A Wish List for SARCs on Their 20th Birthday

Twenty years ago, California voters gave birth to accountability reporting by approving Proposition 98, which fundamentally changed the level and manner of school funding. This constitutional amendment gave the public the right to see how schools were doing in return for a funding guarantee. The title of the initiative captured both aspects of this well. It was dubbed the “Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act.” Its purpose was simple, even if its methods were not: In the words of the Legislative Analyst’s Primer on Prop. 98, “Generally, Proposition 98 provides K-14 schools with a guaranteed funding source that grows each year with the economy and the number of students.”

Although Prop. 98’s funding guarantees are likely to be suspended by the Legislature as soon as Governor Schwarzenegger convenes this emergency session, accountability reporting remains more active than ever. Its promise – to bring sunshine to the key factors that reveal how schools and districts are doing – has grown in two ways. First, it has become a promise in every state due to reforms in federal law. Second, accountability reporting has grown in California to include much more than the initial 13 items that could be easily covered in a four-page SARC. The most recent addition – and highly relevant today -- to a long list of key factors is about money: what schools spend and what teachers earn.

On the occasion of the 20th birthday of accountability reporting, I would like to offer a modest present. What follows is a list of four recommendations. They are intended to prune what has become an overgrown garden, and to plant some new flowers to replace what has become deadwood. These suggestions could result in more effective reports that cost less money and require less time to prepare. If you have suggestions of your own, send them along and I’ll publish them in a follow-up to this newsletter.

Request #1: Field test the public’s comprehension of the existing SARC.

Is this document doing what the voters and the Legislature intended? Perhaps it’s time to ask citizens their opinion. With 40 percent of the state’s general fund spent on schools, the SARC should be an effective way to communicate how schools are doing. If it fails to do this effectively, it should be fixed.

UCLA Law School professor Gary Blasi’s 2005 study of the CDE SARC template’s effectiveness was a good beginning. His study, “Grading the Report Card,” indicated that this version of the accountability report too often resulted in damage – specifically, an erosion of trust among some citizens in district leaders. Poor reporting does carry an element of risk. It can misinform. It can annoy. And it can erode the bridge of trust between citizen and civic institutions. These risks, and the combined district and state investment of approximately $15 to $20 million a year in accountability reporting, should warrant a serious field test, at least.

Request #2: Plan a new SARC that begins with what citizens want to know about schools.

It’s been 20 years since Prop. 98 was approved by the voters. Perhaps it’s time to take a new look at what citizens want to know about schools and how that knowledge should be delivered. Much has changed in those 20 years. Sunshine laws have brought more of the affairs of government into public view. State accountability legislation was passed ten years ago and set new standards for results. The Internet has fundamentally changed the way that the reading public finds and reads information. It is now common for students to speak Spanish or another language at home as well as English. The tax revolt, which started in 1978 with Prop. 13, has sunk deep roots in California. The implicit message is that citizens have put a limit on what they are willing to pay for the services that government delivers, and that includes schools. In addition, the life inside the castle of K-12 has changed. Standards are here to stay, and they are tough. Testing of what students know is here to stay. And parents are now much freer to choose schools for their kids, either inside or outside the district boundaries. They are no longer captive customers.

A new report to parents about the condition of schools should take all of this into account. Other states are already doing this more effectively. Colorado and Florida are among the leaders in creating shorter reports that distill key factors about schools and that reach more parents who read them. Why can’t California join the ranks of those states that are now innovators, especially if a new solution is both less expensive and more effective?

A good starting point would be to read the research report titled "Reporting Results," conducted by KSA-Plus Communications, funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, and published by Education Week in its 1998 annual issue of “Quality Counts.”

Request #3: Provide funding to cover the cost of accountability reporting.

SARCs have never been fully reimbursable. Most districts have managed to retrieve only about two-thirds of the cost. The reason is California law calls for the legislature to give governing agencies the money to fulfill their mandates. Because SARCs began with a voter-initiated proposition, the original 13 items in Prop. 98 were never reimbursable. The second problem is reimbursements have been held back in lean years. The state’s treasury has been loaded, but not full enough to allow the finance folks to allow mandates to be reimbursed in full every year. SARC reimbursements have even been the subject of a lawsuit, which was recently resolved in favor of districts. Our recommendation is to pay districts back in full every year.

Request #4: Pay for SARCs at a fixed rate per school.

Reimbursements have been paid to districts for accountability reporting based only on their costs. If districts asked for $3,000 per site in reimbursed costs, they got it. If more frugal districts asked only for $500 per site, they got it. The cost of this work should be more or less identical across districts. A reasonable accounting could render a cost estimate with ease, based on the historical record. Sixteen years of reimbursement requests from thousands of schools would enable an accountant to make a well-informed determination. Based on survey information from the CDE, and our own clients’ history, I believe this figure would fall between $1,400 to $1,800 per site.

Given the evidence in the CDE’s survey of SARC liaisons from two years ago, it appears that a surprising number of districts are submitting reimbursement claims for more than $1,500 per site. If this is true, the total cost of SARCs could be reduced, and the reimbursements could become more fair.

In addition, establishing a uniform level of reimbursement for SARCs would motivate districts to be economical in their approach to this work. Cost-claim reimbursements and the categorical funding system have come under critical attention from the Sacramento Bee newspaper (among others), the Governor’s California Performance Review, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The much anticipated report by the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence is expected to propose a fundamental reform of the mandate reimbursement process as well.

Are we not all Californians? If we live and work in the same state, why shouldn’t all the schools in California be reporting more consistently and effectively? If other states can do it, so can we. This seems a modest present to wish for on the 20th birthday of school accountability report cards.

REFERENCES

The Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote a primer to Prop. 98. It is dated 2005, and contains a highly timely and objective recap of the actual fluctuation of K-12 funding in California, adjusted for inflation. (See figures 8 and 9.)

Deb Kollar’s remarkable 2003 feature series in the Sacramento Bee about mandate cost reimbursement flaws, the problems with categoricals, and more. Sadly, her story is as relevant today as it was five years ago.

UCLA law school professor Gary Blasi’s critique of the CDE’s SARC template, published in 2005.

The preview version of the long-awaited report from the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. This committee’s members are notables, and its head is Ted Mitchell.

Stanford professor and long-time K-12 governance maven Michael Kirst offers his comments on the recommendations contained in the report by the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence.