Seattle Times Talks About Student Outcome Focused Governance

 I intended to write more about SOFG (Student Outcome Focused Governance) as more and more parents become aware of its sway on the work of Seattle Public Schools. I will say that I don't believe SOFG is "right wing" and I know several superintendents - including Seattle's Larry Nyland - helped to put this together.

Now one member of the Seattle Times editorial board, Claudia Rowe, speaks up in a big way about SOFG.

I intend to add to this post as I dig into what is happening in other schools districts. 

When Did the Seattle School Board Lose Its Way? 

Recently, that flight to private has been driven by the ballooning class sizes, slumping academic progress and general chaos that are now hallmarks of Seattle Public Schools.

Four years ago, in an effort to stem these problems, the school board signed up for something called Student Outcomes Focused Governance, an approach to running large, urban districts that promised to streamline operations and simultaneously improve student performance.

So far, it has cost Seattle roughly $300,000, including membership fees, conferences and mandatory trainings, provided by a Texas-based coach named AJ Crabill, who bills at $1,000 a day. (This may be a bargain; Crabill has charged other districts $650 an hour.)

I have public disclosure requests into the district for SOFG costs plus who, locally, might be benefiting from that spending. The Times has a figure but I think it is much higher than that. 

The opinion piece goes through some issues:

- There are all kinds of management theories that groups can adopt without dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I will point out that SOFG is a big investment in time for the board and senior staff and, eventually, principals. New board members not only would have to be onboarded for the particulars of Seattle School Board but also on SOFG. 

- The Student Outcomes model directs Seattle’s unpaid board members to focus exclusively on big-picture policies, while leaving nitty-gritty details — like financial oversight — to the salaried professionals at district headquarters.

One result is that SPS administration leaders are now free to spend significant amounts of money — up to $1 million — without any public discussion or debate by the school board. The new governance model essentially pushes board members to the sidelines on finances, a risky move when you’re responsible for a $1.2 billion budget.

- During work sessions with the board, coach Crabill often listened in by phone. “And then he grades you on the meeting,” Harris added. “What legislature or city council gets graded?”

I'll add that directors ALSO are supposed to self-grade themselves under SOFG. 

Dozens, probably, since at least 30 districts across the country have jumped on the SOFG bandwagon, including Atlanta, Austin and San Francisco, where parents are rising up in revolt.

“School safety isn’t a student outcome,” wrote a perplexed board member in St. Paul, Minn., who attended a training given by Crabill that felt closer to indoctrination. “Culturally welcoming schools aren’t a student outcome. Small class sizes aren’t a student outcome. Healthy school lunches aren’t a student outcome. So many things that our community will ask us for are not considered student outcomes.”

He described SOFG as inflexible, harmful and “anti-democratic.”

Then comes the big question for both the Board AND voters:

Whether or not Crabill is a huckster and the board members who threw in with him were duped, the question before Seattle now is when to cut bait. 

Seattle has a school board election coming up in November, where four of seven seats will be open. Voters should question candidates about their views of Student Outcomes Focused Governance and choose accordingly.

She calls SOFG "a gimmicky shortcut." If only it was just that but my opinion is that it's a money-making (for Crabill and the Council of Great City Schools), time-consuming (for the district who pays for it) grift.