The seven-member Seattle School Board, elected to set policy, approve the budget and hire the superintendent, has decided to make a major change in how it governs. The board, whose members are elected from geographic districts across the city every four years, has moved away from a system that had drawn sharp criticism from parents and even some board members. The system in question is the student-outcomes-focused governance (SOFG) model, which concentrated the board’s work almost exclusively on achieving measurable academic goals by graduation.
Critics, including many parents, argued that the model was too rigid and one-dimensional. It overemphasized quantitative performance metrics at the expense of other board responsibilities, such as financial oversight or responding to safety issues. Parents complained that their voices were ignored and that attempts to raise pressing concerns — like fights at middle schools, chronic school bus tardiness caused by driver shortages, and a shortage of specialist teachers — were shut down with references to SOFG rules. That staffing shortage, particularly in math and science, led to larger class sizes.
Board members began to realize that the governance model itself had become a source of public distrust and confusion rather than an effective tool. Director Joe Mizrahi noted that if people know the governance structure so well that they can contest it, that’s a clear problem. Revising governance principles became the top priority at the board’s annual strategic retreat in February.
As a result, the board voted to largely abandon SOFG as its primary governance model. Instead, it decided to return to a more traditional structure with standing committees. On Feb. 11 the board voted to create committees for finance, operations and policy — the first time in four years. These specialized groups of board members will study specific issues in depth before making recommendations to the full board, playing a key role in preliminary analysis and planning.
The move marks not only a philosophical shift but a financial one as well. Since 2022 the district has invested roughly $125,000 in training and consulting on SOFG for board members and staff. No new spending on that model is planned. New superintendent Ben Shuldiner, an experienced educator who had previously served as deputy superintendent in the Seattle district, took office in February and quickly concluded that SOFG had become a “lightning rod” for criticism. His career includes leadership roles in several California districts, where he specialized in curriculum and operations.
SOFG was developed in 2014 by AJ Crabill to shift school boards’ focus from contract negotiations and bureaucracy to measurable goals in academic achievement and career readiness. Crabill calls the approach a “culture fix” intended to ensure adults stay focused on “educational equity for kids.”
But critics, including well-known civic activist and founder of the platform Washington’s Paramount Duty Nancy Bacon, argued that a school board must govern a complex enterprise with a $1.35 billion budget — not just monitor test performance. That budget, one of the largest per capita among U.S. urban school districts, is funded mainly by local property taxes (about 60%), as well as state aid from Washington and federal grants. Bacon, who regularly speaks at board meetings and influences budget discussions, compared SOFG to caring for only one arm while ignoring the rest of the body. The debate reflects a long-running tension between the political role of an elected board and the operational duties of the administration.
Superintendent Shuldiner acknowledged that SOFG has value in its focus on policy and outcomes, but said it could also block the board’s access to critically important information, especially financial data. Board members described a toxic atmosphere in which they were “constantly policing one another” for adherence to SOFG rules, which stifled open dialogue.
Parents said that under SOFG the board had ignored vital topics such as school safety, staffing shortages, transportation problems and budget management because they were difficult to directly tie to measurable test results. That created a sense of total lack of transparency.
Based on: Seattle School Board changing how it governs itself - The Seattle Times