Board narrows criteria for new student‑outcomes governance vendor; seeks experience with SOFG and large urban districts

Board narrows criteria for new student‑outcomes governance vendor; seeks experience with SOFG and large urban districts On July 16, 2025, the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education used a nominal‑group facilitation method to develop a shortlist of criteria for an upcoming request for proposals to hire a vendor to support implementation of student‑outcomes focused governance (SOFG). Board members and staff ran three rounds of idea collection, then each member had four votes to prioritize attributes they want vendors to meet. The items with the broadest support were: demonstrated experience with SOFG; prior work in large or urban school districts similar to APS; documented, positive results from prior SOFG implementations; a transparent, public procurement process; and vendor availability and scheduling flexibility to match the board’s needs. Board Member Janelle Astorga urged an emphasis on local, culturally grounded providers and said constituents worry that out‑of‑state, corporate vendors do not always understand Albuquerque’s tribal and multilingual community. “My three recommendations are: hire a local organization; find a vendor with an intentional framework to improve outcomes for students of color; and hire a vendor that has a clear strategy on what it means for board members to be active advocates,” Astorga said. Other members reinforced different priorities. Board Member Josefina Dominguez called for a fully transparent procurement process and for the entire governance team to participate in developing the scoring rubric. “The process from beginning to end has got to be transparent and public,” Dominguez said. Board Member Crystal Tapia Romero emphasized systems thinking and the ability to identify how board decisions ripple across departments; Board Member Heather Benavides prioritized a vendor that fosters a culture of teamwork. The group also asked vendors to demonstrate cultural responsiveness to Martinez Yazzie‑listed students and to show experience with community and family engagement targeted at vulnerable populations. Members added expectations around ethical coaching practices, political and emotional intelligence for navigating board tensions, and ready‑to‑use tools and templates the board could adapt. Board members discussed next steps for the procurement timeline. Staff noted earlier planning that the district intended to issue the RFP on July 18 and said proposals would be evaluated against the criteria the board had just generated. The board did not award a contract at the meeting; the session produced the prioritized criteria the administration will use to draft or finalize the RFP and scoring rubric for a formal procurement process. The conversation closed with members noting the need to balance vendor experience against community trust and to require evidence of prior results. Several members asked that the procurement include evaluation measures so the board can test whether coaching translates to measurable changes in governance behavior and, ultimately, student outcomes.