Student Outcomes Focused Governance in Seattle: Gaps in Student Outcome Data and Troubling Narratives in Practice

• In Event: A Critical Examination of School Board Governance Models: Imagining a Better Future

Abstract

Purpose
We examined Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG) effects through two complementary studies. First, we analyzed nine years of English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics proficiency data in Seattle Public Schools (2014–2023), comparing trends to peer districts and disaggregating results by race. Second, we conducted a qualitative case study exploring SOFG training, governance, and perceived influences on student outcomes.

Perspectives
We applied Critical Policy Analysis (Diem et al., 2014; Horsford, et al.) and institutional theory (Coburn, 2004; Meier & O'Toole, 2006) to investigate how SOFG frames equity, accountability, and governance in Seattle. We also examined how Seattle's SOFG adoption and implementation interacts with broader policy narratives, local political dynamics, and organizational decoupling, particularly regarding equity and anti-racism.

Methods and Data Sources
For the quantitative component, we conducted longitudinal analysis of public district data (Singer & Willett, 2009) from PowerBI dashboards and official Seattle Public Schools reports. We analyzed ELA and mathematics scores and course completion rates, disaggregated by race, comparing Seattle's results to similar urban districts. For qualitative analyses, we conducted eight semi-structured interviews with district leaders, school board members, and families connected to SPS, collecting several years of archival data from public sources including school board materials, media, and district documents (i.e., school board meeting materials, media and social media, and district documents).

Preliminary Findings
Results show Seattle's performance lagged behind peer districts. The district failed to meet ELA and mathematics goals for Black students, though advanced course completion rates improved. Racial disparities persisted throughout. Qualitatively, we identified three preliminary themes. First, many participants described SOFG as a "cult" marked by prescriptive training and punitive norms fostering fear, alienation, and compliance. As one participant noted, SOFG "is a draconian approach. It is definitely prescriptive and there's not a lot of wiggle room." Second, SOFG seemed to often undermine democratic governance, replacing public engagement and transparency with concentrated decision-making and performative board rituals. Third, district leaders seemed to weaponize SOFG's equity rhetoric—using selective quantitative data and moral authority to silence dissent and co-opt equity discourse, especially when goals remained unmet. More results are included in the full paper.

Significance
This study offers one of the first empirical examinations of SOFG’s long-term effects in a large urban district publicly committed to anti-racism. By combining longitudinal performance data with stakeholder perspectives, we critically assess the extent to which a nationally promoted governance model aligns with the district’s stated equity goals. Our findings question the efficacy of this outcome-focused governance model in addressing racial disparities and offer insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to understand the real-world consequences of similar accountability-driven reforms.

Authors

• Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University

• Ronnie Angel Chavez, Arizona State University

• Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Arizona State University

• Margarita Pivovarova, Arizona State University

• Grace Louise Beall, Arizona State University