This is What the Seattle School Board Deems the Most Important Work

 There was this recent comment from a reader:

Melissa, you might be interested to know that a bunch of schools have to displace teachers and close classrooms, reshuffling kids after the October Count. Way too many given that the numbers were IN PLACE IN AUGUST and in some cases, even last spring. So now kids' learning - as well as teachers and school programs - are massively disrupted as displacements and additions happen. It's incredibly frustrating. Last year seemed more unstable so reasonable, but there is really no excuse at all this fall. One more case of someone not doing their jobs at JSCEE.

Apparently, they added an HCC 1st Grade at Decatur late in the game, even though they are supposedly sunsetting that program, further destabilizing numbers at neighborhood schools.

Also special - when this happens teachers have 24 hours to move themselves and their stuff to a new building, with no support from SPS at all.

This is sad to hear from parents. My take is that the district is really getting into dire financial straits. My big guess would be the loss of students is taking its toll. You'd think this year might have seen some stabilization of the losses that happened during COVID but if the district keeps stripping down offerings, many parents will vote with their feet.

 

There is no real certainty for parents about what Seattle Public Schools is now as a district. I think schools and principals and teachers know very well that students need consistency in what to expect from their schools more than ever. But that message doesn't seem to be what is happening at JSCEE. 

The Board is not paying any real attention to what is happening in schools, not even ones in their district. Nope, this post is about SOFG.

Exhibit 1 - Student Outcome Focused Governance (SOFG)

The Board and the administration have been working on this issue for well over a year and now say they won't have it fully rolled out until November 2023. Before I deep dive into the topic, two big points.

1) Who gets to decide what is or isn't "student outcome focused" work? Because I think that good building maintenance impacts students. So does physical and mental health. So does making sure that all the accounting is done properly so that the dollars do drive out to schools. You could make many arguments, for and against, what is and isn't SOF work. But somehow, this Board and this Superintendent will decide and woe to anyone who disagrees.

2) I'll lay odds that when current directors who choose to run again next year are on the campaign trail, they will say, "You MUST reelect me because I know all about SOFG and it's crucial to have people who understand it thoroughly." Just wait for it. 

I do want to say that yes, as a very long-time district watcher, there sure could be improvements to communications, how Board meetings run, how the Board focuses its work, etc. But this is flip-the-table stuff that is costing a lot of money for consultants and reformation of the district.

I sat in on some of what was said to be the last SOFG (Student Outcome Focused Governance) Ad Hoc Board meeting last Thursday. It included the committee chair, Chandra Hampson and members, Liza Rankin and Vivian Song Maritz. It also include Superintendent Brent Jones and Board president Brandon Hersey.

What is coming is a BAR to the full Board on this issue at the next Board meeting on Wednesday the 12th. There was a discussion over exactly what the Board was voting on.

Oddly, Cathy Jimenz, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, said about community engagement "when we come to that, we come to that." Well, it certainly looks like she is right because the community engagement about this huge change has been very small. As well, Hampson continually speaks of "the community's vision" while never explaining what that is and how it was obtained.

Director Rankin tried - twice - to say that the Board vote should be to accept ALL the work of the Ad Hoc Committee as is, saying "We don't want to leave space for people to change their minds." Meaning if other directors should disagree, Rankin wants their voices not to count.

In the past, when a committee moved an item as approved onto the full Board, the Board took the work of the committee very seriously. However, it NEVER meant that the full Board would rubberstamp just anything and yet this is very clearly what Rankin was pushing.

Hersey said this work was "complete" but that there may be "particular pieces to vote on."  He did not elaborate.

One thing I'd like to know - where is the SEA in all this? Because all this change will surely affect their work.

This BAR coming up at the next Board meeting is 237 pages. And I looked at all of them and found lots of interesting reading. I read it so you don't have to (unless, of course, it's your heart's desire, if so, go for it). 

BACKGROUND (via the BAR)
Why did Seattle Public Schools begin the Student Outcomes Focused (Policy) Governance Model implementation?

Effective school board governance is premised on two beliefs:

First, school systems exist to improve student outcomes. That is the only reason school systems exist. School systems do not exist to have great buildings, happy parents, balanced budgets, satisfied teachers, student lunches, employment, or anything else. Those are all means—and incredibly important and valuable means at that—but none of them are the ends; none of those are why we have school systems. They are all inputs, not outcomes. None of those are measures of what students know or can do. School systems exist for one reason and one reason only: to improve student outcomes.

Second, student outcomes don’t change until adult behaviors change. Or said differently, when placed in the context of governing, patterns of behavior exhibited in the boardroom can reasonably be expected to be found paralleled in the classroom. Effective governance is not easy; changing adult behaviors requires effort to overcome institutional inertia. But with training and coaching, school boards can change their adult behaviors in ways that most correlate with improvements in student outcomes. 

Boy, I wish they would read that first paragraph at the Board meeting. Because I think from teachers to parents would be QUITE surprised to find that their concerns mean little in the face of SOFG. School lunches are not an important part of Student Outcome Focused Governance? Yes, that's what the Superintendent AND the Board now believe. 

The SOFG framework can be boiled down to four essential behaviors that effective governance teams demonstrate for continuous improvement:

• Clarify Priorities: What should the school board, on behalf of the community, direct the school system to focus on? How does the school board effectively communicate the community’s priorities?
• Monitor Progress: How will the school board know if the school system is improving over time relative to the community’s priorities? How will the school board know if a significant strategic pivot is required? 
• Align Resources: How will the school board ensure that the community’s priorities are the primary focus of resource allocation? How will the school board change its behaviors to center the community’s priorities on its own work? 
• Communicate Results: How will the school board update the community regarding the priorities?
  

I cannot tell you what the difference is for the first bulleted item - Clarify Priorities versus a Strategic Plan.

How We Got Here

In Spring 2021, the Board adopted in a public meeting a governance model that is consistent with a Policy Governance model, board best practices, and research on effective school boards, called Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG).

While achieving this higher standard of governance can take two years, if not longer, the School Board felt it was unlikely to move forward in a good way for students without this level of commitment to change and building a culture of continuous improvement. The ultimate intention is to create a governance culture and systems that endure beyond the tenures of the governance team members. Most importantly, the ultimate goal is to create conditions which clearly demonstrate, through board behavior and practice the Board’s fundamental belief in our student’s ability to succeed.

In SOFG, the School Board sets goals for student outcomes, based on the community’s vision for the district, and guardrails, based on the community’s values for how the vision will be achieved. The framework focuses the Board on doing the work of monitoring progress on the goals and holding the superintendent accountable through clear metrics for district performance. SOFG supports the Board’s work of continuous improvement and responsibility for creating the conditions for superintendent success, to create the conditions for administrator, educator, and finally and most importantly, student success. 

 
I'll just note that in this BAR I certainly get the vibe that the current Board thinks all the past Boards did it wrong. That might just be me but the BAR has a superior tone to it that I think is a tsk, tsk to past boards.

The board will adopt a set of operational procedures designed to focus more time on student outcomes, with the goal of spending at least 50% of its time each month addressing student learning. Currently, the board spends less than 10% amount of time engaged in outcomes for students.

So for that last sentence about 10% of the Board's time? From reading the BAR, it is not clear to me how they judged this so it's impossible agree to say, "Good grief! The Board needs to shift its time immediately!"

What does the BAR say?

- Accepts the "Implementation Timeline" in approving the BAR.

- "Pause all non-legally required committees as of an action taken by the full Board on October 26th." This pause will go through the legislative calendar, July 2023. The Board says the only legally required committees are the BEX/BTA Oversight Committee and Audit Committee (as separate from the Audit&Finance Committee).

To note, there is this wording about the recent Board Work Session on this topic:

At the end of these discussion, outside of the above mentioned legally required, the ad hoc committee heard relative consensus regarding the need to move forward with a different committee structure.

So it is likely that the four members of the Board not working on this topic did NOT agree with all that the other four want to do. I will have to go back and listen to the entire Work Session.

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

- Establish an Ad Hoc Policy Diet Committee

 

This is NOT to be confused with the Committee diet work.

 
- Modify the Regular Board Meeting Agenda to prioritize policy work and include time for Work Sessions and Progress Monitoring. Generally hold two full Board meetings monthly with the Superintendent and District Staff that will be a combination of Legislative and Work Sessions and can include a Closed Session. Additional Closed Sessions can be continued to be scheduled outside of this meeting cadence as needed.

So the Board will NOT continue the practice of separate Work Sessions but roll them into the Board meetings. I suspect when that happens, you will see very stripped down Work Sessions that are basically staff telling the Board what the Superintendent has decided to do on any given issue with a few questions from Board members. 

I am a bit baffled by "closed session" because the usual term is "executive session" which has legal meaning. 

- Revise, create, and/or recommit to policies clarifying roles and responsibilities between the Board and the Superintendent to improve communication and information sharing, and provide transparent and consistent procedures for work between the board and superintendent. Include adherence to agreements in Board self-evaluation and accountability.

- Create two Board Action Report Templates: one shorter-form for items related to Grants, Contracts, Final Acceptances and other legally required actions and one longer-form for policy and major program shifts that require more discussion and information for the Board to make a decision.

 

Directors will now only ask Superintendent Jones - and no other staff - questions on items at least 5 days prior to introduction. Which means, he then will have to ask a head who will have to go to staff and then all that doubles back to the Superintendent to deliver to the Board member.  Nothing time-consuming about that.

Plus, "if the Superintendent questions the reasonableness of the request, the Superintendent may ask the Board President to decide if the request should be delayed or reduced in scope if it would have an adverse impact on the core work and established priorities of the district."

I'll take this moment to say that it would be nice if the Superintendent were to give a full report on how the current Strategic Plan is going ("established priorities of the district").

- Superintendent or their designee with provide response to all questions (minus personal attribution) to the full board at least 48 hours prior to introduction and these questions and responses will be posted along with the item materials. 

So Board members will have no real idea who answered their question; all of it comes thru and is sanitized by the Superintendent's staff.

- Along with agenda and BAR review the Superintendent and Board President will finalize, with support from the Board Office, a new and predictable cadence and format for meetings as indicated in the Implementation Timeline.

- Each month, the Board will endeavor to utilize legislative meetings to conduct: legislative business and appropriate cycles of: self-evaluation, superintendent evaluation, progress monitoring, trainings, and two way community engagement. Another BAR would "partially suspend and temporarily modify Board committees, Board officers and duties of the Board, school board student members, policy adoption, meeting conduct, order of business and quorum, and so on. Oh and the Board president and the Superintendent will approve legislative meeting and retreat agendas.

- Since the strength of public policy is derived from diverse and sometimes contradictory views of the policymakers, Board members will freely and openly express their views on all items before the Board. However, all members of the Board will also seek ways to reconcile their diversity in order to provide clear direction to the Superintendent and staff.

I'm not sure if that means Board members must all be on the same page in directing the Superintendent. 

Community Engagement

 
Community Engagement: Create Board structure for two-way community engagement as full board and in small groups that is regularly scheduled, as well as episodic for major topics.

Recommended Practice Shift: The Board does not have a community engagement structure, policy or procedure for itself. The Board is responsible for both community engagement and outreach as a full board and in small groups (no fewer than two ideally). The shift desired is to have proactive, two-way conversations with community (as owners, see definition) that are both episodic (major topics) and a matter of course (regular legislative business, values and vision check-in and SOFG training). 

 

Creating a structure in which community engagement is proactive and calendared accomplishes a number of things:

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.

4) Superintendent provides clear guidelines (Board Superintendent Relationship Policy/Procedure) as to where Board Members send customer service inquiries.

Timeline for Implementation: October 2022-March 2023 

So I would expect ZERO regional community meetings because, well, that's not SOFG.

Recommended Steps for Implementation:

Step 1: Solicit Board Input Via Survey/Interviews, Survey Email or CGCS Coach

Step 2: Compile Board responses for discussion on October 29th Step 3.

Step 3: Share responses back to directors and establish prospective plan for engagement, dates and times, to be finalized by January 2023.

Step 4: As necessary, create ad hoc community engagement committee to finalize and plan for engagement as well as present draft Owner Engagement Policy for incorporation into Policy Manual in series 1000.

Step 4: Starting February 2023 and ramping up slowly, begin cycle of regular two-way communication that is predictable and can be ramped up as we head into developing the revised strategic plan and goals and guardrails for 2025 and beyond. For outreach, request Superintendent overlay (create consistency) with District stakeholder and partner contacts/use as opportunity for role clarity.

Please note, it is now October 9th. Somehow by October 29th, parents and community will have seen and have access to this "survey/interviews" (and who picks who gets interviewed?).  Less than 3 weeks for the Board to get input and gauge what are community views districtwide. 

And then, nothing will really happen with that community engagement until Feb. of next year. 

Also, the old Board and staff procedure of rushing work continues. The boundaries for the director districts should have been started long ago but nope. And now this rush to figure out "community values and vision."

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.

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.

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.

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)

So as electeds, the Board says they are responsible to owners but not necessarily to customers. Because the owners are giving the district money and you know money trumps any other kind of allegiance. Will the Board listen to their owners more than customers? Hmm.

Hilariously, at the end of the BAR, it says this:

With guidance from the District’s Community Engagement tool, this action was determined to merit the following tier of community engagement:

Not applicable

 

Student Members

The Board included students as the presenters in at least one of the Student Outcomes Focused Governance training sessions during the previous twelve months.

The Board used a process that included students, parents, staff and community members in a way that leads them to express ownership of the adopted goals and guardrails and, if applicable, theories of action.

Prior to being selected, all newly selected Board Members received training on Student Outcomes Focused Governance from fellow Board Members on their Board or from a certified Student Outcomes Focused Governance Coach.

I have no idea when the third paragraph - "a process that included students, parents, staff and community members" happened. Anyone?

Also the BAR says this:

STUDENT BENEFIT

Not applicable. This Board Action does not directly impact students as it is related to the Board’s own planning. The transition to SOFG will benefit students by focusing and aligning the Board’s work with student outcomes. 

But wait - isn't that saying that there is work that is NOT going to always be DIRECTLY related to Student Outcome Focus? Hmmm.

Not Student Outcomes Focused:

The Board has not hosted opportunities to listen to the vision of the community during the previous 36- month period.

The Board has not hosted opportunities to listen to the values of the community during the previous thirty-six month period. 

Why would the Board not have done these things? Let's try to guess. Was there a pandemic going on? Why yes, there was. Were parents and community in survival mode and maybe just couldn't worry in that timeframe about the vision and the values they seek for their children in public schools? Could be.

Other Issues

The Board takes issue with how BARs are created to which I say, the current BAR system was jointly created by the Board and staff. Again, there's this whiff of a sneer in some of these so-called problems.