How's Student Outcome Focused Governance Doing in Seattle Schools?

In short, not good.  This according to the assessment made by the Moss Adams firm. (And boy, is the district using them more and more, almost like they are on retainer.)

Reader Seattle is Lost alerted me to the addition of the Moss Adams report on SOFG in SPS. The presentation is on the agenda right before public testimony. I've read through the report and not only is the entire staff behind in using this at JSCEE, Moss Adams thinks there needs to be more staff to implement it.

I love how SPS takes the adage - "You have to spend money to make money" - and changes it to "You have to spend money to save money."

While positive progress has been made to adopt this model, there remain challenges to fully implementing effective practices. 

The primary goal of this work is to identify barriers to fully implementing the policy governance model and recommend options to move the District forward.

I want to interject here that I think that staff may have thought SOFG was how THE Board was going to operate. Naturally, the Board backing off asking staff questions and ceding power to the Superintendent sounded great until President Rankin started in on Superintendent Jones to get with the system and have the ENTIRE system get with the program.  

They group their findings into 1) Transition to Policy Governance, 2) Leadership Engagement, and 3) Governance Process with Observations and Recommendations.

I'm going to go in order but I may not mention all Observations. 

Observation #2 

Without a comprehensive change management strategy that encompasses District-wide communication and training, many members of the organization remain unaware of SOFG and its practical implications on their roles within the district.

Recommendation: To effectively embed the SOFG framework within the District, SPS should implement a comprehensive communication, training, and onboarding plan that includes change management practices, ongoing coaching, and clear role documentation.

And right there is one of the real problems of SOFG that its SPS crew did not fully think out. ALL of it - if it is to go from Superintendent on down to principals - is going to take money and time and effort. 

Where is all that going to come from? Because I could see a LOT of staff getting upset that time in the day has to be taken for this effort and, since staff are generally no dummies, they know money is going to it. I could definitely see some staff dragging their feet, hoping this just gets phased out. 

Indeed it could if a new Board majority is elected next fall. 

Observation #4 

The Superintendent, Cabinet, and other teams across the District are responsible for engaging with and championing the SOFG framework—especially in relation to the goals and guardrails structure. Additional support, clarity, and buy-in is needed for successfully implementation.

Observation #7's recommendation says that the district should "empower the Accountability Office..." Just to put on your radar, the district now has that office but I have no idea who runs it.

Observation #8

Below is a hugely accurate statement:

SPS has struggled to cultivate a culture of healthy accountability, which impedes the execution of District-wide initiatives, including the policy governance framework.

Recommendation

Foster a cohesive accountability culture within SPS by clarifying expectations, empowering the Accountability Office, and supporting consistent, equitable implementation of District initiatives.

Creating a culture of healthy accountability ultimately falls to the Superintendent. However, this requires active engagement and commitment from all levels of the organization, especially Central Office leadership, to build trust and establish a unified approach to accountability. Without a robust accountability culture, SPS will continue to struggle with inconsistent policy implementation and inequitable educational outcomes

Well, for that, you need leadership. 

Cascading Goals

Interviewees report that goalsetting at the department and school levels is often conducted in silos, resulting in fragmented efforts rather than a unified approach to District-wide goals. As recommended in the 2018 Teaching and Learning study, strategic goals in the District should cascade throughout all levels, translating high-level strategic goals into specific, measurable objectives across divisions, departments, schools, and even individual employees. This structure fosters alignment and coherence, ensuring that all efforts contribute toward the same overarching objectives.

Again, leadership.

Observation #9

The District has not established a centralized compliance function. Instead, individual departments and teams are responsible for various aspects of compliance monitoring and reporting with limited coordination. As a result, there is a risk of noncompliance, and it is challenging to see a holistic picture ofcompliance activities across the District.

In this observation and its recommendation, we see the first of "you need to create a position to do this work." 

I don't think using SOFG is going to change accountability nor compliance without a huge overhaul.

Observation #10 notes that risk management activities "have primarily focused on operational and tactical issues" but now is refocusing "to provide more strategic enterprise risk management leadership." Hmmm. Also, Moss Adams says:

As resources allow, consider hiring additional personnel to support the Risk Manager, aiming to reach at least the 3.5 FTE positions seen in peer districts.

I see on page 6 of the Introduction this statement:

There is a general understanding across the organization that the implementation of a policy governance framework has not gone as planned, and a recognition that change is required for the governance model to be successful.

There was a "Board plan" that Moss Adams found had only 16 of 64 tasks done and the others were "TBD." Oh.

As well as this statement:

Leadership Commitment to SOFG: SPS’s board leadership appear to be committed to implementing SOFG as their policy governance framework because they believe it is what’s best for students.

I see they put in the word "leadership" because, like staff, I'm not sure the members of the entire Board are all committed to SOFG. 

Moss Adams goes on to say that there wasn't "a comprehensive implementation plan that integrates both Board-level and District-wide activities..."

But what hindered that?

- superintendent transition

- reopening schools after COVID

- initiative fatigue

Multiple interviewees observed that SPS excels at initiating projects, but has often failed to see them through to full implementation.

- high leadership turnover

- fatigue from COVID

- strained labor/management relationship

- ongoing operational priorities

These include bus driver shortages, student safety and well-being, and the ongoing, severe structural budget deficit. Addressing these critical issues has reportedly taken focus away from some of the District’s longer-term strategic initiatives.

Moss Adams says the Board, Superintendent and Senior Cabinet (10 people) should get together and create a "unified SOFG implementation plan." However:

Not all Cabinet members participated in the interviews, so our understanding of their perspective is incomplete.

At page 10 we hear about the Council of Great City Schools and their involvement in bringing SOFG to SPS. 

Senior Management Understanding: The Superintendent and most Cabinet members demonstrated a strong theoretical grasp of SOFG. However, not all Cabinet members appeared to be committed to this framework, which may impact how they do or do not engage with related activities.

This while central office staff see SOFG "In particular, multiple interviewees within internal service departments noted the perception that the framework had little implication for their responsibilities, as they saw it primarily as a Board-focused and/or academic-focused model."

Then there are the Regional Executive Directors and the Principals:

While it is not necessary for school-based staff to have a deep understanding of the SOFG model, they should have general awareness about what it means and how it may impact their work, especially when it comes to goals and guardrails, progress monitoring, data gathering and reporting, and accountability. 

Page 12 is where Moss Adams recommends that SOFG training should come with onboarding new hires/electeds. 

I laughed at this recommendation:

In particular, it will be helpful to expand the Central Office organizational chart with enough detail to make it a practical tool. As part of this work, the District should establish a process for regularly updating the organizational chart and the related website content.

Page 13 is a very important page because, in terms of public engagement and buy-in, here is where the Board failed big-time.

Moss Adams says that the Board is continuing involvement in "operational issues." But know what? You have a Board with at least 5 of them elected who did NOT run on SOFG. Even during the last round of elections, if SOFG ever got mentioned, it was only about the Board using it. Good governance, right?

You cannot change the role of a Board member without TELLING the public. Most Seattle residents would of course expect the Board to have regular, open public engagement as well as at least listening to school-level concerns. But this Board leadership is now attempting to brush the public off. 

Page 13 also lays out the duties of the Board per SOFG. Here's what they say on page 14 about "communication with community members."

A key challenge for the Board in implementing a policy governance framework is how the framework addresses constituent services. Like other elected roles, SPS’ community members frequently approach their elected board members for assistance with operational issues or raise these concerns during public comment at meetings. 

However, the policy governance framework is designed to shift the Board’s focus from direct involvement in these matters to a more strategic policy governance role centered on goals, guardrails, and policy direction.

Instead, members of the community are encouraged to take their questions and concerns to staff in he individual schools or Central Office and seek resolution at the lowest level possible, in accordance with best practice.

Seriously? Go ask someone at JSCEE? 

The District has implemented the “Let’s Talk” system that centralizes and routes incoming questions and requests. However, the Board does not have visibility into whether constituent concerns and questions raised through the “Let’s Talk” system are being handled efficiently and effectively.

In addition, the Board often serves as an escalation point when community members feel the prescribed methods have not resolved their issue satisfactorily. Some interviewed board members expressed feeling unprepared and uncertain about how to effectively address constituent concerns and ensure that these voices are heard, creating a barrier to providing effective constituent services.

This section also has staff communication with the Board:

The 2018 Teaching and Learning study noted, “District staff report that their work is highly reactive to requests for information, making it difficult to prioritize tasks and focus efforts to pursue the District’s strategic plan.” Subsequently, the District adopted a policy that requires Board members to communicate with staff solely through the Superintendent and in writing. While this policy aligns with the intent of a policy governance framework by keeping the Board focused on managing through the Superintendent, it limits opportunities for timely follow-up and collaborative discussion, and restricts the Board’s ability to ensure staff have received and addressed constituent concerns quickly and effectively.

Exactly right. How does the Board know the district is listening to parents and community?

And here's a new one for me - School Visitation

SPS does not have a Board Visitation policy in place. An essential responsibility of any elected official, and explicitly outlined in the SOFG framework, is the ability of Board members to effectively represent their community. While much of this work is embedded in specific processes—such as gathering community input during goal setting (see Observation 6 for details)—interviewees identified additional opportunities to enhance Board members' understanding of their communities. Notably, several interviewees expressed a desire for Board members to be more visibly present on school campuses. The belief is that by gaining a deeper understanding of the activities and dynamics within the schools in their geographic district, Board members would be better equipped to understand student outcomes and represent the interests of the students.

In the absence of a policy that defines expectations for Board member school visits, there have been instances where Board members have either not visited schools at all or over-visited schools unannounced. Either scenario can create challenges. A clear Board Visitation policy would ensure that each school is visited at appropriate intervals and both school staff and Board members have clear expectations for the visits.

As I have stated previously, I believe Board members should be required to have visited every single school in their region in their first year. 

Then we come to Board Office Support and some interesting findings.

There are opportunities to increase Board Office support to ensure that the Board and the Superintendent’s Office are appropriately resourced.

I'm not sure what Moss Adams is saying here. More staff? And why would the Board office staff have anything to do with making sure the Superintentendent's office is "appropriately resourced." Maybe this:

It was reported that these staff members also provide support to the Superintendent and some cabinet members, though this is not officially listed on the website.

What? 

The Board Office is comprised of the following positions:

• Chief of Staff

• Director of Policy and Board Initiatives

• Director of Board Relations and Strategic Initiatives

• Communications Specialist (currently vacant)

• Legislative Executive Assistant (currently vacant)

How are they operating with just two people? 

During the interviews, both Board members and senior leadership recognized the need for expanded support within the Board Office. They highlighted the importance of increasing resources for managing constituent communications as well as enhancing government relations and legislative affairs support.

On page 30, something I found astonishing:

Additionally, the implementation of the SOFG framework has introduced unique compliance concerns. In some cases, strict adherence to SOFG principles may conflict with state or local regulations. For instance, the Board is sometimes required by law to vote on operational issues and provide opportunities for public comment, even when these matters do not directly impact student outcomes. 

Oh my.

And, in comes yet another hire:

Consider establishing a full-time compliance role responsible for overseeing adherence to legal and policy requirements across SPS, promoting consistent compliance and reduction of operational silos.

Appendix F has "peer benchmarking" with other similar districts with some fascinating stats.

SPS is doing better than most of the other districts in academic measures like elementary reading and math. Ditto for middle school. High school math is abysmal across the districts with SPS the highest at 46%. But in high school reading, SPS is way ahead at 80% with the next highest being 58% in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

As for funding, SPS comes in near the top at $18,773 with Minneapolis the highest at $19,584.

One other interesting item in that appendix: "SOFG coach on staff" and SPS was one of the few to say yes. Who is that and how much are they getting paid? And, under "tenure" it states that SPS has had their coach for nearly 3 years. 

Not a single district has SOFG in its Board member job descriptions.