California’s Retreat from Educational Accountability: Early Lessons for Federal Imitators
Article/Op-Ed in The 74 Million
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16571/1657151cb263c4b84ec02463db7b38972db3b1f5" alt=""
Shutterstock
May 10, 2016
Conor P. Williams wrote for the 74 Million about California's struggles with keeping track of education dollars:
Several years ago, California embarked on a new education reform project under the name of "Local Control Accountability Plans" (LCAPs). As I put it in a just-published column at The 74 Million, under the new model, the state.
[P]rovides increased “supplemental” funding for supporting underserved students — including DLLs — and allows districts considerable latitude to decide how to serve those students. The funds are still intended for serving these particular students, but districts have control over how they’ll use them. That is, instead of prescribing that all funds for DLLs be used to fund one of a handful state-specified school activities, the LCAP system requires districts to work with educators and members of the community to develop strategies suited to their students’ needs.
Unfortunately, researchers and advocates in the state continue to find that the extra LCAP dollars are very, very difficult to track. In the column, I survey a series of recent reports outlining California's struggles — and what they can teach us about the (dim) prospects of recent accountability changes in federal education policies.
The reports push hard on LCAPs’ weakest point: The plans are intended to promote eight state educational priorities by giving additional resources, maximizing community input, and expanding local flexibility. The trouble is, local innovation in service of so many different (though often interrelated) goals makes simple, standardized documentation difficult. In no time, a district’s plan stretches over 160 pages (etc), and meaningful oversight and community participation get difficult.
Click here to read the entire column.