Principles for reciprocal accountability in California

research spotlight

By Jeremy Anderson

An illustration of two business professionals shaking hands surrounded by puzzle pieces and gear icons.

California’s education governance system has been described as a “crazy quilt” stitched together over the decades without clear lines of accountability. Governance reform efforts dating back to the late 1800s have noted that the system’s fragmented and incoherent structure threatens local educational agencies’ ability to meaningfully navigate it and serve students. The state has long relied on one-off or temporary programs to solve enduring, deeply rooted issues — particularly student achievement gaps. Achievement gaps across and within student groups in California have been stubbornly persistent for decades despite many LEA-focused education reforms.

California attempted to address the scattered, categorical nature of school funding and accountability through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013. While the LCFF and its accompanying Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) established downstream accountability for LEAs, they failed to institutionalize upward accountability for the state and its role in supporting districts and county offices of education. As we reach a moment of political change, with shifts in the Governor’s Office and the California Department of Education (CDE), the state has an opportunity to re-evaluate its system of education governance to establish reciprocal accountability for student outcomes and improve institutional trust with LEAs.

Reciprocal accountability and relational trust

For much of California’s history of educational accountability, the primary focus has been on LEAs. LEAs are held accountable to the state through LCAPs and differentiated assistance; to the public through the California School Dashboard and test scores; to voters through board elections; and through many other avenues. However, the state (via the CDE, the State Board of Education, the Legislature, the Governor’s Office and other education-related agencies) has not demonstrated the same accountability for student outcomes. While these agencies may not be in the classroom providing direct instruction to students, they play a crucial role in student outcomes. They establish the policies under which LEAs must operate, the funding LEAs receive to educate students, the level of reporting required and many other critical functions.

In the early 2000s, Harvard Professor Richard Elmore advanced the idea that because states play a central role in shaping the environment in which LEAs operate, they must be held to reciprocal accountability for student outcomes. Elmore wrote:

For every increment of performance, I demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet that expectation. Likewise, for every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I have a reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance.

Elmore’s concept of reciprocal accountability stresses that the state must carefully consider how it exercises authority over LEAs and embrace its role in student outcomes. This type of accountability logic inverts the traditional top-down approach and would level the playing field with LEAs. It would also encourage the state to treat policies as hypotheses to be tested and evaluated for impact, rather than as mandates. That type of long-term approach could help with the current environment in which educational policies are piled upon one another with each new legislative cycle. Too often, well-intentioned policies are passed without providing LEAs with the tools, funding or additional capacity to fulfill them. This means that LEAs must repeatedly reallocate finite resources for student education in line with each new policy.

A system that embraces reciprocal accountability can also strengthen relational trust between LEAs and the system. Trust is more than an interpersonal dimension in education governance; it is a vital component of system success. Education researchers Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider conducted a study in Chicago elementary schools to examine the role that social relationships play in student achievement. They found that relational trust — the attributes of respect, personal regard for others, competence and integrity — is the strongest organizational predictor of school improvement, independent of other factors.

While Bryk and Schneider focused on relationships at the school level, relational trust between LEAs and the state are equally critical. That trust is strengthened when LEAs know that the state holds itself to the same standards of accountability to which LEAs are held. If local leaders know that the state is genuinely committed to providing them with the capacity to meaningfully accelerate student learning, whether through funding, focused goals or aligned systems of support, this can increase trust and elevate support. California has already stated its goal is to embrace a system of support; this would be a way to realize that vision.

This type of system would embrace the principles that:

Educational accountability should be mutual — not hierarchical
Every level of education governance is responsible for student outcomes
The state would develop a clear set of goals, transparency around the progress towards those goals and a commitment to continuous evaluation
The state would commit to capacity-building and knowledge generation while providing customer-service level support for LEAs

System-level change that seeks large-scale improvement means that the state has a responsibility to build capacity across all levels of the system. This system would not absolve or diminish the importance of accountability at the local level; rather, it would reorient the system to run in both directions.

It is time to establish reciprocal accountability within California’s education system

Education governance in California is at a pivotal moment. Multiple research institutions, such as Policy Analysis for California Education and researchers in the latest Getting Down to Facts III — the latest review of California’s education system — have noted issues with alignment and coherence. There is a broad, statewide conversation about what it will take to align the system to achieve better student outcomes. State agencies can adopt a sense of reciprocal accountability and, rather than unleash a patchwork of programs and policies, become a coherence-creating institution.

Achievement gaps are not the fault of students; they are system failures. They exist due to a multitude of deeply rooted issues that exist across society. In education, these gaps are evidence that the system has not provided LEAs with the capacity, coherence and trust-sustaining obligations that schools need. It reflects the cumulative consequences of a state that has exercised authority without fully accepting the obligations that entails.

To remedy this, the state should begin by bringing together stakeholders from across the education landscape to develop a statewide operations and support plan that creates alignment, coherence and reciprocal accountability, thereby truly enabling LEAs in their work to close achievement gaps. At the current pace, it will take generations to close these gaps, but in a system where every level has trust and skin in the game, California may be able to hasten that progress and deliver on the promise of an equitable education for all students.

Jeremy Anderson is a principal research manager in CSBA’s Research and Education Policy Development Department. Questions? Contact research@csba.org.

Back to Issue