End Game of SOFG

As you may recall, the Seattle School Board and the Superintendent are embracing a new form of governance called Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG).

A LOT of time and money are going to this endeavor. (How much is unclear and I am still waiting for numbers from a public disclosure request.)

I'm on several public education twitterfeeds as well as receiving email updates from several sources. I just happened to see this one from:

 

Where they are having a multi-part webinar series on:

Should School Boards Run Schools? A virtual conference series on school governance

I'm late to this party that started in early May so I will have to go back and check out the webinars I missed. But I tuned in last week and quite to my surprise, there were a couple of familiar faces on the panel with this topic:

Do school boards govern, or are they rubber stamps?

Speaker:
Robin Lake, Director, Center on Reinventing Public Education

Commentators:
A.J. Crabill, Leader, Council of Great City Schools
Mike Ford, Associate Professor of Public Administration, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Ms. Lake has been in public education for a long time with the CRPU which is located in Seattle (and which is now aligned with the Arizona State University's Teachers College.)  CRPU used to be the charter school water carrier for decades but I see their work seems to have broadened.

As well, you see AJ Crabill, the "governance coach" for the Student Outcome Focused Governance program that the Seattle School Board is adopting for SPS.

What I heard from Crabill, who seemed a bit discomforted that I was there, was fairly shocking because he wants SOFG to broaden. Crabill seemed a bit discomforted to see me in the chat area asking questions.

The discussion ranged around a board working as a team which has been a theme in SPS for decades. There have been Board activists on the Seattle School Board (indeed, one board had at least three of them) which yes, can split a board's attention as different issues jockey for attention. It is important that elected board members ealize that they need to act with other board electeds as a team. It is important for new electeds to come in willing to learn. 

But is is also important for the remaining Board members to realize that 1)if voters bring in new people, they DO want change and 2) EVERY Board member is a duly elected director. Meaning, do not try and bully the new members. Luckily, the main bully, Director Chandra Hampson, is leaving but I suspect that if Rankin stays, she'll take up that work.

But here's the new stuff I heard from Crabill:

- Crabill said it was good to limit board directors’ authority so you would get fewer single issue candidates (which is a a problem much more in other parts of the country). But how you "limit" the authority would seem to be the main question.

- Crabill said his party line about the only thing that matters is if a Board is using their time for improving student outcomes. He said they didn’t necessarily have to align with all that their superintendent wants but that their follow their own policies. He said they needed to give the superintendent “super clear” guidance. Is that what the Seattle School Board is doing? If that's happening, it's not clear to me.

- He said that he thought ALL school board candidates should have to take a governance course before filing. Seriously. Like SOFG is just baked into the system now and if you want run to be on the Seattle School Board, you have to do this.

- He wondered out loud if the process for onboarding newly elected board members might need to change. (Meaning, they would be told how governance now works as if it is unchangeable.) I will say that the Board has done a lousy job in communicating the governance change so I am finding most of the Board candidates have no real understanding of it.

- He then said maybe state law about school board directors needs to change to follow student academic outcomes. He said that maybe there should be “automatic recalls if student scores drop dramatically.” Well, that’s a hell of a bit of accountability that is not baked into any other elected jobs.

- He said that new board members can’t just throw away the work of previous boards. He said if a previous board had codified policies, then those policies should “live across superintendents and boards.”

But isn't that just the reality that when voters say we want new people (and vote them in) that voters want change?

I certainly understand the idea that if a board did a deep dive on policies and spent a lot of time and money on a new governance model, then maybe not throw out all of it. But this governance has flipped the table. I sure hope that new board members will push back.

He challenged me in the chat when I made a comment. He said if there were just a couple of new members on the board who wanted change, they should just fall in line. I said, "What about a new majority?" Silence.

He is VERY worried that the majority on the Seattle School Board could change. I will be interested to track the money that flows to Liza Rankin and Lisa Rivera Smith campaigns. 

Then Lake said that “Boards don’t represent all people.” 

Boards have a fiscal duty to taxpayers. They get elected by voters. She says it’s all about teaching and learning and equity. I mostly agree but this seemingly ingrained belief by both Lake AND Crabill that directors do not have to listen to the general public and/or parents is deeply disturbing. And undemocratic.