BEATRICE FUCHS
Master of Public Policy Student
Certificate of Public Management, May 2013
University of Southern California
Price School of Public Policy
Beatrice Fuchs is a Master of Public Policy student at the Price School of Public Policy at USC. She works as a research assistant at the USC Center on Educational Governance studying K–12 public education reform and public school choice. She will be an Education Pioneers Fellow in the summer of 2013.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the A–G Resolution passed by the LAUSD Board of Education that altered district-wide high school graduation requirements, adding a mandatory 15-course sequence that aligns with the requirements for admission to the University of California and California State University. This paper analyzes the impacts of the first of two implementation phases, begun in 2005. The paper provides a detailed examination of the policy goals, target population, implementing agent, implementation process, mandate design, and existing evaluation, supported by academic research. The paper concludes with a recommendation to the LAUSD Board of Education for the second implementation phase, which began in the fall of 2012.
Executive Summary
The A–G Resolution was passed in the summer of 2005 by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education. It alters the LAUSD high school graduation requirements, adding a mandatory 15-course sequence that aligns with the requirements for admission to the University of California and California State University, referred to as A-G courses. 1 The resolution is being implemented in two phases. Phase 1 opened enrollment in all A–G courses to any students who requested it. Phase 2 (commencing in Fall 2012) requires that all students entering Grade 9 complete the 15-course sequence prior to graduation. The second phase is a scaling-up of the first, as it disseminates the new graduation requirements to all 140 high schools and all students in LAUSD. This paper is an analysis of the policy at this intermediary period, after implementation of Phase 1 and prior to implementation of Phase 2, an interesting and timely period to analyze in the life of the policy.
On a cursory reading of the A–G Resolution, the actions of the Board of Education seem well intended, aiming to achieve educational equity by ensuring all students take the same courses. However, in a detailed examination of the policy goals, target population, implementing agent, implementation process, mandate design, and existing evaluations it is clear the policy fails to address several aspects that are essential to achieving the intended goal of district-wide educational equity. The Board of Education very clearly detailed the intended goals of the A–G Resolution in the text of the policy. 2 The target population of high school students are addressed as well; however, the policy fails to address the inherent differences between students in LAUSD. The policy fails to acknowledge the existence of divergent sub-groups within the target population. This failure presents reoccurring issues for implementation.
The Board of Education’s failure to incorporate tacit knowledge in the treatment of the target population and in the creation of conducive learning environments calls into question whether the policy will be able to achieve its goal of educational equity, or whether the A–G Resolution will compound the existing problem and deepen the continually expanding achievement gap. The Board of Education should re-evaluate the A–G Resolution after implementation of Phase 2, consider the importance of addressing the different target population sub-groups and the divergent school environments, to ensure that all students have equitable preparation to succeed in the A–G courses.
The A–G Resolution: Background and Policy Goals
Educational inequity has long plagued LAUSD. The Los Angeles City Board of Education has acknowledged its failure to properly educate a significant number of students and its failure to provide students with skills necessary for success in the 21st-century workforce. 3 In 2005, the Board of Education recommitted to “becoming one of the best urban school districts in the nation and … eliminating the Achievement Gap amongst all of its students.” 4 They set out to eliminate this gap in achievement by restructuring the course requirements for high school graduation.
On June 14, 2005 the Board of Education passed the A–G Resolution. The resolution dictated that the Superintendent must provide access to A–G courses for every student who desires enrollment in any of the courses. Furthermore, the resolution prescribed that commencing in Fall 2012, all students entering Grade 9 must complete the A–G course sequence to graduate.
The disparities between completion of the A–G course by students of different races reflects a severe inequity in the educational services provided by LAUSD high schools. 5 Since a portion of the A–G courses have not been required for graduation, students were not guaranteed access to these classes depending on their high school’s specific course offerings until the implementation of this two-phase regulatory policy.
The A–G Resolution seeks not only to bring about educational equity within LAUSD but also to fulfill a series of goals for students in the district. The goals of the resolution were clearly defined in the motion presented to the Los Angeles City Board of Education on June 14th, 2005 and include:
The A–G Resolution states that its ultimate goal is to implement the A–G course sequence as a catalyst to bring about educational equity. The resolution states that as a result of implementing the 15-course sequence, students will be better prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce. 7 More specifically, “The A–G course sequence is a rigorous life readiness curriculum that does not guarantee college admission but rather allows students choice.”8 Increasing options and the possibility for success for students has many desired positive effects. These societal benefits include decreased crime rates, increased earning potential, and decreased need for welfare assistance. 9 All of these benefits hinge on altering the behavior of students so that they graduate high school armed with the knowledge of the A–G courses and prepared for the future.
Whether these goals are likely to be achieved can be determined through analysis of the A–G Resolution: the definition of equity underlying it, the diversity of its target population, its overall design, and the method of evaluation used to assess it. After this analysis, a recommendation will be made as to how best to implement the policy to achieve the desired goal: educational equity.
Achieving Educational Equity
The ultimate goal of the A–G Resolution is to create educational equity and eliminate the achievement gap by equalizing the courses available to the target population: LAUSD high school students. In Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone states, “Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment; and the same distribution may be seen as equal or unequal depending on one’s point of view.” 10 This statement does not hold true in the analysis of the existing inequity in the achievement gap between LAUSD high school students. To achieve educational equity, equal treatment is essential. Stone defines equality as distributional uniformity and equity as fair distribution. 11 In the case of the A–G Resolution, fair distribution is distributional uniformity, because LAUSD exists to serve all students both fairly and uniformly.
The three central goals of the A–G Resolution require equal and equitable treatment of all students and courses. Whether the social process by which distribution of courses to students is determined is currently equitable in Phase 1 remains to be determined. The resolution dictates that all students should have access to courses, but inequity (lack of fair distribution) still exists in Phase 1 of implementation because not all courses are offered at all high schools. 12 Stone argues, “Process is important because our notion of fairness includes not only the end result but the sense of fair process by which the results occurred.” 13
Stone creates an analogy regarding dividing a cake equitably based on diet versus equal serving sizes for all, can be applied in the analysis of equity and the new graduation requirements. Because of students’ differing elementary and middle school experiences, some may not be as well prepared for the courses as others and thus may not derive an equal level of value from the classes. This issue is a continuing theme throughout analysis of the A–G
Resolution, as it poses problems within the target group, in the mandate design, and is related to a key warning that reappears in the official evaluation of the policy. If LAUSD desires to create educational equity, the Board of Education cannot only agree to allow all students equal slices of the metaphorical cake but they must ensure that the slices of cake are equally accessible for all students, regardless of which high school they attend within the district.
Target Population and The Importance of Sub-Groups
The most significant target population of the A–G Resolution is the current and future high school students in LAUSD. More specifically, the A–G Resolution targets two distinct subgroups of students: the students who would not choose to take the 15-course sequence and the students who lack access to the courses. In Social Construction of Target Populations, Schneider and Ingram present a model for the classification of the construction and power of target populations. 14 According to this model, the A–G Resolution’s target population is portrayed as weak (the Board of Education must advocate and take action on their behalf) and negative (many students are not choosing to take these courses, thus they are constructed as “deviants”). By implementing the A–G Resolution, the Board of Education aims to reconstruct the target population upon graduation as “strong and positive” – as college-ready high school graduates.
Schneider and Ingram argue that policy is powerful and attempts to achieve goals by changing people’s behavior. 15 Through requiring all students to complete the 15 courses of the A–G requirements, LAUSD seeks to improve conditions of educational equity by altering student’s behavior. Prior to the Resolution, only 15% of Latino students, 21% of African American students, 36% of white students, and 50% of Asian students completed the A–G requirements. 16 Through this policy, LAUSD seeks to ensure that 100% of graduates complete the A–G requirements.
The Power of Regulatory Change, Causal Theory, and Co-Production
In Evidence Based Policy: II – The Promise of ‘Realist Synthesis’ Ray Pawson writes,
“The causal power of an initiative lies in its underlying mechanism, namely its basic theory
about how programme resources will influence the subject’s actions.” 17 In the A–G Resolution, policy dictates an expansion of resources (courses) for students as a mechanism to produce the desired change in the target population’s behavior. 18 The course expansion arises as a function of the policy’s change to graduation requirements, and thus the Board of Education’s re-writing of the requirements is a causal mechanism for the desired change.
The desired change of the A–G Resolution is 100% completion of the A–G courses for all graduates, to produce a more equitable district. 19 For the A–G Resolution to reach its ultimate goal, students (as the target population) must act as co-producers of the policy. In Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery, Gordon Whitaker argues that this is particularly important for policies where “change in the client’s behavior is the product which is supposed to be delivered.” 20 Within the context of a target population that desires to take these courses but has issues with access, the policy will produce the desired result of equity. Within the context of a target population who would not have chosen to take these courses, the policy may not be as effective. For students struggling with the previous, less rigorous, graduation requirements this policy may be an obstacle to graduating. In this context, the A–G Resolution will work in opposition to its ultimate goal of reaching educational equity, by deepening the achievement gap. This issue must be addressed in the implementation of policy to encourage all students to act as co-producers and embrace the newly required A–G courses.
For the A–G Resolution, the effectiveness of the regulatory mechanism of altering
graduation requirements varies depending on the portion of the target population it is reaching.
Pawson argues that for the mechanism to be triggered “context must align,” where context
depends on “characteristics of both the subjects and the programme locality.” 21 In examining the mechanism of the A–G Resolution, it is not specifically the context of where the policy is being applied, but to whom it is applied that produces the divergent degrees of effectiveness.
The Role of the Implementing Agent
LAUSD was instructed to implement the A–G Resolution in a two-stage process. In the
first stage of implementation, schools were to provide A–G courses to every student who
requested enrollment. 22 By Fall 2012, the second phase of implementation requires that all students entering Grade 9 complete the 15-course sequence prior to graduation.23 The district (the Board of Education and Superintendent) represents the primary implementing agent of the A–G Resolution. 24
It is important to note that LAUSD is situated in a web of supportive entities including: teachers, professional development staff, local district superintendents, students, parents, and community groups. In Politics, Markets, and the Organization of Schools, Chubb and Moe argue, “Politicians have the authority to shape the schools through public policy, and precisely because they have this authority, they are consistently under pressure from interest groups to exercise it.” 25 All of the supportive entities of LAUSD can be seen as interest groups of the A–G Initiative. One key interest group, Alliance for a Better Community (ABC), did play a large role in presenting this issue to the Board of Directors and pushing for graduation requirement changes. However ABC, like the other groups listed above, is not the agent upon which the successful implementation of the A–G Resolution is contingent.
In Politics, Markets, and the Organization of Schools, Chubb and Moe craft a theory addressing the role of environment in implementation:
The organization and performance of schools are largely explainable by the environments that surround them. Different types of environments should tend to produce different types of schools. When schools turn out to have non-desirable characteristics, the logical culprit is the environment – not the schools. 26
Following this conceptual framework, as the implementing agent LAUSD is responsible for constructing a positive environment to enable success for schools and thereby success for students. The A–G Resolution seeks to change the environment of high schools by mandating equity across the district. The implementing agent need not address every school individually, as the nature of the policy is to cast a wide net throughout the district that will encompass all schools. LAUSD is an appropriate agent for implementing the A–G Resolution, because it has the wide reaching power to effect change on this scale. LAUSD may seek to construct a positive environment for adopting this policy by analyzing existing elementary curriculum to ensure students are properly prepared for A–G courses in high school.
Mandate Design and Changing Graduation Requirements Through Policy
The LAUSD Division of Instruction’s A–G Initiative did not leave any discretion to the
Board of Education in terms of how the resolution was to be implemented. In The Politics of
Bureaucratic Structure, Terry Moe contends, “Structural choices have important consequences for the content and direction of policy, and political actors know it.” 27 The Division of Instruction’s structural choice to use a regulatory policy change to reach the ultimate goal of educational equity can be seen as a political strategy to make sure that its wishes could not be incorrectly interpreted or improperly implemented. Since LAUSD regulations dictate that courses required for graduation must be offered at all schools, there was no choice about how to implement the courses’ availability. Within the framework of Moe’s theory on structural choices, approaching the issue of equity with a graduation requirement change can be seen as a politically motivated action because the Division of Instruction was able to clearly outline the content and direction of the policy.
The A–G Resolution relies on explicit, overt knowledge that is clearly articulated and codified. 28 The explicit knowledge of the resolution has little probability of exception because of its nature as a regulatory policy, and thus relies on a feed-forward system to steer behavior of schools and students.29 The feed-forward system guides the behavior of students by ensuring they gain the human capital of the A–G course sequence, and guides the behavior of schools within the district by ensuring equity throughout. It is highly important to note that concerns surrounding implementing this resolution as a district-wide minimum requirement for graduation have been raised. The A–G Resolution does not incorporate tacit knowledge derived from examining specific groups who are affected by the policy. 30 For example, the policy does not incorporate tacit knowledge concerning the widespread failure to prepare students for the A–G course content, stemming from the issue of subpopulations in the target group. The A–G Resolution does not articulate any program or process of implementation to remedy this issue.
While this is technically outside the scope of the A–G Resolution (designed specifically to alter high school requirements), the regulatory change ignites a chain effect in the K-12 curriculum that should be addressed in the implementation process. By not incorporating tacit knowledge the
A–G Resolution is inequitable in the way it will affect dissimilar schools. Individual schools may
have more tacit knowledge about how to support their students, but discretion and funding specific to this was not included in the policy, which will be a barrier to implementation.
As an explicit, regulatory policy designed to modify requirements and alter the environment of schools throughout LAUSD, the A–G Resolution leaves little discretion to its implementing agent and little room for collaboration or cooperation on the part of any other entities affected by the policy. Since the A–G Resolution has only reached the second phase of implementation this past fall, the next four years will show if the failure to incorporate tacit knowledge and interest groups into the implementation process will affect the successful implementation and outcome of the policy. Examining the implementation process is essential to addressing the issue of what equity means and what bringing equity to LAUSD really requires when dealing with target group subpopulations, omnipotent implementing agents, and policy designed as a regulation.
The Research and Evaluation Department and Evaluation Mechanisms
The A–G Initiative was developed as one of the nine building blocks of LAUSD’s plan for secondary school reform, thus its success is essential to reform within the district. In the text of the recommendation for the A–G Initiative, the LAUSD Division of Instruction did not specifically incorporate an evaluation mechanism. However, when the Board of Education voted to implement the A–G Resolution, they charged the Research and Evaluation (R&E) Department with the task of evaluation. The Board of Education did not dictate an explicit evaluation mechanism but more broadly requested an evaluation that focused on improvement-oriented measures and was to align with Superintendent Brewer’s guiding principles: “decision-making based on data, research and analysis, and reflect[ing] the mission of Research and Evaluation to provide feedback to program managers for program improvement.” 31
The R&E Department analyzed both the implementing agent (LAUSD) and the affected group (students). Both the evaluators (R&E Department) and the consumers of the evaluation (Board of Education) are internal to LAUSD but act independently. The R&E Department designed the evaluation to “integrate program evaluations in secondary mathematics and secondary literacy, with the primary focus on the new PD [Professional Development] model used in math and ELA [English Language Arts].” 32 The evaluation can be seen as summative, as it occurred at the end of the first year of the first phase of implementation. The R&E Department analyzed the following areas, which include both outcomes and processes: “Professional development for counselors delivered by the central Secondary Counseling Office, guidance and information provided to students by counselors, various contextual and attitudinal factors that influence the progress of students in secondary school, and course-taking trajectories and bottleneck courses and grades.” 33
The purpose of R&E Department’s summative analysis was to produce recommendations for the Board of Education to help tailor the second phase of implementation, to achieve the ultimate goal of making the secondary school environment more conducive to achieving educational equity. The recommendation focused on creating conducive environments among the target population.
Feedback and Improvement for Phase 2 of Implementation
The Research and Evaluation Department’s evaluation was designed specifically to arrive at recommendations for the Board of Education to improve upon the ongoing implementation of the A–G Resolution. Since the evaluation was the result of a single analysis rather than a continuous process, it did not build feedback loops into the policy, but it was able to offer recommendations. 34 The key recommendation focused on worries about the A–G Resolution prematurely instituting unrealistic, high demands on students and the secondary school system, which could result in issues in the same way that standardized test-based evaluation led to “teaching to the test.” 35
The recommendations were timely in that they were delivered after implementation of
Phase 1 of the two-part implementation plan for the A–G Resolution. In Getting to Scale with
Good Educational Practice, R. F. Elmore posits that many changes that actually make a difference in an organization require a core change to the organization. 36In the case of the A–G Resolution, LAUSD must alter the way it delivers quality education to ensure not only that all students are enrolled in A–G courses, but also all students successfully complete the 15-course sequence (the underlying problem throughout implementation of the policy). As Elmore discusses, implementation of new curricula may not produce a desired result unless it changes the core of what matters to the district. 37 It is important to evaluate and understand what the organization seeks to accomplish with the curricular change. For LAUSD, the A–G Resolution’s goal is multifaceted, but its ultimate goal is to create educational equity throughout the district. If students are not prepared for more challenging courses, the A–G Resolution may create a greater divide in educational attainment, deepening the achievement gap. The evaluation conducted by the R&E Department warns about the possibility that students and the school system may not be ready for the high demands associated with the new curriculum.
Elmore presents the notion that in scaling-up there can be a nested problem in education.
He argues that for a few schools implementation to fidelity may occur but at other schools conditions may not be in place to facilitate full implementation. 38 In Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations, Trisha Greenhalgh includes a discussion of system antecedents and readiness. 39 Within Greenhalgh’s conceptual framework, if networking capabilities, absorptive capacity for new knowledge, or receptivity among leadership and implementation staff are lacking, the successful implementation of new programs will suffer. For LAUSD, it is vitally important to address these system aspects as it scales up the A–G curriculum as the second phase of implementation comes into effect.
The A–G Resolution lacks an ongoing evaluation mechanism and lacks feedback loops to aid in continual improvement of the policy. The Board of Education should address the recommendations given by the R&E Department in the first evaluation. Additionally, the Board of Education should consider adding formative evaluations focused on process and outcomes with future implementation. The second phase of implementation of the A–G Resolution begins in Fall 2012. This creates a window for the Board of Education to incorporate these systems into the policy to ensure that changing graduation requirements will result in the desired goal of the A–G Resolution, educational equity.
Recommendation
As LAUSD embarks on Phase 2 of implementation of the A–G Resolution, all new high school entrants will be required to complete the 15-course sequence prior to graduation. Evaluation of the policy is needed as this phase begins. The Research and Evaluation Department lost funding and was condensed from a 30-person department to a 3-person Research Unit. Currently, the Research Unit does not have time or funding to conduct evaluation of any LAUSD programs. The Board of Education should allocate funding to re-evaluating the A–G Resolution after the second phase of implementation.
In this analysis it is clear that the Board of Education has failed to address the inherent differences between sub-groups and learning environments at different schools that are essential to success of the A–G Resolution. The Research and Evaluation Department’s warning that students are not ready for the high demands of the new curriculum cannot be ignored. The Board of Education should heed this warning and look at restructuring the support system available to students as well as curriculum at the elementary school level to ensure that all students are prepared for the new courses. To achieve educational equity all students must successfully complete the A–G course sequence. The private and societal benefits associated with being a high school graduate are undeniable. As it stands, the A–G Resolution has laid the foundation for the possibility of an equitable district; however, the Board of Education must consider these fundamental issues in implementation to ensure that they will not be deepening the achievement gap in their quest to achieve educational equity.
References
1 Huizar & Lauritzen. “Resolution to Create Education Equity in Los Angeles Through the
Implementation of the A–G Course Sequence as Part of the High School Graduation Requirement.”
Motions/Resolutions Presented to the Los Angeles City Board of Education for Consideration June 14,
2005. p 1. The 15-course A–G sequence includes classes in the following subject areas: (A) Social
Studies, (B) English, (C) Mathematics, (D) Science, (E) Foreign Language, (F) Visual Performing Arts,
and (G) an elective course.
2 Huizar & Lauritzen. “Resolution to Create Education Equity in Los Angeles Through the
Implementation of the A–G Course Sequence as Part of the High School Graduation Requirement.”
Motions/Resolutions Presented to the Los Angeles City Board of Education for Consideration June 14,
2005.
3 Op. Cit. 1. p 1.
4 Ibid. p 2.
5 Op. Cit. 1, p 1. This data was collected from tracking LAUSD students entering 9th grade in the 1999–
2000 school year.
6Ibid. p 1.
7Op. Cit. 1.
8Ibid.
9Wohlstetter, P., Smith J., Farrell C. Choices and Challenges – Charter Schools Performance in
Perspective. Harvard Education Press, 2013.
10 Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decisions Making. Norton, Q. Q. & Company,
2001. p 50.
11Ibid.
12 The scale-up to the second phase of implementation in Fall 2012 will rectify this specific inequity.
13 Op. Cit. 10. p 51.
14Schneider, Ann and Helen Ingram. “Social Construction if Target Populations.” American Political
Science Review (June 1993), p. 337.
15 Ibid.
16 Op. Cit. 1. p 1. This statistic is for LAUSD Grade 9 students in 1999-2000, graduating four years later.
17 Pawson, Ray. “Evidence based Policy: ii The Promise of Realist Synthesis.” p 4.
18Op. Cit. 1.
19 Ibid.
20 Whitaker, Gordon. “Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery.” University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Public Administration Review. p 240.
21Pawson, Ray. “Evidence Based Policy: II. The Promise of Realist Synthesis.” ESRC Center for
Evidence Based Policy Practice University of London, 2001. p 4.
22 Lopez, Grecya et al. “Implementation of the A–G Initiative: 2006-07 Final Report.” Los Angeles
Unified School District Division of Accountability and System-Wide Performance Research and
Evaluation Publication No. 2008-02.
23 Ibid.
24 The Board of Directors is elected directly by voters from separate districts and the Board appoints the
District Superintendent. As the second largest public school district in the US, the district oversees a
budget of over $7 billion. The District is divided into eight local school districts, which are run by eight
Area Superintendents.
25 Chubb, John and Terry Moe. “Politics, Markets, and the Organization of Schools.” American Science
Review 82, 4: 1065-1087.
26 Ibid.
27 Moe, Terry. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure.” Can the Government Govern? Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, 1989.
28 Nelson, C. “Mandate Design and the Logic of Delegation.” February 21, 2012.
29 Perrow, Chester. “A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations.” (1967) American
Sociological Review. 32: 194-208.
30 Nelson, C. “Mandate Design and the Logic of Delegation.” USC Price School of Public Policy Lecture
February 21, 2012.
31Lopez, Grecya et al. “Implementation of the A–G Initiative: 2006-07 Final Report.” Los Angeles
Unified School District Division of Accountability and System-Wide Performance Research and
Evaluation Publication No. 2008-02.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 “Teaching to the test” is an issue that arose when teacher and school performance began to be fully
based on standardized test scores. Teachers were accused of teaching subject matter in a manner that
only focused on students achieving high scores on the standardized tests.
36 Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66
(1), 1-26.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Trisha Greenhalgh, et al. 2004. “Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review
and Recommendations.” Milbank Quarterly. 82(4): 581-629.