Vantage point: SB 547 veto sets stage for accountability debate
By:
CSBA President Martha Fluor
Published: November 1, 2011
That school accountability is once again a part of the headlines in California is not a surprise. But how it got there, at least this time, is a bit of a surprise.
During the 2011 legislative session, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg introduced Senate Bill 547, which would have replaced the current Academic Performance Index with an Education Quality Index, a multiple-measures system of public school accountability intended to provide a comprehensive and transparent school and district quality measurement to better inform parents, students, teachers, administrators, policymakers and the public.
CSBA supported the bill, as it would have provided for a more balanced accountability system based on more than just student test scores—focusing on the totality of a student’s education and experiences. As noted in our letter of support to the governor, “SB 547 strikes a balance between important data elements but would also include more unique factors of a quality school environment.”
To the surprise of many, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, and in doing so ignited a very public debate over exactly what “accountability” means in the context of measuring public school performance. He wielded his veto pen with a rhetorical flourish. A few examples:
“SB 547 certainly would add more things to measure, but it is doubtful that it would actually improve our schools. Adding more speedometers to a broken car won’t turn it into a high-performance machine.”
“Instead of recognizing that perhaps we have reached testing nirvana, editorialists and academics alike call for ever more measurement ‘visions and revisions.’ ”
“Lost in the bill’s turgid mandates is any recognition that quality is fundamentally different from quantity.”
Gov. Brown did not offer much in terms of specific alternatives beyond suggesting that it might make better sense to convene local panels to visit schools, observe teachers, interview students, and examine student work. He closed by saying that he looked forward to working with Sen. Steinberg to “craft more inspiring ways to encourage our students to do their best.”
The reaction was quick, and varied. The Sacramento Bee editorialized that the governor’s “inscrutable education policy is hurting California,” while the Los Angeles Times added that while he was wrong to veto the bill, he “made important points about the love of learning.” On the other hand, noted education expert Richard Rothstein praised the governor’s action, writing that it could signal that nation “may finally be ready to turn away from a well-intentioned but destructive reduction of schooling to standardized tests.”
Sen. Steinberg indicated his bill had been misunderstood and called on the governor to present his own plan for school accountability.
Needless to say, this is an important debate that is likely to continue next year. I am very interested in hearing from all of you regarding your perspectives on the issue of accountability. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at mfluor@csba.org. It is vital that our voices as school leaders be a key component of these deliberations.