The Checkered Life of the ‘Accountability’ Buzzword

This week, the Legislature will convene a special session, called by Gov. Gray Davis, devoted entirely to fixing public education in California. Although such a legislative session is unprecedented, its subject matter certainly isn’t. California has consistently been challenged by overcrowded classrooms, multicultural students and a shortage of qualified teachers. The phrase “education reform” has been around since the Sputnik era, becoming part of everyday colloquy 16 years ago, with the publication of “A Nation at Risk,” a report on America’s education failures.

California has had its share of education reforms: curricular, such as whole language and new math; financial, such as Proposition 98; and structural, such as interdistrict-transfer programs, reduced class size and charter schools, to name a few. Usually, each is heralded as a panacea for what ails the schools. Yet, California still ranks in the bottom half of the nation in student achievement and per-pupil spending and continually suffers from overcrowded classrooms and a dearth of qualified teachers, not to mention crumbling school facilities.

In declaring education to be his “first, second and third priority,” Davis has cited “accountability” as his watchword for reform, asserting that it “must not be just another buzzword.” Again, this is not a new concept, but the governor has effectively repackaged it to appeal to interest groups that have felt ignored for the past 16 years of Republican administrations. This time, accountability comes in the form of intensive reading instruction in the lower grades, qualifying exams for students to enter and exit high school, mandatory summer school for low achievers, peer review for teachers and financial incentives to teachers who receive enhanced training and to schools that improve performance. To that end, the governor has set aside $444 million in his new budget.

The California Education Code requires that all persons between the ages of 6 and 18, with certain exceptions, attend school full time. This translates to more than 5.5 million schoolchildren in 1999. The desire to bring accountability to a system responsible for teaching that many young minds is admirable. Yet, in developing any plan of accountability, it is helpful to ask a few questions: What are the desired results? Who is responsible for ensuring those results? How will you know when you have achieved them?

A review of two different types of education reforms is instructive here. More than a decade ago, the Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act was placed on the ballot by educators who were concerned that California’s kids were not being allocated their fair share of the state’s coffers. More commonly referred to as Proposition 98, the act essentially guarantees that, regardless of the state’s financial status, public schools that teach grades K-12 would receive approximately 41% of the state’s general-fund revenues. The text of the initiative asserted, “This act will enable Californians to once again have one of the best public school systems in the nation” and “will require every local school board to prepare a School Accountability Report Card to guarantee accountability for the dollars spent.”

The public-school-funding priority is now part of the California Constitution, and the school-accountability report card is still required to be produced annually. The report card is supposed to provide data that will allow parents to compare public schools in deciding where to enroll their children. It includes such data as student achievement in, and progress toward, meeting reading, writing, arithmetic and other academic goals; information on dropout rates, class size, qualifications and numbers of personnel; conditions of school buildings; number of instructional minutes provided; disciplinary policies; and instructional materials.

In marketing Proposition 98 as a panacea, proponents made three assumptions: A guaranteed amount of money will fix the schools; parents are the ultimate arbiters of accountability and have the power to enforce it; and a statewide assessment test will be in place to measure achievement. None of these assumptions proved correct. Money without standards does not guarantee results. As the system is currently structured, parents do not have the power to make schools accountable. Finally, no statewide assessment test nor standards against which to measure achievement were ever created, due to political infighting throughout Gov. Pete Wilson’s eight-year administration.

More recently, the concept of charter schools has gained popularity as a viable education reform. Its proponents have been able to appeal to a divergent group of education special interests because charter schools promise something for everyone: accountability, autonomy, empowerment, choice, competition and innovation. California’s charter-school law went into effect in 1993, with the legislation declaring an intent to “hold the [charter] schools . . . accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems.”

One of the most appealing features of charter schools is that they are exempt from most sections of the often-criticized state Education Code. This allows them to operate autonomously, at the local level, without much state intervention. In exchange for their autonomy, they accept more accountability for student outcomes. The beef behind their accountability claim comes from the threat of losing a charter if student achievement falters and from the fact that parents can remove their children if unsatisfied with results. There are two assumptions here: If a charter is revoked, students will have another school to attend; and parents are the final arbiters of accountability.

A recent study by researchers at UCLA concluded, however, that “Charter schools in California are, in most instances, not yet being held accountable for enhanced academic achievement of their students. They are more likely to be held financially accountable.” Furthermore, the study found that “Charter schools have multiple constituencies to whom they see themselves accountable” and that “school boards are ambivalent about their responsibilities to monitor charter school.”

There are several reasons behind these unsettling conclusions: The language of the charter-school law is too vague when it comes to parceling out responsibility for lack of performance; many approved charters do not devote specific language to establishing or measuring student performance; there have been no statewide standards for student assessment since the law was passed; and roles for each layer of bureaucracy, from local to state entities, in terms of imposing sanctions on charter schools for not meeting their stated goals, are inadequately defined.

Thus, two major reform efforts in the last 15 years, while successful in some respects, have been unsuccessful in achieving their stated goal of accountability. After all this time and money, California still struggles with the same problems: low student achievement, a lack of qualified teachers and deteriorating school facilities.

In evaluating Davis’ efforts at achieving accountability in public education, the same questions apply: What are the standards that we expect students to meet? How will we know when they have met them? Who is responsible for making sure they are met? What tools do they have to enforce compliance?

Unless these are seriously addressed, the latest pledge to reform public education will prove once again that accountability is just another buzzword.*