ERIC ED438591: A Special Session Guide to K-12 Reform.

41 Pages·0.67 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EA 030 006
ED 438 591
Warren, Paul; Turnage, Robert; Lee, Jannelle; Manwaring,
AUTHOR
Robert; Jones, Mary
A Special Session Guide to K-12 Reform.
TITLE
California State Legislative Analyst's Office, Sacramento.
INSTITUTION
1999-01-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
39p.
Legislative Analyst's Office, 925 L Street, Suite 1000,
AVAILABLE FROM
Sacramento, CA 95814. Tel: [phone]. For full text:
http://www.lao.ca.gov.
Non-Classroom (055)
Guides
PUB TYPE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Change Strategies; *Educational Change; *Educational
DESCRIPTORS
Legislation; Educational Policy; Educational Quality;
Elementary Secondary Education; *Government School
Relationship; *Politics of Education
*California
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This document was designed to help the California
Legislature address long-term and short-term concerns in K-12 legislation.
Part 1, which focuses on a suggested K-12 master plan, presents some
preliminary conclusions from the governor's office about the role of the
state in education. This section outlines governance changes since 1970 and
discusses the constitutional provisions that affect K-12 education. The text'
details reform principles, such as allowing local control over most
decisions, and summarizes the state's governance responsibilities, while also
taking care to delineate site roles, district roles, and state roles. The
last section refines the state's role in funding, in creating flexibility, in
providing information on school and district success, and in
intergovernmental issues. Part 2 addresses immediate issues in education.
These include clear goals and measures, clear lines of accountability, and
the right incentives for school success. This section also analyzes teacher
quality and training, examining such concerns as ensuring that institutions
and individuals are held accountable, providing resources and incentives to
achieve success, removing unnecessary barriers to entry into teaching, making
quality and training career-long priorities, and promoting competition among
training institutions. Categorical program reforms are the last components
discussed.
(RJM)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
.1'
U.S. DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
1
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
Erlibs document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality.
.I
.Poi:nntts,;),:fivnoievrt or oemniogisystratedr in InhtieDocu;
OERI position or policy.
.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
I
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
A Special Session
Guide To
K- 1 2
Reform
Rhine G. MO, Etsglsfi
tinell
Jemmy
3
Contents
Introduction
3
Part 1: A K-12 Master Plan
Governance Changes Since 1970
7
Constitutional Provisions Affecting K-12 Education
8
Reform Principles
9
Governance Responsibilities
10
Refining the State's Role
12
Part II: Immediate Issues
Overview
15
Accountability
16
Teacher Quality and Training
23
Categorical Program Reform
33
37
Conclusion
__Rdvodud"o
The Governor has called a special session of the Legisla-
ture to focus on education issues. As the Legislature begins the
special session, we believe it should consider both the long-
term and the more immediate needs of the K-12 system.
In our view the long-term needs of the system revolve
around developing a state strategy for improving schools. We
discussed these long-term issues in our Analysis of the
1998-99 Budget Bill, where we suggested that the Legislature
develop a K-12 Master Plan, similar to the plan developed for
higher education. The plan would create a framework for
governing the system and determining the appropriate state role
in K-12 decision making.
At the same time, we believe there are specific changes the
Legislature could make to improve the operation of the K-12
system in the near term.
This document is designed to assist the Legislature in
addressing both of these tasks. In Part I we discuss the reform
principles underlying our suggested K-12 Master Plan and
our preliminary conclusions about the role of the state. In
Part II we discuss immediate issues the Legislature faces in
trying to improve the K-12 system. Specifically, we review
program principles to guide decision making in three policy
areasaccountability, teacher quality and training, and
categorical program reform.
°roir
-0)
IC1 2
YIZORHOT
6
es
r
Gov
h
Sim 197
decision required state
The Serratth v. Priest
(1971)
action to equalize district base funding levels.
Collective bargaining authorized by the state
required governing boards to share with
(1975)
employee unions decision making over district
spending priorities.
which
Voters approved Proposition 13
(1978),
resulted in the state assuming responsibility over
finance (and, over time, policy).
K-12
education has changed significantly
The state role in
K-12
yearsfrom a system that was primarily local
over the last
25
in nature to one that is heavily controlled by state decision
making.
In this process, hOwever, the state did not evaluate the
impact of these changes on districts' ability to foster high
quality schools. As one district superintendent observed,
"California has an education system with no conceptual frame-
work."
education
The value of developing a Master Planfor
K-12
is in creating a framework for the governance of the system.
To accomplish this, the state must understand what schools,
districts, and the state can do well; and tow be4 to design
education programs that take advantage of these strengths.
When complete, a Master Plan would constitute a strong guide
policy making in California.
for coordinated
K-12
7
Legislative Analyst's Office
7
Constitutional Provisions
Affecting K-12 Education
Grants broad state authority over K-12 issues. No
protection for local control.
Creates the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the State Board of Education.
Restricts local property tax rate increases
(Proposition 13).
Establishes minimum annual funding levels for
schools and community colleges (Proposition 98).
The Constitution gives state government substantial free-
dom in defining the nature of the K-12 system. As a result, the
Legislature and Governor for the most part can restructure the
K-12 system through legislation. The flip side to this freedom is
that the Constitution does not guarantee local decision-making
powers. Consequently, in acting on educational issues, it is
important for the state to be mindful of local autonomy.
Another constitutional issue is the restriction on property
taxes established by Proposition 13. The initiative resulted in
separating financial responsibility (held by the state) and
program responsibility (held by school districts). This separa-
tion has led to a much larger state role in financial and policy
making for K-12 education and a corresponding diminution
of local control.
Part 1: A K-12 Master Plan
8
RUC
Allow local control over most decisions.
Reconnect financial and program responsibility.
Pay attention to incentives.
O
Foster a learning environment.
Create .a long-term commitment to reforms.
In developing reform principles, our review focused on
answers to two questions. First, what are the general principles
of program design? Second, how does the governance of the
K-12 system affect the system's productivity and student
outcomes?
The answers to these questions in academic and policy
studies were very similar. Local control over program decisions
is important because it takes advantage of the information
available to principals and teachers to identify and satisfy the
needs of students.
To make a policy of local control work effectively, other
principles must also come into play. Local decision makers
must have responsibility for fiscal policies because of the close
interrelationship with program control.
Understanding the incentives that influence local decision
making is a key part of creating effective state policies. In
addition, the state needs to develop a long-term commitment to
any governance reforms so that districts have the stability and
time needed to implement and refine the reforms.
9
Legislative Analyst's Office
S
Governance Responsibilities
Schools (or "sites") should focus on the question of
"how" to provide the best education to students.
Districts should focus on site needs for flexibility,
data and evaluation, and support services. School
accountability is a critical district responsibility.
The state should be responsible for oversight of the
overall system. District accountability, funding
adequacy, research and evaluation, and district
support services are all important state roles.
A central part of a K-12 Master Plan is an identification of
the roles that each level of governanceschools, districts, and
the stateshould play. From our literature reviews and discus-
sions with educators and others from around the state, we have
developed a broad outline of governance roles that allows each
level to take advantage of its natural strengths.
Site Roles. The responsibility of school sites is to deter-
mine how best to deliver services to the students attending the
school. This site role requires a cooperative effort by princi-
pals, teachers, and parents to, among other things, develop and
analyze data that lead to more effective practices. It also re-
quires considerable program and financial flexibility so that
schools can realistically implement appropriate services.
District Roles. Districts have two critical roles in creating
a flexible yet accountable environment in school sites. First,
districts must support school sites in the school improvement
process. District support includes creating needed site flexibil-
ity, supplying staff development resources, assisting site cur-
10
Part 1: A K-12 Master Plan