey then said there was "huge trust" between students and teachers, parents and educators and those who receive services and "we lack the foresight to replicate that on the Board." He said he was "concerned" about the budget but, at the same time, "all things are interconnected." 

Parents, teachers, is there "huge trust" all around?  

The vote ended up being 6-1 in favor with Harris being the lone no.

Partial/Temporary Suspension of Certain Board Policies

Hampson said, "Hopefully by July, we will have a clearer set of policies." This is fascinating because is the Board going to pay attention to ANY of the day-to-day in the district? Nope, they'll be rewriting and culling policies. FYI, this overhaul of policies happened when Sherry Carr was on the Board and she was quite methodical about doing it right. Feels like Hampson and Hersey can never say anything good about past Boards. 

Rivera Smith said it did look like a lot but they are "small modifications to each one."

Harris chimed in with two concerns. One "we are delaying for 9 months curriculum adoption - are people aware that some curriculum is 25-30 years old and for years that was the first thing cut from the budget?" She then referenced the former CAO and a chart he created showing how far behind the district was on curriculum adoption.

Hampson interrupted, saying there is nothing about any administrative policy. 

Harris asked not to be interrupted and Hampson sat back in her seat. Harris said that this last vote they took has handed a lot of power to the Superintendent and could suspend his evaluation.

Rankin said they can adopt curriculum. 

Hampson sneered at the old method which was first going to "a select group of three Board members," these items will go to the full Board unless they are annual renewals."

Select group of three Board members? You mean like committees? Committee meetings which were open to any and all Board members? Hmmm

Harris asked when there would be a calendar of work sessions that go with the suspended policies to continue their work. 

Hersey brushed her off, saying they would discuss that at the Board retreat on Saturday. He said he had "big hopes from the community engagement committee." Huh, what committee? Harris seemed puzzled as well. Hersey later said info about the committee was at the end of their packet.

Harris asked if the public could go to the retreat and the answer was yes but it won't be videotaped.

Then it was mentioned putting together another Ad Hoc committee - the Community Engagement Committee. Gotta say, this will be one hell of an important committee that could determine what public engagement looks like and who it is for.

Song Maritz said "the public input is really important, we are doing this for the public." Uh, nope. If you read SOFG, public education is NOT about what the public wants or cares about. It's about "the community's values and vision" and student outcomes.  And that "values and vision" have not been ascertained yet. 

Then Song Maritz said something surprising - She said,

At this moment, I don’t think this is the right first step for us. We should be having the retreat first and then community engagement. That would have assuage a lot of concerns. We need to set the Superintendent up for success; if we go this way, we need to do it right. 

She then mentioned reading the book, Leading Change by John Kotter, and he talks about communicating the vision and we have not done that. "I'm voting no because of that."

Hampson then stated something about the work being done here isn't "on behalf of students and the vision and values and it's not about the direct wants and desires and we charge the Superintendent that he is doing that."

Heresey said, "Are we closing the gap and how do we get there?"

Rivera Smith agreed with Maritz Song about "lack of community and we have not communicated it well." She said it "looks scary but it's only temporary and we will keep talking about it and evaluating it." 

Is it only "temporary?" I'd lay odds that it isn't. 

The vote was 5-2 with Harris and Song Maritz voting no.