Public forum splits: supporters and critics debate use of Council of Great City Schools and student-outcomes governance

A large group of public forum speakers at the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education meeting debated the district's use of the Council of Great City Schools and the student outcomes-focused governance model. Speakers from community groups, parents and district staff offered both support and criticism; the board did not take formal action on the contract during the meeting.

Opponents urged the board not to renew its agreement with the Council of Great City Schools and described the council's coaching and governance framework as out of step with local needs. Tony Watkins, identifying himself with Family Standard for Education, said, "We call for the board to vote against renewing its contract with the Council of Great City Schools." Several other public speakers argued that the council's practices concentrate power with the board president, reduce transparency, or fail to reflect Albuquerque's cultural and community needs.

Supporters of the SOFG model told the board that measurable goals and guardrails are producing gains in graduation and proficiency metrics and have improved accountability. David Ambs, speaking in favor of SOFG, said that the model has helped the district report "real time monitoring of reading and math goals" and argued it has contributed to rising graduation rates. Community advocacy organizations such as New Mexico Kids Can also described the plan as courageous and said other districts have followed APS's lead.

Speakers on both sides referenced district materials and policies. Critics said a previously adopted family engagement policy was removed from the website; supporters said the SOFG model provides clarity and improved communication to families. Some speakers claimed outside consultants were directing board behavior; others said the guidance is helping the district focus on student outcomes. No motion or vote on the council contract occurred during this meeting.

The public forum's mix of testimony underscored a sharp community debate about governance approach, the appropriate role of outside consultants, the balance between measurable goals and locally defined priorities, and how to preserve board accountability while pursuing academic gains.