When Americans grow dissatisfied with public schools, they often blame the way they are governed. Current policy talk about restructuring, choice and accountability for reaching standards is a recent episode in a long tradition of governance reforms going back a century and a half. Governance reforms occupy a special place in the spectrum of planned changes in education, for governance is intimately involved with the how and why as well as the what of public schooling.[8]
|
Governance is a process that entails power and
accountability. Governance procedures determine how and by whom decisions are
made and what form of redress is available to various stakeholders.
-- Cristina Gibson |
Over the past century and a half, a handful of major shifts have occurred in education governance in the United States. Although state governments involved themselves, by way of incentives, local communities enjoyed control throughout most of the 19th century. This configuration was followed by industrialization’s imposing corporate models on schools, with the purpose of focusing education largely on producing particular kinds of workers and citizens. As part of the same phenomenon, experts replaced laypersons in an education system that was becoming more urban. Subsequently, Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka[9] spurred a major change in policy that emphasized students’ rights to receive education. This change fueled the creation of numerous programs to remove identified impediments to education delivery. Then as now, those critical of the state of the system “argued that existing institutional arrangements or configurations of control were both the objects of and obstacles to change.”[10] A few decades later, America’s schools began to be transformed into institutions that increase the nation’s ability to compete internationally. “The new ideology's manifesto became [in the mid-1980s] A Nation at Risk, which predicted in hyperbolic terms the demise of the United States as an international industrial leader if it did not improve its public education system.”[11]
Schools must deal with the social challenges presented by a shifting population and the technical challenges of educating an increasingly diverse group of students for a much more demanding set of requirements in the 21st century. In addition, they have to face the economic challenges of accomplishing this without a large infusion of new funds.[12]
With
respect to public education in California, members of the Governance Working
Group faced the challenge of devising a reorganization proposal for a system
currently being torn in two directions under an ideology that stresses
performance outcomes. On one hand, education policymakers and local community
members favor local control, while on the other, the state is ultimately
responsible for the delivery of education. Marrying these two priorities within
the overarching task of improving performance to enable California to better
compete with other states and the rest of the world is a goal, however
ambitious, that is not out of reach; achieving it would appear to require
streamlining authority in a system in which necessary functions are performed
within a structure that promotes those
functions.
K-12 Education: State-level
Governance
Education has a paramount
position in state government, equal to that of national defense in the federal
government—and even more so in California than in most other
states.
A disinterested analyst could easily conclude, from a brief review of California’s constitution, that operation of a public school system is the primary purpose of California’s state government: The public schools are accorded unshared first priority for state expenditure, appropriations for the public schools are alone among all major categories of state expenditure in requiring only a simple majority for passage, and a more recent group of provisions (“Proposition 98”) sets forth a unique and elaborate mechanism for determining a required, substantial minimum amount of state funding for the public schools in each succeeding fiscal year.[13]
Structural Change
The current structure of state-level governance in California is complex (see Table 1), and the assignment of functions is unclear and ineffective. California’s existing structure of state-level governance of K-12 public education has been in place in essentially its current form for nearly a century.[14] For the first 70 years of that period, at least, California’s K-12 school system was commonly considered to be one of the finest in the United States.[15] However, when a poorly designed system nevertheless functions passably well, the fact that it does so is testimony to the perseverance and good will of those who must make it work, not proof that its design is a wise choice.[16]
Historical experience in the private sector may be relevant to public education. Public schools have faced similar challenges, in some cases in comparable proportions, to those faced in the private sector, and those challenges have resulted in review and re-establishment of function that have been followed by massive restructuring and changes in governance.[17] Private-sector experience has demonstrated that performance gains are limited when traditional systems are simply improved.[18] But structural change, however needed, is often difficult to convince voters to support.
[C]onstitutional amendments necessary to make the office of Superintendent appointive have actually been put before the voters only three times in total—just twice since World War II, with the most recent instance being more than thirty years ago. And of the two post-war proposals, only the first one, in an election held more than forty years ago, presented the matter as a stand-alone option—specifically, to have the Superintendent be appointed by the State Board, with the approval of the Senate.
It is at least possible that the more direct alternative—to have the Superintendent be appointed by the Governor (with Senate approval), a choice which has never been put on the ballot—could yet meet with the voters’ approbation. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that, as one result of term limits, there is likely little prospect of forging broad consensus among legislators in support of eliminating one of the few offices that offer them a state-level elective future following the forced end of their legislative service. More profoundly, it seems probable that the voters have a strong and abiding conception of the Superintendent of Public Instruction as their directly elected representative and spokesperson with regard to a matter of unique importance among state government’s responsibilities—the public schools. [19]
(See note 20.[20])
K-12 Education: Intermediate-level Governance
County Offices of
Education
The current county-level
governance structure consists of county boards and county superintendents, which
function in some capacities as ‘intermediate’ between state and
local entities.
County boards of education and county superintendents have distinct powers and duties specified by statute.[21] Much of what the superintendent does is the result of constantly evolving arrangements between his or her office and the local schools districts in the county. As district needs change, the role of the superintendent is to respond with leadership, service, and support. Working cooperatively, county boards and superintendents make it possible for students to receive services directly and indirectly through the assistance the superintendent provides to local districts. By adopting the budget for the superintendent’s office, the county board makes possible a total level of fiscal support for the services that districts and their students require.
The county superintendent and the county board of education have separate duties and responsibilities. This is true whether the superintendent is (as in most counties) separately elected or is (in a few counties) appointed by the board. The interaction between the board and the superintendent is entirely distinct from the relationship of a school district governing board and its employed superintendent. The county superintendent works directly with the school districts in the county to provide support and guidance for their operations. Policy determinations inherent in that relationship are made by the superintendent and the local school boards. The county board of education does not have a role in determining the policies of local school districts.
A wide variety of practices and policies have developed in the various counties to enable the county board and county superintendent to work cooperatively. In those counties where both are duly elected, each is directly accountable to the electorate. Open communication between superintendent and board and mutual sharing of information facilitate the accomplishment of their respective functions.[22]
K-12
Education: District-level Governance
District and School Size and
Structure
In recent decades two basic
trends have emerged across the nation with respect to the size of districts: (1)
combining or consolidating school districts with small enrollments, usually in
rural areas; and (2) breaking up school districts with large populations
(usually large urban districts), into smaller administrative
units.[23]
Across the nation, the reasons for
district consolidation are typically to address (1) inequalities in financing,
(2) problems with management, oversight, and/or financial expertise, and (3)
economies of scale. Consolidation is usually carried out by state boards of
education, special committees, or
legislation.[24]
To these reasons the group added the goal of promoting cohesiveness in
educational planning and delivery. Deconsolidation is sought when a
district’s size impedes the delivery of
education.
In California, 31 percent of all
school districts have an average daily attendance of less than
500.[25] About one-fifth are
between 5,000 and 15,000 average daily attendance, and Los Angeles Unified
School District had almost 700,000 average daily attendance during the 1998-99
school year.[26]
Districts that are considerably smaller or
larger than an optimal size, or are organized to serve only a portion of the
full K-12 grade span, are frequently unable to provide an articulated
curriculum, coordinated services, and an accountable structure from kindergarten
through high school graduation. Districts that are within the optimal range of
size have demonstrated the best ability to maintain individual schools that are
within the optimal range of school size. Avoidance of over-large school
populations has been credited with fostering better attendance rates, lower
drop-out rates, and fewer discipline problems, while consolidation of very small
schools permits curricular enrichment, more extra-curricular activities, and
operational economies of scale.
During this century, the size of schools has grown tremendously, particularly in urban areas. Nationwide since World War II, the number of schools declined 70%, while average size grew fivefold. More than one in four secondary schools nationwide enrolls over 1,000 students, and enrollments of 2,000 and 3,000 are not uncommon.
The thinking behind large schools was that bigger meant more extracurricular opportunities, a more diverse curriculum and more resources for students as a result of economies of scale. Intuitively, this makes sense; a growing body of research and public opinion, however, indicates this approach is misguided and that, when it comes to school size, smaller is actually better.
Research has shown that students from smaller schools have better attendance rates and that when students move from large schools to smaller ones their attendance improves. Smaller schools also have lower dropout rates and fewer discipline problems....
While there is no agreement about what school size is ideal, the consensus of researchers is that no school should serve more than 1,000 students and that elementary schools should not exceed 300 to 400 students. There is also a general acknowledgment that the huge 2,000-, 3,000- and 4,000-student schools now in use are much too large.[27]
Local school boards are an integral part of the history of American public education. Across the nation, there are about 15,000 local school boards and 95,000 local school board members, 96 percent elected by their communities.[28] California has approximately 1000 local school boards, with varying membership sizes.
It is a fundamental obligation of local school boards to...provide the crucial link between public values and professional expertise.
Historically, local school boards, as lay governors of the school system, believed their role was not to substitute their own views on matters of pedagogy for those of professional educators. Rather, they perceived their role to be supportive in nature, approving the budget and legal documents, dealing with constituents, receiving reports, campaigning for bond issues and providing “cover” on politically sensitive issues. While those are legitimate functions and should continue, the challenges of raising student achievement in the 21st century suggest a more meaningful and dynamic governance role for local school boards in setting education policy. It is a role that does not cross into the implementation of education content or pedagogy, but rather provides leadership to school systems as they establish and strive for high levels of student performance.[29]
Postsecondary
Education
The term governance has a particular meaning when applied to the authority and responsibility of governing public boards of colleges and universities. There is a strong historical and legal tradition in American postsecondary education of institutional autonomy—a high degree of freedom from external intervention and control. All states assign responsibility for governing public colleges and universities to one or more boards most often composed of a majority of lay citizens representing the public interest. The names of these boards vary, but "board of trustees" and "board of regents" are the most common. The responsibilities of these boards are similar to those of boards of directors for nonprofit corporations. Public institution governing boards were modeled after the lay boards of private colleges and universities. Private college boards usually govern a single institution. In contrast, public institution boards most often govern several public institutions. In fact, 65% of the students in American public postsecondary education attend institutions whose governing boards cover multiple campuses.[30]
Even though at the beginning of the post-war era two of California’s three segments of postsecondary education—the state colleges and junior colleges (as they were then called)—shared the same state-level governance entity, the State Board of Education, all three of the segments developed essentially independently. With the adoption of the Master Plan for Education in 1960, the segments expanded to cover all populated areas of the state. Each of the three was assigned a separate mission, and considerable differentiation among those missions continued in modern times. Partially, as a result of increased population mobility, and partially because of state policy priorities, student transfer both within and particularly among the three segments increased materially with the passage of time. By the early 1970s it had become obvious that, if for no other reason than to accommodate that transfer phenomenon, there was a much greater need for a structural means of coordination among the three segments.
Several recurrent concerns have been identified as initiating the trajectory to restructure a state’s postsecondary education governance system (a number of which led to California’s original Master Plan for Education for Higher Education in 1960): (1) actual or perceived duplication of high-cost graduate and professional programs; (2) conflicts between the aspirations of institutions, often under separate governing boards, in the same geographic area; (3) legislative reaction to lobbying by individual campuses; (4) frustrations with barriers to student transfer; (5) proposals to close, merge, or change the missions of particular colleges or universities; (6) inadequate coordination among institutions offering one- and two-year vocational, technical, occupational, and transfer programs; (7) concerns about an existing state board’s effectiveness; and (8) a proposal for a “superboard” to bring all of public postsecondary education under one roof.[31]
California
Community Colleges
Nearly half of all U.S.
college students are enrolled in community colleges. These institutions provide
easy access, tailored training programs, and a reasonably priced education for
the first two years of postsecondary coursework. Rapidly increasing demands,
however, also are creating big challenges for community colleges and
policymakers.[32]
California’s
Community Colleges are the point of universal access—they have the charge
of providing every willing high school graduate, and any other adult resident
who can benefit from instruction, with vocational education, remedial education,
academic education leading to the associate degree, and/or preparation to
transfer to a baccalaureate degree-granting institution. The 109 community
college campuses, organized in 72 districts with 435 locally elected trustees,
are located such as to ensure a commute of not more than 30 minutes from
virtually any home in the
state.[33]
In
1999, total enrollment in California Community Colleges was 1,401,000, compared
to 178,400 in the University of California, 358,900 in the California State
University, and 213,000 in California Independent
Institutions.[34]
The
transfer function is one of the most important educational opportunities
afforded by the community colleges. In the year 99-00, California Community
Colleges transferred 47,706 students to the California State University, and
10,827 to the University of
California.[35]
California
Postsecondary Education
Commission
Evidently, one of the most
elusive goals of postsecondary education throughout the U.S. is coordination of
the separate elements of each state’s system—perhaps because the
means of facilitating coordination must evolve in parallel with the needs for
organization and cooperation. Many states have responded to the progress of
postsecondary education with reformation of their governance systems in pursuit
of improved coordination to realize their developing
goals.
Established in 1974 by state law as
California's planning and coordinating body for postsecondary education under
the provisions of the Master Plan for Higher Education, CPEC was intended to
have a unique role in integrating fiscal, programmatic, and policy analysis
about California's entire system of postsecondary education. Nine of its
members represent the general public, five represent the major systems of
California education (the California Community Colleges, the California State
University, the University of California, the independent colleges and
universities, and the State Board of Education), and two are student
representatives.[36]
Every
state currently uses one or another of four configurations of state-level
governance to foster
coordination.[37] Only three states
have advisory coordinating boards, which resemble regulatory coordinating boards
in their liaison role. The advisory coordinating board (the structure of CPEC)
is extremely limited in power, with the sole ability to provide advice to the
Legislature, the Governor, and postsecondary education
boards.
Generally, California postsecondary
education suffers from the inefficiencies that result from separating the tasks
of governance and coordination, as well as the frequent inability of the
different boards to work together. An illustration of the limitations of
advisory coordinating boards is CPEC’s struggle to discharge its
assignment to collect data from the University of California and California
State University systems, which are not subject to any penalties for failure to
provide that data. There are no clear, specific guidelines for the requesting
and providing of data, especially with respect to students, and no enforcement
mechanisms or consequences for
noncompliance.
K-16
Education
Through the latter part of the 19th century, the nation’s education system consisted primarily of basic instruction in the three R’s, limited to white children, coupled with a handful of private, church-sponsored colleges that trained male clergy and statesmen. Since then, the nation has responded to succeeding waves of social and economic movements by continuously expanding educational opportunities until the gaps were filled with junior high schools, comprehensive senior high schools, low-cost community colleges, teacher colleges turned comprehensive state colleges and research universities. Now, ongoing advances in technology and telecommunications are spurring a new wave of learning options that can be delivered directly to anyone, any time.[38]
A cohesive education system from pre-school through university is becoming more popular for many reasons, continuously coordinated services and an accountable structure among them. Creating a more integrated, seamless education system involves grappling with a host of complex issues, including standards, testing, teacher education, college admissions policies, governance, funding streams, and institutional turf issues, to name just a few.[39]
|
Since
a P-16 system has as its goal that all learners will master challenging material
and achieve at high levels, it creates an environment that expects success from
everyone – the gifted and the ordinary, the rich and the poor, the white
and the black and the brown, the young and the not-so-young, urban and rural,
the native and the immigrant. A system that allows no throwaways is a system in
tune with U.S. needs. -- Gordon (Spud) Van de Water and Terese Rainwater |
Coordination
|
Everywhere
the attempts of different branches and phases of the educational enterprise to
solve their special problems in isolation are met by the stubborn fact
of...interdependence. ... And this problem is insoluble till education is
understood as a unified process. — John Dewey, 1936 |
Historically, America’s systems of K-12 education and postsecondary education have operated independently of one another, with each having its own governance system and politics, its own goals and objectives, and its own institutional culture. Indeed, in some cases, K-12 and postsecondary education have even operated at cross purposes....
[There are] several reasons for concern. One is the large number of students who enter postsecondary education requiring some form of remediation before taking college-level courses and the corresponding large numbers who drop out without receiving a degree. (Twenty-seven percent of freshmen in four-year colleges and 44 percent of freshmen in community colleges do not return for their sophomore year). Another reason is increased corporate sector demands for greater accountability to ensure that graduates of both K-12 and postsecondary systems have the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in the workplace....[42]
While performance levels for college entrance may vary with the type of institution, higher education public institutions and all high schools have an obligation to align their standards and to publicly state their required performance levels at each institution. State policy leaders can create a statewide P-16 council composed of representatives of secondary and higher education, as well as representatives of the business community, and assign this council the responsibility for articulating high school graduation standards that are aligned with the entrance requirements of public colleges and universities.[43]
The lack of communication among education levels means that students have not had clear expectations of what they should know and be able to do in preparation for the next higher level of learning. Recent implementation of standards, coupled with new assessment and accountability policies, help to clarify what is expected within a given level. Across levels, however, there is neither a clear understanding of what is expected nor an alignment of curriculum and assessments. A P-16 system pushes these issues to the forefront, forcing resolution of confusing messages, misaligned curricula and conflicting assessments. The result is clearer expectations among students, parents and educators, aligned approaches to academics and unimpeded pathways to the next level of learning.[44]
Data
Collection
Sound policymaking in the
context of large educational systems depends on the collection of uniform,
unbiased data relevant to the issues at hand.
Local ControlA reliable gut feeling goes a long way: School leaders have always had an uncanny knack for sensing which students are headed for trouble, which curriculum programs work well, and how best to improve student achievement. But in today's complex, modern school systems, many educators are looking for ways to augment their instincts with solid data— and to back up their hunches with hard facts....
Too often, the school district's own data is not accessible in a useful form to the people who need it the most. For starters, the information is typically entered and stored on many different computer systems, each serving its own purpose and using its own format. Quite often, lack of consistency makes it extremely difficult to correlate data by drawing on information from several databases. What's more, the level of technical difficulty involved usually makes it impractical for administrators to perform their own interactive queries on the data; instead, they must wait for infrequent reports from the data processing department. The end result is that school districts have become data-rich but knowledge-poor. Many questions that school districts could -- and should -- be asking go unanswered, such as: What is the relationship between attendance and literacy? What is the connection between teacher training and student test scores? What characteristics are shared by students who drop out, and what attributes are common to those who succeed? Why are some teachers more effective than others, and how can the district use that information to help other teachers improve? Which programs are the most cost-effective? What is the relationship between early childhood education and later academic success?[45]
| Table of Contents | |||
| Summary | Introduction | K-12 | PS |
| K-16 | Conclusion | Background | Members |