Community-Based Accountability: A New Era of Democratic and Local Control for ESEA?

• In Event: 75.061 - Roundtable Session 34
  In Roundtable Session: 75.061-9 - Community-Based Education Reform: Implications for Policy and Governance

Abstract

Local control has been a bedrock principle of public schooling in America since its inception. NCLB sent us in the opposite direction of this traditional notion. A return to a traditional locally based educational policy can be again realized via a multiple measures approach to accountability that is democratically decided on the community level.
Policymakers from Texas to California are considering community-based approaches to accountability. The first positive sign in Texas was that the High Performance Coalition (HPC) of 20 districts in Texas empowered by SB 1557 sought to adopt a Community-Based Accountability and Assessment plan. Unfortunately, Texas Education Agency Commissioner Michael Williams rejected the HPC plan. However, Governor Jerry Brown introduced Local Accountability in school finance for the entire state of California.
Local Accountability in California involves a process where superintendents, school boards, school staff, parents, students and community stakeholders create a plan based on set short-term and long-term goals based on their local priorities. These goals, if met, result in more funding from the state of California.
The paper will also discuss how community-based accountability could be extend into a national replacement for NCLB. Briefly, the components of this community-based accountability approach could include:

• CBA strategic plan developed at the local level would serve as alternatives to NCLB's intense focus on a top-down, one-size-fits-all policy. It would enable local communities to focus on the outcomes that really matter in addition to test scores (i.e. career readiness, college readiness, safety).
• This new form of accountability would allow for communities to drive a locally based approach that focuses on a set of measures of educational quality for their one-year, five-year, and ten-year goals.
• State and federal government role would be to calculate baselines, growth, and yearly ratings (Recognized, Low-Performing etc.) for a set of goals that communities selected in a democratic process.

In sum, this paper discusses the code and implementation of Local Accountability in California and then considers the possibilities that a community-based approach could bring to districts and schools across the nation.

Authors

• Julian Vasquez Heilig, California State University - Sacramento

• Derrick Ward, National Education Association

• Eric Weisman, The University of Texas - Austin

• Heather Cole, Raise Your Hand Texas