Report of the Working Group on Governance

Statement of the Issues

The Governance Working Group agreed that the following issues require immediate attention and address education on a long-term basis, and that their resolution is integral to the governance framework of education throughout the state.

Overarching Issues

• Promoting learning and outstanding student achievement is the primary mission of California’s public education system.
• At all levels there is divided leadership and lack of accountability.
• A linkage of clear lines of authority and responsibility with accountability is essential to effective governing and therefore should be promoted by the State Legislature.
• Effective governance must recognize the importance of appropriately empowered local and intermediate educational agencies.

State-level Issues

Accountability

• A primary purpose of having an elected office—direct accountability to voters—is frustrated by the division of leadership among multiple state entities.
• The respective roles of the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, the appointed State Board of Education, and the appointed Secretary for Education are both confusing and conflicting. The present structure of governance is ineffective and allows organizations and individuals at the state level, as well as those responsive to state level entities, to avoid being accountable for the results of their decisions.
• The Governor has primary control of K-12 public education decision-making because the Governor both introduces the state budget, which recommends policy changes for education, and is nearly always the final arbiter on the budget and all other expenditure measures as a result of the line-item veto authority of the Governor.

Coordination

• There is a lack of coordination and accountability in the education system because there are so many agencies involved with little effective linkage among them.

Data Collection

• No central or state-level entity is charged with the responsibility for collection of K-12 data in the consistent and thorough manner necessary for effective delivery of education and matriculation within the K-16 system.
• The specific K-12 data to be collected should be determined by State policy makers, with objectives of that data collection clearly delineated.

Intermediate Issues

• Effective governance in the large and diverse state of California would likely be best realized through financial and academic oversight at a level closer to the district than the state.
• To improve efficient and effective use of resources, some services may need to be provided on a regional basis.
• There is a question as to whether necessary intermediate functions are most appropriately assigned to county offices of education, as currently configured, rather than to some other type of intermediate entity.

District-level Issues

Accountability

• There is a lack of comprehensive accountability for pupil achievement at the school site and district levels in both the elementary and secondary grades.

District Organization and Structure

• 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.

Local Boards

• The large amount of time and energy spent on negotiation of salaries and benefits often leaves local boards and administrative staff struggling to address important operational and instructional issues—and, over time, the conflicts that frequently result from local negotiations over salary and benefits erode public confidence in local school districts.

Recommendations and Rationale

The Governance Working Group produced recommendations for the Joint Committee to consider in its development of the Master Plan. Although the Group discussed and considered mechanisms to implement these recommendations, it found that researching and formally addressing implementation options in addition to its recommendations would be outside of the scope of its charge and infeasible within its time limitations. The following recommendations are intended to be accomplished by the most direct mechanisms possible. Each recommendation is supported by a statement of rationale.

State-level

1. Accountability to California’s citizens for the operations of K-12 public education at large, and ultimate responsibility for the delivery of education to California’s K-12 public education students in particular, should both reside in the office of the Governor. The Governor should appoint a Chief State Schools Officer, to carry out, on behalf of the Governor, the following functions: establishing learning expectations, providing an accountability system of measurement (including specific technical assistance), and apportioning resources, and to serve as the Director of the Department of Education.

Rationale: Sharing a strong view of a current structural disjuncture between responsibility/authority and accountability at the state level, the Group began its discussions by focusing on ways to align responsibility and accountability more effectively. The majority of Governance Working Group members expressed their perception of a need to align accountability and responsibility at the state level. Given that (1) the state-level functions of education are performed by multiple state entities,^[1] and (2) the Governor has primary control of K-12 public education decision-making because the Governor both introduces the state budget, which recommends policy changes for education, and is nearly always the final arbiter on the budget and all other expenditure measures because of the line-item veto authority, it is reasonable for accountability to be aligned with the Governor’s office.

The Group gave considerable attention to the linkage between the K-12 management function, currently residing in the Department of Education—which is under the direction of an independent elected official, the Superintendent of Public Instruction—and the Governor. Most members of the Group viewed this linkage as essential, since the Department of Education is responsible for so many crucial education delivery functions, and since failure to perform those functions or to perform them satisfactorily has led more often to blame assignment between the Superintendent and the Governor than to a remedy for the failure.

The Group discussed recommending that California’s citizens be given an opportunity to vote for a constitutional amendment that would change the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to be an officer appointed by the Governor. The discussions surfaced a concern that the voting public would be unlikely to be sufficiently informed on pertinent issues, such as alignment and accountability, to cast a truly informed vote and therefore would likely reject the amendment simply because it would be a loss of an elected position. The group also voiced apprehension as a result of the fact that past attempts to enact somewhat similar changes have failed, although there has never been a direct attempt to simply change the Superintendent’s office from elected to appointed by the Governor.^[2] The idea of having the Superintendent be appointed by the State Board initially engendered some support, then was largely rejected because of a concern that the link from the Superintendent to the Governor, though enhanced, would be too weak.

A minority view expressed consistently during Group discussions described the elected office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction as being an essential “independent voice” for education matters. The tension that is common between those elected to the positions of Governor and Superintendent was described by one member of the group as “healthy.”

Cognizance of the fact that no one model of state-level education governance structure is embraced throughout the states^[3] further inclined the group to focus on the needs of California specifically, and to generally support a recommendation to link education functions to the Governor. Subsequent agreement among Group members was found on the conclusion that there is more than one avenue to the goal of linking K-12 education functions to the Governor, the addition of a gubernatorially appointed, cabinet-level officer to direct the Department of Education being one of them.

2. The Governor should be accountable for all K-12 state-level education agencies.

Rationale: Although the Group did not reach specific conclusions with respect to agencies such as the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and although most state agencies are linked to the Governor by way of gubernatorially appointed members or staff, the Group determined that state-level alignment should be sure to include all state-level entities in order to underscore accountability and enable coordination.

3. The separate executive director and staff of the State Board within the Department of Education should be eliminated.

Rationale: Having a separate executive director and staff which, though nominally part of the Department of Education, are directed by and report to the State Board of Education is an example of the incoherence of the existing structure of state-level K-12 education governance. When direction of the Department of Education as a whole is aligned as recommended with the Governor, as the State Board itself is now, dual staff will be unnecessary.

4. State Board of Education members should be drawn from and represent distinct geographical regions, and the functions of the State Board should be limited to policy matters.

Rationale: The needs of California’s citizens, particularly those that arise from the diversity and regional variation of this state, will be better met if the policy-recommending body for K-12 education consists of representatives from all regions of the state. The State Board exists to make policy at a level of detail greater than the Governor can reasonably be expected to tend to personally. The State Board should not also be burdened with attempting detailed oversight of implementation of those policies.

The illustration below provides an example of a structure that would satisfy these four state-level recommendations.

Intermediate-level

5. A state-level inquiry, organized independent of currently existing agencies, should examine county offices and regional entities and their ability to meet current and emerging district, intermediate, and regional needs, including fiscal oversight, academic oversight, and management and administrative assistance. After this inquiry is conducted and reported, the Master Plan should incorporate a corresponding course of action.

Rationale: Although the Group’s discussion ranged among restating the importance of county offices, adding powers and functions to their scope, and reducing their number and subsuming them into regional agencies, there was ultimate agreement that county offices are currently providing essential services and that more information is needed to determine if and how county offices or other regional entities can meet the needs discussed in the foregoing recommendation.

Group discussion of intermediate agencies reached simultaneous congruency and disagreement. Accord was found in the view that there are needs best met and oversight functions best carried out by a level of governance that is not defined by the broad perspective of the state, nor reduced to the community perspective of local districts. The necessity of the services currently provided by the 58 county offices of education remained unchallenged. A need for services to be provided on a greater scale than that defined by county lines in some geographical areas of California–that is, a regional approach incorporating more than one county–also found general Group acceptance.

But a three-way division also arose in the Group regarding the structure of intermediate agencies, with some in support of county offices remaining intact structurally while being functionally revamped, others in support of expanding county offices into regional units that would incorporate and increase traditional county office services while reducing the number of offices, and still others undecided.^[4] Hence, consensus was never reached on merging county offices into regional agencies.

Many in the Group asserted that the following functions—which are currently performed by some county offices—are important and should remain and be expanded in the purview of intermediate agencies, whether those agencies are regional units or county offices of education:

• Program management.
• Oversight on behalf of the state.
• Appellate roles for district decisions.
• Serving as the education agency when there is no functioning local agency.
• Interaction with postsecondary education entities.
• Direct services to districts as requested.

The Group also discussed the question of elected versus appointed county superintendents, agreeing that (1) elected officials, generally, may be highly influenced by the special interests that fund their campaigns, and (2) elected officials sometimes act more quickly to make changes because of direct public accountability. However, no recommendations emerged.

District-level

6. A report of all pertinent research to date should be compiled regarding the effects of district and school size and structure on curriculum articulation, service coordination, and accountability at the site and district level. After this inquiry is performed and reported, the Master Plan should incorporate a corresponding course of action.

Rationale: Unification impacts the district and site levels in ways that are beyond the scope of the Group’s charge. While the Group concluded that extremes in district and school sizes are an impediment to the delivery of education, unification as the method to apply an optimal structure and size range to districts and schools is a topic that requires more specific research and discussion than the Group was able to undertake.

7. An examination of collective bargaining should be undertaken to determine the extent to which bargaining agreements may constrain the ability of school districts to ensure the provision of essential non-personnel resources to students. The results of this examination should be used to determine appropriate strategy to ensure that all districts set aside sufficient resources to meet state standards before engaging in bargaining for use of public resources for personnel costs.

Rationale: The group discussed the following: not addressing local bargaining in this report; replacing local bargaining with a statewide salary schedule; recommending a statewide benefit system but not addressing salaries; charging the appointed state-level K-12 education official with development of guidelines for the bargaining process; providing more collective bargaining training for local board members; imposing a bargaining time limit; and capping the amount of money that can be spent locally on salaries. A solution to the problems that local collective bargaining presents should come from a report that is entirely focused on the subject and conducted by disinterested parties.

The large amount of time and energy spent on negotiation of salaries and benefits often leaves local boards and their administrative staff struggling to adequately address other important operational and instructional issues—and, over time, the conflicts that frequently result from local negotiations over salary and benefits erode public confidence in local school districts.

The issue of collective bargaining in general was identified by the Group as being highly controversial. Deliberations on the topic often revolved around the likelihood that any recommendations made by the Group regarding this issue would be met with political opposition. Nearly the entire Group agreed that the process of local board members bargaining with state money, with approximately 85 percent of district daily costs consisting of salaries and benefits, at least should be examined. A few members of the group maintained that the process is beneficial to the system and should be left to continue as it is.

There was near consensus that collective bargaining in general is a complex practice, and that local boards differ greatly in approach and effectiveness across the state. The Group agreed that “[G]overnance should be judged on the basis of what will work best on an institutional basis, rather than what may be the particular success, interest or issues being addressed by an individual or group of individuals at a given point in time.”^[5]