When schools are working well, business as usual is OK. But what if a school isn't working well? Who is supposed to notice, and how does it get better?

Inspection is a normal function of government

We expect safe water from our taps and and healthy food in our stores and restaurants. We expect safe buildings and cars. We expect financial information to be true. Most of the time these expectations are met because the government regularly monitors for quality. If water or food is tainted, inspectors can command quick action and levy penalties. Inspections and audits are a normal function of government.

There is no national school inspectorate in the United States. Constitutionally, each state is responsible for providing education according to its own standards, a job further delegated to school districts. In California the responsibility is further complicated by the mixed roles of districts, counties, and accreditation authorities.

Inputs or outcomes? Competing models of accountability

Before the development of standardized tests, the traditional model of measuring a school was accreditation. An accreditation report, like an inspection, mainly evaluates "inputs" rather than outcomes:

• Does the school have the expected number of teachers? (Check!)
• Is there evidence that the teachers are prepared? (Check!)
• Do they have teaching materials that match the standards? (Check!)

In the Ed100 blog
What is accreditation? Why does it matter?

Accreditation is voluntary for schools in California. High schools may seek accreditation in order to ensure that colleges accept their transcripts. Other than that, there is no external reason to do it.

Since at least the 1960s, California has played a central role in setting statewide rules about educational inputs such as the length of the school day or year, the size of classes, and the choice of curriculum materials. For decades prior to the implementation of the state's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013, funds were allocated to districts using a cumbersome system of categorical funding: money from the state was delivered to districts for use only toward specific purposes. These requirements were annoying, but they could be inspected. If school officials did not comply with regulations about these inputs they could lose funding.

An accreditation report, like an inspection, mainly evaluates "inputs" rather than outcomes. Accreditation is optional.

The adoption of state grade level standards and universal testing, starting in about 1998 in California and accelerated by passage of the No Child Left Behind act in 2001, challenged this input-based model. Rather than holding school districts accountable for the “stuff” they provide to schools, wouldn’t it be better if schools could be accountable for “outcomes” instead? The main expected outcome was learning, which could be measured by test scores. Schools that fell short of the mark could be identified, and districts or states could intervene as needed to improve them.

Leadership in a time of crisis can create change

California's shift away from an input-based accountability model was precipitated by a crisis. When the Great Recession arrived in 2008, deep cuts were unavoidable. At the time, the state budget had about 80 different “categorical” funding streams for education, each with its own rules and champions. Which should be cut?

In an act of historical importance, California's leaders decided not to cut categorical funds one by one. Instead, they were all eliminated together, replaced in 2013 by the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

Accountability vs. capacity

Holding someone accountable for results through the threat of a penalty can be useful if it leads to a better outcome. But what if motivation isn't the issue? For a threat-based approach to work, those penalized have to know what to do differently. Some prominent education experts, including Michael Fullan and Linda Darling-Hammond, argued that more could be accomplished by focusing on the positive work of building capacity.

In California, the transition toward a capacity-building approach began in earnest in about 2014, when the state eliminated the Academic Performance Index (API) system for grading school performance. In tandem with the adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), school districts were required to create plans for improvement and explain them publicly through a document known as the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). In 2017 the state rolled out the California School Dashboard to support local discussions of local results. County Offices of Education were given the new responsibility of supporting those discussions and identifying what to do when districts need extra help. A new state agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), was created to support counties and districts in this work.

Parents are California's school inspectors

Is your school OK? If not, someone needs to demand change. Are you that someone?

This capacity-building emphasis is not without risks. Without an external agency to play the "bad guy" role of inspector, parents and community members are stuck with the job. School districts have a lot of discretion about how to respond to problems, including low test scores. You, as an active participant in the school community, are responsible for understanding what is happening and speaking up when something isn’t working as it should.

School districts have a lot of discretion about how to respond to problems, including low test scores.

Clues about problems may lurk between the lines of public documents. The education system produces a steady diet of public reports, most of them rarely read. In addition to the district-level LCAP report, districts are required to develop a School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for every school, often for review by the school's English Learning Advisory Committee. Districts are also to report results at each school, as well as specific information about expenditures, through an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC). Schools are to make these reports public, but the law doesn't specify how they should do so. As of 2024 Ed100 knows of no mechanism to locate SARC reports, pull data out of them, and validate their accuracy.

The system requires someone to speak up and ask for action when plans for school plans are unequal to the needs of students. As a reader of Ed100, we hope that you will be one of the people who chooses to read these reports, ask questions and blow whistles when necessary.

The next lesson delves more specifically into how the system is designed to provide support in a crisis.

Updated December, 2024