A Master Plan for Public Education
A Position Paper of the Association of California School Administrators
Approved by the ACSA Board of Directors
July 30, 1999
ACSA's MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of ACSA is to:
- support California's educational leaders;
- ensure all students have the essential skills and knowledge
needed to excel; and
- champion public education.
INTRODUCTION
ACSA's Board of Directors enthusiastically supports the development
of a comprehensive master plan for public education, pre-kindergarten
through adult education. The need for a master plan has been growing
at an increasing rate over the past two decades, primarily since
the passage of Proposition 13. Public education in California has
become more and more centralized and annual piecemeal reforms have
been adopted. One does not need to debate the value or virtue of
every new law, but it is daunting to consider that in 1997-98 legislative
session, there were at least 650 individual bills introduced that
affected education in one way or another. Of those that were introduced,
some 180 became law. It is very clear to ACSA members that despite
good intentions, the state lacks focus and direction with regard
to education funding and policy issues.
After pressing for the development of a master plan through legislative
and media efforts, our work now shifts to assisting the Legislature
in drafting a guide to education policy making in California over
the coming years. This document sets forth what ACSA believes should
be the goal, purpose, principles, and components of a master plan.
It represents the collective thinking of those who make up ACSA's
diverse membership; school principals and vice principals, classified
and certificated central office administrators, and superintendents.
MASTER PLAN GOAL
First and foremost, the overriding goal of a master plan must
be to improve education thoughtfully and systematically for California's
six million students, pre-kindergarten through adult. If reforms
are enacted and taxpayer money is spent on programs that do not
lead to improved education, rethinking must occur. Likewise, the
entire community of stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers,
administrators, support personnel, state lawmakers, and the Governor
must think in terms of alignment, recognizing the need for capacity
building within the educational system.
MASTER PLAN PURPOSE
ACSA believes that a master plan should:
- Provide an articulated framework for future education-related
policies, legislation, and fiscal decisions, serving as a lens
through which proposals are examined.
- Provide a common agenda and focus on what is needed in California
schools.
- Define the roles of all stakeholders; the Legislature, Governor,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education
and other boards and commissions, county superintendents, school
districts, and school sites.
MASTER PLAN PRINCIPLES
California's master plan for public education must be based on
the following principles:
- A master plan must cover pre-kindergarten through adult education:
Education provided by school districts and county offices of education
starts before children enter kindergarten and ends when a high
school diploma is issued (and sometimes beyond). It includes students
from all backgrounds, cultural, economic, and academic. There
exists an expanded body of research showing that brain and language
development is critical between birth and age five. With this
information and the changes in today's society, child care and
development needs have dictated that our public schools begin
serving students before kindergarten. Likewise, for many different
reasons, graduating from high school for some occurs as an adult.
Public schools are continually reaching out to those who never
graduated or who lack basic skills to function in today's workplace,
especially those who lack basic English language skills. California's
master plan for public education must clearly articulate services
expected of public schools for all students.
- In a master plan, all roles must be defined clearly: Education
is a complex business and as such, many different individuals
and entities are involved in setting policy, making fiscal decisions,
and carrying out the day-to-day operations of schools. The wide
range of interests and responsibilities makes it imperative that
all of the "players" know their roles. Defining roles will help
focus the attention of each person or entity and assist in holding
all stakeholders and decisionmakers accountable.
- A master plan must embrace ideas that are research-based: Public
resources are limited. This includes the resources of money, personnel,
and time. There should be sufficient research indicating that
a particular program will improve learning before it is implemented
statewide. Even a minor decision that is made for the wrong reasons,
or before research proves that success will follow, can add up
to a lot of waste. California's schools need to be focused on
what works.
- A master plan must embrace a systems approach: All decisions
are connected. All programs are linked together. In fact, no program
or expenditure can be enacted or changed without influencing other
areas. If a decision is made to spend money in one place, there
will be other areas where money cannot be spent. Although a program
may be implemented in targeted grade levels, other grade levels
will be affected as well as facilities, staffing, academic and
professional calendars, and other areas. Attention is needed as
to how new programs, such as testing, relate to instructional
time. As a community, we must all be committed to broader thinking
so that decisions are made with consideration of opportunity costs
and linkages to systems internal and external.
- Local control must be the foundation of a comprehensive master
plan: "He who has the gold rules" has become reality for California's
public education system. With the evolution of school finance,
the school system has become more reliant upon the state for most
of its resources. As the state has assumed more control over school
funding, it has also limited the ability of districts to decide
what is in the best interests of local students. In addition,
assumption of control by the state has led to other setbacks for
schools as well. First, per-pupil funding has fallen dramatically
in comparison to other states. Second, public satisfaction with
the system as a whole has eroded. Research shows that when decisions
are made locally, support for education improves. As California
moves toward standards-based accountability, local control is
essential. Otherwise, the state will hold districts accountable
for actions over which local educators have little or no control.
- Educators must be recognized as professionals: Educators are
professionals. Issues related to compensation, governance, training,
school improvement, etc., should always be made under the premise
that all school employees, certificated and classified, need to
be treated more as resources and less as adversaries. This covers
the spectrum of how decision makers view employees and how employees
view each other. Education as a profession is a full-time responsibility
that continues long after the students go home. Part of being
recognized as professionals includes a work year that encompasses
planning and professional development for all school employees.
- A master plan must be reasonable and sequential: We must be
intentional in thinking through what public education should look
like in the future. As issues are identified, it will be important
to prioritize needs to ensure a logical progression of implementation.
And just as important, adequate time must be allowed beyond the
academic year for change to occur, including time for program
planning and implementation, and staff development.
MAJOR COMPONENTS
ACSA has identified five major components that are needed in master
plan. Those components are:
Education is a local activity, and one cannot get any more local
than the school site. All issues related to governance in education
must be focused on school sites. Decisionmakers at all levels must
continually reevaluate decisions and programs as to how they affect
students, parents, teachers, principals, and site level support
staff.
Perhaps the most critical issue to be addressed concerning governance
is the need to define roles of the various stakeholders. If it is
clear that the school site is the most important ingredient in education,
then the question must be asked by everyone involved: "What can
I do to help school sites?" To the school district, the role then
becomes doing whatever it takes to support the schools in the district.
To the county offices and state, the role then is one that supports
the district so that it can carry out its main mission: to support
individual schools.
Equally important, the roles of state level players must be specifically
defined and delineated to ensure that there is no confusion and
to minimize redundancy. State-level players include the Governor,
Legislature, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Secretary of
Education, State Board of Education, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Another important factor in defining roles is pupil services.
Students have more needs than schools alone can provide. Schools
are often looked at as the entity to provide any number of social
and other services. A master plan should encompass detailed definitions
of the roles and responsibilities of all state and local agencies
that serve youth and families. Health and welfare, social services,
and law enforcement are examples of non-educational entities that
have the same clients as schools. Schools may appropriately serve
as one-stop facilities for many different services, but a collaborative
effort should be made to provide and fund those services.
As stated in our principles, ACSA feels very strongly that local
control should be reestablished in California's education governance
system. Too much direction comes from Sacramento in terms of new
laws, mandates, and spending requirements enacted by the Legislature
and Governor, as well as administrative regulations and other requirements
that come from state agencies such as the Department of Education
and the Department of Finance. Every requirement erodes local control
and reduces the time that educators spend educating. The Education
Code and state regulations governing education must be reduced from
a list of specific rules to more simple statements of goals and
expectations. Flexibility and local decision making should be the
rule.
This year, California is in the process of creating its first
real accountability system. The system is based on state-adopted
standards measured by a state-adopted assessment system. The state
must afford districts time and resources to train teachers and support
staff about the standards, align curriculum, and ensure textbooks
and other instructional materials are available to students. Local
control and accountability can work together; the master plan should
spell that out.
Any discussion of local control must include consideration of
how collective bargaining inhibits local control. Surely the idea
of teachers and administrators talking about the many aspects of
education at the local level is laudable. However, the current collective
bargaining scope, joined with an industrial model of employee union
representation, often turns these discussions into miniature (and
sometimes large) battles. Communities may not be able to discuss
or implement a particular program because it has to go through a
bargaining process where the discussion can turn away from the issue
at hand. ACSA is not concerned about having to negotiate. It is
simply that the current collective bargaining scope is so large
that it slows and at times eliminates local decision making authority
of the community as a whole.
ACSA embraces a comprehensive, standards-based accountability
system. This system should rest on five key components:
- Content standards to define what students should know and be
able to do;
- Performance standards to define levels of proficiency;
- Appropriate assessments to determine if learning has occurred
and to guide and inform instruction;
- Resources and support to assure that the quality of teaching
and student achievement are improved;
- Shared responsibility by all stakeholders, including students,
parents, educators, community members and state leaders.
We realize that pieces of these components are in place in California
in one form or another. We also recognize that the parts of the
system we have now were put into place in rather piecemeal fashion
and out of sequence. There remains a great deal of work to be done
to align the system and make it work for the benefit of students,
parents, and educators. However, the system represents the basic
framework that a master plan should support; one where standards
are set, assessment instruments are in place, schools are held accountable
for results, and the state steps out of the way. The state's responsibility
is to provide adequate resources and implementation timelines while
maintaining the discipline to stay away from directing school decisions.
Accountability is the link between a standards-based system and
local control. Assessment is the key component that holds it all
together. Assessment should measure student attainment of standards.
It should guide instruction, inform parents and students of progress,
and provide educators and other stakeholders information on program
effectiveness. For assessment to be effective and useful, it must
include the following elements:
- Assessment instruments must be aligned with standards;
- Assessment instruments must be integrated and useable for multiple
purposes;
- Information must be provided on individual student progress,
progress of specific groups of students, schoolwide achievement,
curricular evaluation, and system accountability;
- Assessment instruments must utilize a variety of measures since
no one single assessment tool can adequately evaluate student,
school, or district success.
- Assessments must be developed utilizing the most current psychometric
principles. Adequate time must be allowed for necessary field
testing to ensure validity and reliability.
- Assessment criteria and instruments must be clearly defined
to ensure comparability of assessment across student populations
and for the same students over time.
- Assessment must be simple, clear, and coherent so results are
usable and understandable for all stakeholders.
It is no secret that California's public schools are underfunded.
California is a wealthy state, ranking as the world's seventh largest
economy. But when compared to other states, our per-pupil funding
level ranks well below average. It is true that money will not solve
all of the problems facing public schools, but can one really expect
world class performance with below average funding? We think not.
California's master plan must include goals and timelines to increase
funding to a more realistic level, like the top quartile in comparison
to other states. Aspiring to the average will result in average
schools. California's students deserve better. Part of the plan
must include what the state's commitment should be as well as identifying
additional local resources. Identifying local sources of revenue,
along with establishing a simple majority vote requirement, would
help restore funding to where it should be and institute more local
control over programmatic and facility issues and promote a stronger
connection between school and community.
State funding to schools should include a substantial commitment
to discretionary funding on a per-pupil basis, one which should
be enhanced with a simplified system of funding special needs. The
discretionary amount should be equalized around the state, taking
into consideration basic differences such as type of school district.
The focus should be on ensuring equal educational opportunities
for all students.
ACSA believes that the state has a key partnership role when it
comes to staffing. The state as a whole benefits from having a well
trained and compensated certificated and classified staff and it
should direct its efforts at assisting educators in the following
ways:
- Partner with training institutions and local school districts
to foster collegiality among education professions, certificated
and classified, teacher and administrator. All employees need
additional training in methods to make decisions on topics outside
of a limited scope of bargaining.
- Assist in recruitment efforts to attract and retain the best
and brightest. This includes funding schools at a level where
they can compete with major industries, limiting the scope of
bargaining to foster more collegial relationships between educators,
assisting with recruitment by easing reciprocity requirements
with other states, simplifying the credentialing process, and
maintaining state-level retirement systems to ensure system strength
and portability.
- Foster professionalism among educators by eliminating financial
and other barriers to such things as a longer contract year for
staff development and preparation, and lengthening the probationary
period.
- Provide assistance and support to allow all school employees
to be evaluated based on a clear set of standards and supported
with training, mentoring, and coaching to ensure academic success
of all students. All educators are accountable for student academic
success and need ongoing professional development throughout their
careers.
ACSA believes that as a master plan is developed, a part of that
plan should include how it will be communicated to elected officials
and to the broader community, including businesses, parents, and
students. A plan of this magnitude and significance deserves to
be broadcast widely and understood by all stakeholders. Public education
is at a point that it cannot afford any missed opportunities. Once
this plan is written, an extensive communications effort will be
needed to bring everyone up to speed on the content to (1) increase
the level of knowledge about the plan and (2) achieve favorable
and continuing buy-in from newly elected and appointed decisionmakers.
While ACSA is calling for a pre-kindergarten through adult education
master plan, the Legislature will be drafting a master plan that
will include higher education. Forming a seamless pre-kindergarten
through university master plan will benefit all levels of the educational
system and all students within the system. Providing linkages and
fostering collaboration between school districts, county offices
of education, community colleges, and universities will be powerful.
Similar linkages to social services and pupil services are critical.
Progress reports should also be incorporated into the plan. Because
society and the needs of schools change, progress reports should
be made continually throughout the life of the master plan, including
how it is being implemented and whether or not it is working. The
plan, therefore, would be flexible in meeting any new challenges
facing schools and students.
CONCLUSION
ACSA agrees with the Legislative Analyst's assessment, as contained
in the report "A K-12 Master Plan," that California can "within
the existing constitutional framework, revise its educational structure
to accommodate most of the governance changes brought by the 1970s
and use the state's power to improve student achievement. To accomplish
this change, however, requires a consensus on the direction of reform
and a plan that would guide state policy over the long term."
While we recognize that there are immediate needs that cannot
wait for the realization of a master plan, creating a master plan
will help create a cohesive structure of policies, roles, and responsibilities
to guide education decision making over time. Further, the principles
and issues covered in this document can guide the development of
a long term plan and serve as a gauge for any short term policy
issues that arise before a plan is completed.
|
