Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG) is a model that seeks to shift the focus of school boards towards improving student achievement. The aim is to ensure that board decisions are grounded in the pursuit of better student outcomes. As educational systems across the country grapple with challenges such as learning loss, achievement gaps, and inequitable access to resources, SOFG provides a framework for addressing these issues. By emphasizing student outcomes as a primary goal, SOFG encourages school boards to be more proactive and intentional in their decision-making processes. This model has been adopted in several large urban school districts, with the goal of improving educational results over time.
One key figure in advocating for SOFG is Airick Journey Crabill, also known as AJ Crabill, whose leadership in educational reform highlights the potential impact of governance changes on student outcomes. Crabill’s work exemplifies how focusing on measurable student success through structured governance can drive meaningful educational improvements. This article delves into whether districts that fully implemented SOFG practices—such as completing the required training and scoring ≥50 on the implementation instruments saw better student outcomes compared to those that did not. By examining a range of student achievement metrics, including NAEP scores and grade-equivalent gains, this analysis assesses the effectiveness of SOFG in improving student performance.
Data Overview: Examining the Evidence Across Districts
The dataset used in this study spans the years 2017 to 2024 and includes data from 74 large urban school districts, which encompass both the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) districts and others. The analysis focuses on three groups of districts: those with no SOFG involvement, those that received SOFG training but did not fully implement the model, and those that successfully implemented SOFG practices. The evaluation of these districts aims to measure the correlation between SOFG implementation and changes in student performance, particularly in reading and math.
To assess the effectiveness of SOFG, several key student outcome metrics are utilized. The first of these is the ERS “Grade Equivalent” Gains, which measures changes in performance over three distinct periods: 2019–2022, 2022–2024, and the overall span from 2019 to 2024. These gains indicate the equivalent grade-level progression or regression in student performance. Additionally, the NAEP scores for 4th and 8th-grade reading and math are used as another key metric to measure achievement. NAEP scores provide a comprehensive measure of student proficiency, with performance tracked across multiple years to identify trends and patterns.
Reading Outcomes: Positive Trends in SOFG Implementing Districts
The results from the analysis of grade-equivalent changes in reading outcomes reveal that districts that fully implemented SOFG saw smaller declines in student performance over time. For instance, Dallas ISD, which began implementing SOFG in 2019, experienced only a –0.45 grade-level decline in reading between 2019 and 2024. This is in stark contrast to districts that had no engagement with SOFG, such as Detroit, which experienced a much larger decline of –0.70 grade levels during the same period. These trends suggest that districts that prioritized student outcomes through governance reforms were better equipped to mitigate learning losses.
Houston ISD, which only achieved full SOFG implementation in 2024, also demonstrated resilience in its reading performance. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, Houston was able to hold its reading performance relatively steady, with only a slight decline of –0.14 grade levels by 2024. Moreover, the district saw a modest improvement in reading from 2019 to 2022, which helped it recover slightly by 2024. This indicates that even districts that implemented SOFG later in the process were able to demonstrate positive trends in student achievement.
The NAEP data for 4th-grade reading further supports these findings. While many non-SOFG districts saw declines in reading scores, some SOFG-implemented districts such as Dallas and Houston either maintained their performance or showed modest improvements. For instance, Dallas saw only a minimal drop of –0.7 points in 4th-grade reading from 2019 to 2024, whereas other districts, like Detroit, saw significant declines, such as a –8.1-point drop. These differences suggest that governance focused on student outcomes can help districts avoid or mitigate the negative effects of disruptions on student learning.
The Role of Proficiency Rates: A Stronger Focus on Student Achievement
Proficiency rates in reading offer further evidence of the positive impact of SOFG. In the fully implemented SOFG districts, reading proficiency rates increased from 2019 to 2024. Dallas ISD, for example, saw a rise in reading proficiency from 37.4% in 2019 to 43.4% in 2024, a notable improvement. Similarly, Houston ISD experienced an increase in proficiency, with its rate rising from 38.5% to 46.3%. In contrast, districts like Cleveland, which did not fully engage with SOFG, saw a decline in reading proficiency, from approximately 34.9% in 2019 to 30.3% in 2024. This gap between districts that embraced SOFG and those that did not suggest that governance practices focused on student outcomes can lead to substantial improvements in student proficiency rates.
The findings on proficiency rates are particularly compelling because they suggest that the benefits of SOFG are not just theoretical. In practice, when school boards are laser-focused on student achievement, their districts tend to see tangible improvements in student performance over time. These improvements are not limited to small, incremental changes but are significant enough to make a meaningful difference in the lives of students. The data supports the idea that the consistent prioritization of student outcomes through governance can result in better academic results, particularly in districts with high levels of need.
Math Outcomes: Learning Loss and the Potential for Recovery
Math outcomes, on the other hand, presented a more complex picture. Across the board, all districts saw some level of decline in math performance, with the pandemic exacerbating existing disparities. Even SOFG-implemented districts, such as Dallas and Houston, saw grade-equivalent declines in math, though these declines were generally smaller compared to districts with no SOFG involvement. For example, Dallas experienced a –0.58 grade-level drop in math by 2024, while Houston saw a smaller –0.35 grade-level decline. However, despite these losses, the SOFG-implemented districts demonstrated a quicker recovery in math compared to their peers. Houston, for instance, saw a significant rebound in 2024, recovering +6 points from 2022 to 2024.
In contrast, many non-SOFG districts, such as Detroit and Milwaukee, saw deeper declines in math performance, with some districts experiencing nearly a full grade-level loss. This suggests that while SOFG alone cannot entirely protect against learning loss, districts that implemented SOFG showed a greater ability to bounce back from setbacks and recover more quickly. The trend is particularly evident when examining the 4th-grade NAEP math scores, where Dallas and Houston experienced smaller declines compared to other large urban districts, such as Detroit, which saw a significant drop of –5.7 points.
The Importance of Implementation Timing
The timing of SOFG implementation is a crucial factor in determining its effectiveness. Districts that implemented SOFG early, such as Dallas, had a head start in aligning their governance practices with student outcome goals before the pandemic. This early adoption allowed them to navigate the disruptions caused by the pandemic more effectively and avoid major setbacks in student achievement. In contrast, districts that implemented SOFG later, such as Houston and Albuquerque, did not fully see the benefits of the framework until after the initial pandemic disruptions had already occurred. This suggests that earlier implementation provides districts with more time to establish the systems and structures necessary to support student learning, especially in times of crisis.
Districts that were slow to implement SOFG, such as Austin ISD and San Antonio ISD, may not see the full benefits of the framework until later years. This delay in implementation could potentially hinder their ability to recover as quickly from learning disruptions. It is clear that the sooner a district adopts SOFG, the more time it must build momentum and create a culture of accountability focused on student outcomes.
Conclusion: The Path Forward for Education Leaders
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that districts that fully implemented SOFG practices saw more favorable trends in student achievement compared to those that did not. SOFG-implemented districts experienced smaller declines in reading and math performance and were better positioned to recover from learning loss. While the improvements observed are not revolutionary, they are meaningful and suggest that governance focused on student outcomes can make a significant difference in student achievement over time.
The analysis also highlights the importance of early adoption, as districts that implemented SOFG before the pandemic were able to better withstand disruptions and maintain momentum. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the need for districts to integrate SOFG with strong academic strategies, such as targeted interventions and resource allocation, to maximize the potential benefits of governance reforms.
Education leaders should take note of the trends observed in SOFG-implemented districts and consider adopting similar governance practices to prioritize student outcomes. While SOFG alone may not be a panacea, it offers a powerful framework for improving student achievement, especially when combined with other evidence-based strategies. As more districts adopt SOFG and refine their implementation practices, the long-term impact on student performance will become clearer.