Creating a public accountability for California schools

Teachers College Record

Volumn 106, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 2171-2192

  Rogers, John S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 10244224185     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00432.x     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. Parents Take Action, a video documentary presented by Teaching to Change LA. http://tcla.gseis.ucla.edu/rights/features/7/videos/parents.html.
2. From Oxford English Dictionary online http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/findword?query_type=word&queryword=account.
3. Such involvement does not necessarily advance equity. It can create nonoppositional "outside" bodies that validate school practices or shape practices in ways that favor parent elites. See Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities: School reform as social movement." Journal of Educational Change, 3, 383-406.
4. Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mother's strategies for children's school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166. Epstein, J. L. (1983). Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes. In A. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 19-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Kieth, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986). Parental involvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 272-280. Zill, N., & Nord, C. W. (1994). Running in place: How American families are faring in a changing economy and an individualistic society Washington, DC: Child Trends.
5. Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mother's strategies for children's school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166. Epstein, J. L. (1983). Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes. In A. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 19-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Kieth, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986). Parental involvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 272-280. Zill, N., & Nord, C. W. (1994). Running in place: How American families are faring in a changing economy and an individualistic society Washington, DC: Child Trends.
6. Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mother's strategies for children's school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166. Epstein, J. L. (1983). Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes. In A. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 19-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Kieth, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986). Parental involvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 272-280. Zill, N., & Nord, C. W. (1994). Running in place: How American families are faring in a changing economy and an individualistic society Washington, DC: Child Trends.
7. Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mother's strategies for children's school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166. Epstein, J. L. (1983). Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes. In A. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 19-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Kieth, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986). Parental involvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 272-280. Zill, N., & Nord, C. W. (1994). Running in place: How American families are faring in a changing economy and an individualistic society Washington, DC: Child Trends.
8. See also generally Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
9. The National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement created by the National Parent and Teachers Association in 1997 call for this sort of broadened view of parent involvement. Drawing heavily on the work of Joyce Epstein, the standards call for "two-way, and meaningful" communication between parents and school officials about school conditions and programs (National PTA's "National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs" (1998), // www.pta.org/programs/invstand.htm). Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1139-1152). New York: McMillan.
10. The National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement created by the National Parent and Teachers Association in 1997 call for this sort of broadened view of parent involvement. Drawing heavily on the work of Joyce Epstein, the standards call for "two-way, and meaningful" communication between parents and school officials about school conditions and programs (National PTA's "National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs" (1998), // www.pta.org/programs/invstand.htm). Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1139-1152). New York: McMillan.
11. Several state policy statements, including the California State Board of Education Parent Involvement Policy of 1994 and the California Strategic Plan for Parental Involvement in Education of 1992, refer to the extensive body of research that notes the value added to schools by various forms of parent engagement. See http://www.cde.ca.gov/fc/family/board.html and http://www.cde.ca.gov/fc/family/partners.html.
12. California Education Code Section 51100.
13. See "Local Improvement Plan: Tool for Educational Reform," p. 5., http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/lip.html.
14. California Education Code Section 52050 (The Public School Accountability Act.)
15. The state plan goes on to argue that such forms of parents involvement provide a "means for families and communities to hold schools accountable for high academic performance and safe, orderly learning environments" ("California State Department of Education's Consolidated State Plan, " pp. 3 and 26, http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/summary.html).
16. California Education Code Section 52080.
17. California State Education Code Section 33126.
18. See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ope/sarc/sy0001/question.html.
19. A study by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2000 found that 86.3% of households earning $75,000 and above per year had Internet access compared to 12.7% of households earning less than $15,000 per year (see http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/ index.cfm?key = 168). The Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) recent study confirms that these trends hold true in California as well. In a survey conducted in 1999 and 2000, the PPIC found that whereas 85% of Californians with incomes over $ 60,000 use the internet, only 33% of Californians with incomes less than $20,000 did so. Further, only 20% of Latinos earning less than $20,000 use the Internet and only 14% of Californians whose primary language is Spanish use the Internet (see http://www.ppic.org/facts/digital.nov00.pdf).
20. See http://orb.sfusd.edu/sarcs2/sarc-701.pdf.
21. William Padilla Deposition from Williams vs State of California, pp. 298-299.
22. See, for example, http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fcc.gi.exe? w3exec = jltest&which = 8733.
23. See, for example, http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec = sarc3&which = 8543#School_Safety.
24. Significantly, these redundant and misleading statements appear on SARCs that are shared with the public at large. Such reporting contradicts the presumption of California's Chief Deputy Superintendent Leslie Fausset that the "very public" character of the SARCs will ensure their accuracy (see Leslie Fausset Deposition, Williams v. California, p. 210).
25. "Opportunities to learn" refers to school conditions that enable student learning, such as access to qualified teachers, adequate facilities, and sufficient learning materials.
26. "National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs," http://www.pta.org/ programs/pfistand.htm#standard5.
27. The state does, however, offer districts and schools a Parent Center in Sacramento that provides some technical assistance and related web-based information (see http://www.cde.ca. gov/fc/family/partners.html).
28. California Education Code Section 51101.
29. Of course, those schools that do not volunteer for the program face no such requirement (California Education Code Section 52054).
30. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act includes similar provisions for schools receiving Title I funds. Schools with high percentages of English learners must create an English Learners Advisory Council. (See California Education Code Sections 52160-52178.) It is common practice for schools to convene one council that serves multiple purposes.
31. At the secondary level, students are also included in the councils.
32. California Education Code Section 52012.
33. Malen, B. (1999). The promise and perils of participation in site-based councils. Theory Into Practice, 38(4), 210.
34. Anderson contrasts "authentic participation" with the "bogus, superficial, or ineffective" participation that often characterizes site councils, Anderson, G. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 587, 571.
35. California Department of Education, Policy and Evaluation Division, "Reporting the Academic Performance Index Growth and Awards for 2000-2001 to Staff and Parents: Communications Assistance Packet."
36. California Department of Education, Standards and Assessment Division, "California High School Exit Examination: Parent Notification Assistance Packet for Districts and Schools 2001-2002, p. 2.
37. Susan Lang Deposition, Williams v. California, p. 40.
38. McDermott, K. (1999). Controlling public education: Localism versus equity Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, p. 69.
39. This first case study draws on research conducted by Social Policy Research Associates. Friedlaender, D. (2002). Parent study documentation final report. Social Policy Research Associates. (1 refer to the report in notes below as "SPRA.") For this report, SPRA researchers interviewed school officials, conducted a focus group with parent volunteers, and drew upon an existing parent survey conducted by the school.
40. These case studies are not intended to represent how parents participate in most "underperforming" California schools. Indeed, the challenges SPRA experienced trying to gain access to II/USP schools to study parent participation in accountability point towards the likelihood that many administrators in "underperforming" schools are wary of any close examination of how they engage parents (SPRA, p. 2). Significantly, many of the same schools that declined to participate in this SPRA study of parent participation agreed to participate in another SPRA study of teachers and teaching conditions. That principals agreed to a far more extensive study with teachers but declined to participate in the parent study suggests a particular sense of vulnerability relative to their work with parents. Rather, these cases focus on sites in which members of the public are particularly engaged. Since there is no question here of public interest, the attention turns to the conditions created by the state for meaningful public participation.
41. SPRA p. 3.
42. SPRA Report Appendix, p. 13.
43. SPRA, pp. 3-5.
44. SPRA, p. 8.
45. The parent volunteers interviewed did indicate, however, that Spanish-speaking parents could find teachers or parents to translate for them (SPRA, p. 9).
46. It is worth reiterating that the parents interviewed represent the most engaged parents at the school.
47. SPRA Report Appendix, p. 12.
48. See Note 13. While the school and the state post further information on the Web about school program and STAR testing respectively, it is likely that few parents at Fremont are able to access this information given state-wide patterns of Internet access for Spanish-speaking and low-income populations.
49. SPRA, p. 9.
50. SPRA, p. 7.
51. SPRA, p. 5.
52. This case emerges from an ongoing collaboration between this author and parents in Lynwood and builds on more than 3 years of work by Lynwood's parents and UCLA's Parent Project. This case study draws on an array of data collected by, or in collaboration with, parents in Lynwood. Specifically, the data includes (a) interviews with parent leaders and UCLA partners; (b) parent writing on school quality; (c) surveys conducted by the parents; (d) notes from monthly meetings with Lynwood parents in 2001-2002 school year; and (e) a Spring 2001 program evaluation of UCLA's Parent Project in Lynwood.
53. See http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/dev/District.asp.
54. California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS).
55. Interview with Laila Hasan, December 20, 2001.
56. California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS).
57. Cooper, C. W. (2001). Perceptions of the Parent Curriculum Project's program goals and effectiveness in the Lynwood Unified School District. UCLA Outreach Evaluation Occasional Report Series: Occasional Report #2. Los Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.
58. Interview with UCLA Parent Project Director Laila Hasan.
59. Cooper, p. 7.
60. It is important to note the conditions that enabled parents to make this significant commitment, in time. The Parent Project provided participating parents with breakfast, lunch, and childcare during class sessions. It also paid a modest stipend ($150 or less than $5 per meeting) to parents who successfully completed the program (Cooper, p. 4).
61. Hasan interview.
62. Parent Institute graduates, at least, understand that these results are not useful to leverage the kind of improvement the school needs. Two parent leaders, for example, argue that their schools tend to encourage parents of students who don't test well to waive out of the test, so that these schools can better "compet[e] for API money" (interview with Johnson and Pague, December 20, 2001). Whether or not the parents are correct in their assessment of the schools' actions, the fact is that these parents do not see the scores as a reliable source of information on the quality of learning at the school.
63. Hasan interview.
64. Parent Survey Conducted by Lynwood Parents, November, 2001.
65. Interview with Johnson and Pague and interview with Hasan.
66. Indeed, the high percentage of uncredentialed teachers in Lynwood Unified is in part the result of conditions - state policies and the metropolitan labor market for teachers - that likely are beyond the district's control.
67. It is worth reiterating that the state recommends that parents check with their children's teachers about whether they are teaching to the standards (see Note 40).
68. Interview with Hasan.
69. Interview with Hasan.
70. Justina Pague reports that "there's still people in the community that are afraid" that schools will retaliate against their children if they take action (interview with Johnson and Pague).
71. Parents and community members, no matter how engaged with their local school, cannot transform the regional labor market for teachers. Yet informed parents can keep track of new problems that arise in schools and contribute information from their experience to help in addressing these problems.
72. Fung, A. (2002). Creating deliberative publics: Governance after devolution and democratic centralism. The Good Society, 11, 66-67.
73. Center for Community Change (2001). Individual school report cards: Empowering parents and communities to hold schools accountable Washington DC: Author, p. 23. For more information about this report, see also, Hoff, D. (2001, April 18). Advocate for poor communities urges detailed data on report cards. Education Week. Available from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew-story.cfm?slug=31 cards.h20.
74. Center for Community Change (2001). Individual school report cards: Empowering parents and communities to hold schools accountable Washington DC: Author, p. 23. For more information about this report, see also, Hoff, D. (2001, April 18). Advocate for poor communities urges detailed data on report cards. Education Week. Available from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew-story.cfm?slug=31 cards.h20.
75. See http://www.nycenet.edu/daa/guides/PGUIDE_HS_2000.pdf. New York and Wisconsin also provide parents with a clear statement of how each entering high school class progresses towards graduation. By tracking the students from ninth grade to graduation, these report cards offer parents a far more valuable indicator of a school's "holding power" than drop out rates. See Appendix 2, Figure 3.
76. California State Education Code, Section 51141.
77. Texas similarly has recognized the important role that nonprofit community groups can play in training parents. The Investment Capital Fund Grant Program calls on schools to partner with "a nonprofit community-based organization that has a demonstrated capacity to train, develop, and organize parents and community leaders into a large, nonpartisan constituency that will hold the school and the school district accountable" (see: http:// www.tea.state.tx.us/sii/icfg/).
78. http://www.smmusd.org/supt/2001-2002/hiplacesweb.htm.
79. Ouchi, W. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get your children the education they need. New York: Simon & Schuster.
80. See California Education Code, Section 15278.
81. California Education Code, Section 51121.
82. Dewey, J. (1984). The public and its problems. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, Vol. 2. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, p. 278. (Original work published 1927)