It’s Time to Revive the CIC

Today’s Seattle Public Schools board has three standing committees: Finance/Audit, Operations, and Policy.

Do you see what’s missing? 

Where is the structure reflecting that this board is responsible for oversight of a school district specifically, as opposed to a bank or a community theater or a PTA?

Where is the board oversight of academic outcomes?

SPS used to have this. It came in the form of the Curriculum & Instruction Committee (CIC). The CIC reviewed curricula and regularly discussed the academic outcomes of students across the district. 

In 2022, the CIC was axed when the board canceled all standing committees that aren’t legally required. Two members of that board continue to serve today: Liza Rankin, who voted in favor of eliminating committees, and Vivian Song, who voted against. The CIC had existed since at least 2009, though the district’s official archive only goes back to 2016. 

In recent years, the full board has instead been given periodic updates on academic outcomes. Unfortunately, the updates all follow a similar, amnesiac pattern: There is hand-wringing about opportunity gaps (which are indeed a problem). There are vaguely-defined proposals for change (Multi-Tiered System of Supports being a recurring hit here). There is a hopeful nodding of heads. There is no accountability put in place to ensure that proposals are effective—or even implemented. And then the conversation is repeated next quarter as if the previous versions never happened.

I was happy to see the board reinstate their other core oversight committees earlier this year. That committee work is bringing deeper board understanding, continuity, and accountability into budget and operational discussions.

Continuity and accountability are exactly what SPS needs in its evaluation of academic outcomes, too.

Not to mention that SPS has just begun a new curriculum adoption for advanced high school math. And they’re currently rolling out a new K-5 English Language Arts curriculum. How is its effectiveness being evaluated?

It’s time to revive the CIC.

***

What would a revived CIC do, you ask?

Well, a CIC agenda from 2019 shows two standing items:

• Review of instructional materials

• Review of progress against the district’s academic goals. 

This is a good start. Here’s how I’d interpret that for the 2026 version of the CIC.

Review of instructional materials: The committee would regularly review the progress of any curriculum adoptions in progress, as well as the evaluations of any recently adopted curricula. Critically, review means a two-way discussion in which board member input can help shape the direction of an adoption or the types of feedback and metrics used to evaluate one. 

Review of progress against the district’s academic goals: This is the example I used in the intro. The formal restrictions of a full board meeting throttle the capacity for meaningful, accountable, ongoing discussions about complex phenomena like math, literacy, and graduation rates. That’s why the core of this conversation belongs in a committee.

On top of these two responsibilities, I’d add two more. Extra homework for everyone! (Yes, I am always the coolest kid at the party. Always.)

Here’s what I’d add:

Review of academic programs & policies: My version of the CIC would evaluate specific academic programs on an annual basis. That includes the highly capable (HC) program, now-defunct programs like walk-to-math, the academic goals in different special education pathways and at SPS’s alternative learning sites, and so on. It also includes review of grading policies, graduation requirements, and the like.

Review of upcoming BARS: This is a function of the board’s other standing committees, and I’d keep the CIC’s involvement with BARS consistent. For the CIC specifically, it would mean that items that are going to come before the board for a vote (aka a board action report, or BAR) would first come to the CIC for a recommendation if they are directly related to the district’s academic outcomes or programs. Vetting these items in committee means that board questions can be answered more easily. It can also reduce debate time in the full board meetings when the board trusts the recommendations of its committees. 

***

Since the 2025 election, the SPS board has been rebuilding its governance muscles bit by bit. I’m so happy to see this. Standing committees are back, and board members are getting into the swing of how to operate in the committee structure. I don’t envy them the task of rebuilding those practices from scratch and I think they’re doing a good job of it.

I hope the revival of the CIC is a next step in the board’s evolution toward greater effectiveness. The timing is right for this. And, for all I know, this could already be in the works.

Regardless, it’s time. Bring back the CIC!