LC
90
.C2
G88
1985
IGSL
UCB

    
   

Refunding Proposal for

The Policy Analysis 1
for California Education Project
PACE

Submitted by
James W. Guthrie
University of California, Berkeley
and
Michael W. Kirst
Stanford University

 

March 1985

Directors

James W. Guthrie
University of California
Berkeley

Michael W. Kirsl
Stanford University

 

Refunding Proposal for
The Policy Analysis
for California Education Project
PACE

Submitted by
James W. Guthrie
University of California, Berkeley
and
Michael W. Kirst
Stanford University

March 1985

 

 

 

Contents

Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of PACE . . . . . . . . .

Providing Information About California's
Education System. . . . . . . . .

Generating and Facilitating Discussion of

Additional Education Reform Ideas . . .

Evaluating Reform Programs and Efforts at
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . .

Serving as Broker . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assessing PACE's Performance . . . . .
A Slender Case Study: Quality Indicators.

What We Have Learned. . . . . . .

The Evolving Policy Environment for California
Education and the Shape of PACE. . .

What PACE Will DO. . . . . . . .

State-level Activities. . .

Anticipating Future Issues. . . . . .

Local Capacity for Educational Improvement.

Developing PACE: The First Eighteen Months. .

Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PACE Procedures: PACE and the Policy
Brokering Process. . . . . . . . . . .
Setting an Agenda . . . . . . . .
Comissioning a Paper. . . . . . . . . . .
Project Management and Coordination . . .
Review and Revision . . . . . . . . . . .
Submissions and Distribution. . . . . . .
Personal Dissemination. . . . . . . .
Criticism and the Next Round. . . . . . .

14
15
18
21

24

29
32
32
33

36
40

4O

40
41
42
43
43
44
45
46

Institutionalizing PACE: The Next Three Years

EXpansion of PACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Advisory Commitee: "Policy Board" .'. . . . . . .

Relationships with other Policy Analysis Agencies
Collateral Benefits

Subsequent Refunding Strategies. . .

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PACE Policy Papers
Public Appearances
James W. Guthrie
Michael W. Kirst
PACE Principals

Conditions of Education in California: 1984

-la—

47

47
50

53
55

57

62

PACE

Statement of Purpose -

This proposal requests $1.4 million to continue for three
years The Policy Analysis for California Education Project
(PACE). Directed jointly by Professors James W. Guthrie of the
University' of California at Berkeley and Michael W. Kirst of
Stanford University. PACE is operating now in the sixteenth month
of an initial grant from the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation. The grant expires in April of 1985, and this proposal

seeks funds to sustain the project until 1988.

The added time ‘will permit continuation and expansion of
PACE's primary missions: (1) providing information about
California education, (2) commissioning education policy
analyses, (3) conducting evaluation of education reforms, and (4)
enhancing communication between educational policymakers,
interest groups, and the public. Added success in these
activities will assist us in attempting to institutionalize
PACE's undertakings and to launch an intense effort to acquire
long-range financing from potential sources such as the State of
California, other philanthropic organizations, contract research

and analysis, or a variety of fee-for—service projects.

In support of refunding we now have slightly more than a
year's experience with PACE to review and assess. The following

pages present this record, outline what we perceive to be the

changing education policy environment in California and its

implications for PACE, and present plans for PACE's future.

The Evolution of PACE

PACE was conceived to be a university-based, education
policy research center, an independent I'.third party." The hope
was that it would be free from the direct influence of either
governmental agencies or educational interest groups yet
simultaneously able to fulfill the desires of such groups for

information, analytic assistance, and advice.

In late 1982 and early 1983, when the idea for PACE was
evolving, an intense education reform effort was building in
California. No center existed then which was capable of
generating and assessing policy ideas and analyses and which was
devoid of bias or perceived as politically nonpartisan. Neither
education interest groups, such as teacher unions and the
administrators' and school board members' associations, nor state
executive and legislative offices possessed staff resources free
fitml partisan labels and sufficient to ‘perform these analytic
functions. Moreover, there was no neutral forum to which
policy-makers and interest group representatives could easily
turn to meet and refine ideas. Also, there existed no agency
which attempted systematically to recruit academic experts and

focus their efforts on education policy.

In this environment, the goal for PACE) was to provide a

neutral, dispassionate, highly credible research center which

could generate policy ideas and conduct research—based analyses,
sponsor evaluations of new or existing programs,- facilitate
exchange of information and discussion of policy proposals, and
advise policymakers. All of these efforts were intended to have
a rapid delivery capacity so that PACE could fulfill the

short-run requests of policymakers.

Initially it was conceived that PACE would function as an
arena in which individuals interested in education could exchange
and distill specific reform proposals. In fact, the excelerating

pace of education reform outstripped the need in California for

such a brokering function.

By the time PACE was funded and operating, Senate Bill 813,
California's major education reform vehicle, had been enacted and
its implementation was progressing. As a result, different state
policy needs began to emerge, and PACE, though remaining within
the boundaries of its original design, altered its emphasis to
follow the developing needs of state policymakers. PACE paid
less attention to the construction and criticism of preliminary
reform proposals and emphasized analytic efforts and activities

to inform and sustain the significant education reform movement

already under way.

Senate Bill 813, however, does not address every major
weakness in California's education system, nor do its provisions

lend themselves easily to implementation. Questions arise

constantly about California's educational achievements, the
education system's experience with new policy directions, and how

best to develop and broaden state policy initiatives.

PACE's activities address many of these shortcomings in
state policy and knowledge. PACE's accomplishments in these
areas can be summarized as (l) collecting and distributing
objective information regarding conditions of education in
California, (2) generating policy analyses and facilitating
exchange and development of policy ideas, (3) evaluating school
reform implementation efforts, and (4) brokering formation of
organizations that further the reform movement. Each of these is

described in greater detail below.

PACE's initial work plan was experimental or tentative. It
was important to determine by trial and error what combinations
of topics, work responsibilities, activities, and administrative
arrangements would be most effective. In a subsequent section,
we describe what we learned from this initial "experimental"

phase. We turn now, however, to a description of our

activities.

Providing Information About California's Education System

PACE attempted to collect information about California's

educational achievements and to facilitate its distribution among
public officials interested in education and among. the major
educational interest groups. This was done at both popular and
technical levels. The PACE publication entitled "Conditions of
Education in California" was printed as a newspaper.
Ten-thousand copies were distributed throughout California, both
by PACE directly and by relying on educational interest groups to

convey the document to their members.

This publication was widely rated as a substantial success.
Indeed, if we had had the foresight to publish from 50,000 to
100,000 copies, that number probably still would have been
insufficient to meet demands for this information. In order to
build the distribution list for subsequent versions, we have
begun to collect the names and addresses of individuals and
groups whose requests we were unable to fulfill. The CTA alone
would have mailed several thousand more to its local venders had
we had copies. Similarly, the California Chamber of Commerce
would have used 1,000 more. The list could continue. The point
is that this "Conditions" publication established PACE as a
recognizable organization throughout California. It created a

receptive audience for subsequent endeavors.

The "Conditions of Education in California" was also
published as ea technical document, that is, the narrative was

supplemented by some fifty-plus numerical charts and tables.

This document was distributed to policymakers and individuals
responsible for technical analyses, such as developing and
drafting legislation, and to major education writers throughout
California. We know from feedback that this information has been

used in newspaper articles, in speeches by policy-makers, and in

committee reports.

PACE co-directors believe that "Conditions of Education in
California" should be an annual publication, providing the data
necessary to build a continuing picture of California's
educational performance. It is useful information which is
uniquely’ organized. It is informatirnx which is not otherwise
available in one place. It is a publication which greatly
assists in establishing PACE as an organization visible to its
potential audience. In future years we expect the series
containing the two "Conditions" documents to become the

authoritative annual overview of California's education system.

PACE also commissioned a major study of likely future
education revenues. This study projects personal income in
California, relationships between personal income growth and
public sector revenues, and effects of future inflation rates;
then it extrapolates the magnitude and range of revenues likely
to be made available for kindergarten—through-l2th-grade public
education. For example, it appears that 1985-1990 enrollment

growth will absorb a major portion of anticipated revenue

increases. Placing boundaries around the "fiscal dividend" which
might be available for education by 1990, such as- this study
does, informs policy judgments about school reform and future

reform efforts.

Generating and Facilitating Discussion of Additional

Education Reform Ideas

A major PACE function has been to generate policy analyses
and convey education reform ideas on a range of state-level
issues, particularly in areas relatively neglected by Senate Bill
813. The variety of work on this dimension, illustrated below,
provided opportunities for PACE 1x3 participate ix) state policy

discussions. The full list of these activities is contained in

Appendices A and B.

l. PACE commissioned twenty-two research-based papers on salient
state education policy issues. Fifteen of these analyses
have been published and widely disseminated as "PACE Policy
Papers"; the remainder are in process with publication
expected during the early months of 1985. For example, the
initial wave of school reform in California did not resolve
educational personnel issues. State policymakers came to
believe, however, that building 51 more effective education

profession in California was a critically important

component in the successful implementation of many other
reform initiatives. Consequently, PACE commissioned
analyses, held meetings, spoke at major public gatherings,
and engaged in intense conversations with public officials
regarding ideas such as teacher supply and demand; new
methods for teacher training; administratOr supply, demand,
and training; dismissal of incompetent teachers; advantages
and disadvantages of a state-determined teacher salary
schedule; a statewide survey of teacher income and working
conditions; and proposals for altering means by which the
state governs the licensing of school professionals (see
Appendix A for full list). On occasion these proposals were
generated directly by PACE directors or staff. PACE also
commissioned analyses from academics, consultants, and

analysts located throughout California.

PACE produced short policy communiques. These were three-
to seven-page working papers produced quickly in order to
influence a decision with a short time line. Papers were
written for the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the
Director of Education Planning and Evaluation in the State
Education Department, the State Commission on School

Governance Reform, etc. These papers focused on topics such

as:

o measuring how much pupils write

o measuring school "climate"

0 pros and cons of a statewide teacher
salary schedule

0 school district unification

3. PACE also produced long letters that provided policy
suggestions. For example, we recently prepared a three-page
letter' with specific examples to William Cunningham, the
governor's education aide, which describes procedures to
"forward-fund" state school appropriations. Such a system
modeled on the federal government's advanced funding
concepts would enable California school districts to improve
their planning. This was undertaken in order to fulfill a
direct request from the governor's office. Such letters are
similar 11) the previously described "policy communiques."
They differ only ixl that they are intended for 23 narrow

audience, the public official who poses the question.

4. PACE drafted specifications for an actual bill. Senator
Leroy Greene submitted a bill with PACE assistance to
provide MacArthur Foundation-type awards to outstanding

school teachers ($75,000 for two years).

5. PACE undertook additional activities to disseminate and to
facilitate discussion about the ideas, information,

evaluations, and analyses produced under its aegis. (These

are listed in Appendix B.) These activities provided another

level of service to state policymakers. A few illustrations

appear below:

6. PACE

and

PACE sponsored policy conferences in Sacramento and
Berkeley, providing forums for decisionmakers and
researchers to discuss specific analyses and their
implications for state policy

PACE began a series of personal briefings for state
policymakers and staff, discussing with them the
range and results of PACE research, apprising them
of our progress in accomplishing the research agenda,
soliciting ideas for future PACE endeavors, and, in
effect, establishing a pattern of continuing in-
formal consultations used by both sides to discuss a
wide spectrum of policy questions

PACE directors testified before numerous state ex-
ecutive and legislative branch committees, boards,
and commissions

PACE directors addressed numerous California state
and local education, government, and civic organiza-
tions

PACE sent studies or written policy proposals from
other states to relevant California policymakers

PACE hosted campus visits for State Superintendent Bill
Honig, Assemblywoman Theresa Hughes, Senator Gary Hart,
and Senator James Nielsen where they could explore policy
ideas with numerous professors

PACE directors served on the boards or advisory com-
missions of state policy organizations such as the
California Coalition for Fair School Finance and

the Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory in
Orange County

provided the state superintendent of public instruction

state education department officials with technical

advice during the developmental stage of a statewide

strategy to collect and assess information regarding
curricular, instructional, performance and personnel matters
for California'a education system: This was the state
superintendents's major initiative regarding educational

accountability.

Shortly following enactment of Senate Bill 813, it became
evident that public officials were interested in developing more
encompassing and precise means for assessing the progress of
education in California and the success of education reforms.
Prior efforts at state data collection had centered upon school
finance issues and the operation of relatively narrow categorical
aid programs such as initiatives to assist handicapped students
and low-achieving pupils. The sweeping nature of Senate Bill 813

reforms necessitated a reconception of data collection and

educational measurement.

PACE participated in the formation of the new accountability
systems by means such as cxmmdssioning analyses from experts;
speaking and negotiating with groups of influential educators,
technicians, and public officials; engaging expert consultants
from out of state; convening meetings of experts to advise state
officials; producing short working papers on technical
dimensions, e.g., measuring writing, providing direct
consultation and advice to state officials regarding the

operation of measurement systems in other states, and publishing

an influential compendium of papers related to measurement. The
consequence of these activities was a statewide"system of
"quality indicators" the philosophy' and practical portions of
which reflected PACE's efforts. A "case study" of these

activities is contained in the next section.

Evaluating Reform Programs and Efforts at Implementation

Senate Bill 813 contains more than 80 refornl provisions.
Evaluations were commissioned by PACE on several important SB 813
dimensions such as efforts to enhance counseling services
available to lOth-graders, efforts to raise entry level teacher

salaries to $18,000, and provisions to facilitate dismissal of

incompetent teachers.

Other reform initiatives were too newly inaugurated to
justify the effort and expense of conducting program
evaluations. But the longer that Senate Bill 813 reforms are in
effect, the more important their evaluation becomes. PACE
anticipates substantial future expansion of such evaluation

activities (see page 42).

Serving as a Broker

Early le PACE's tenure it became clear that ‘the project
itself could not perform every missing and needed state policy
function. However, PACE ‘was able to facilitate formation of
other groups to fill these roles. There are three substantial

success stories on this dimension and one less-than-complete

SUCCESS .

California Commission on the Teaching Profession. PACE was a
participant in the formation of the California Commission on the
Teaching Profession, the so-called blue ribbon commission. Early
in the reform discussions it became clear that significant
improvements in California's system of public education were
dependent upon eventual recruitment and retention of a far more
able workforce of educators than is pmesently possible. PACE
facilitated and participated in repeated conversations with key
policymakers such as California's chief state school officer,
Bill Honig; chair of the California Senate Education Committee,
Gary Hart; and chair of the California Assembly Education

Committee, Theresa Hughes; and agreement was reached to form the

commission.

PACE: drafted several ‘versions of a proposal to form the

commission. [Repeated efforts were made to gain the governor's
participation. It was only after a substantial period of

deliberation that the governor, while agreeing that the

commission was a useful idea, decided not to participate
immediately in its sponsorship.] Additional conversations were
held with the president of the University of California, David P.
Gardner, and the chancellor of the California State University,
Ann Reynolds. They agreed to act as "consultants" to the
commission. The commission now operates quite separate from PACE

and its members have employed a professional staff.

Interstate Textbook Compact. Similarly, PACE assisted in the
formation of a consortium of three states, the chief state school
officers of which agreed to engage in the coordinated purchasing
of elementary and secondary school textbooks. PACE contributed
to the formation of an interstate cooperative policy among
California, Florida, and New York. These states, which between
them are responsible for purchasing approximately 25% of all
kindergarten-through-l2th-grade instructional textbooks in the
United States, met in Florida in December of 1983. Chief state
school officers and other representatives involved in this
venture negotiated with publishers to elevate textbook reading

levels and to intensify subject matter content.

PACE subsequently provided a summary of the Florida
agreement for another meeting where twenty-five states discussed
interstate textbook purchasing coordination. PACE also provided
recommendations to the American Association of Publishers

concerning their new textbook development strategies. It is yet

too early to assess whether textbooks will improve as a

consequence of these efforts, but the signs are hopeful.

California Congress of Education Deans. It also became
evident that teacher training institutions in California were but
part~time participants in efforts to upgrade the quality of the
state's teachers. PACE convened deans and executive officers of
California's schools of education in order to present PACE
research, discuss their perceptions of teacher recruitment and
training problems, and to confer with State Superintendent Bill
Honig and with Linda Bond, Executive Director of the California
Commission on the Teaching Profession. At the meeting, PACE
suggested that the deans reconvene themselves as an organization
that would enable them tx: take ea more concerted and aggressive

stance on the major state policy issues shaping the profession.

A‘ consequence: of these efforts was the formation of the
California Congress of Education. Deans. Executive officers of
campus education preparation programs belong to this organization
as dues-paying individuals, run: as official representatives of
their campuses. This arrangement gives them the freedom to take
appropriate public actions and engage in advocacy with
state-level officials without jeopardizing the nonpartisan nature

of their institutional positions.

The Berkeley Public Relations Group. PACE worked diligently
through meetings, exchanges of correspondence, telephone

conversations, and three conferences, in an effort to arrange for

a better integrated and cooperative public information strategy
on the part of California's major educational interest groups.
The hoped—for outcome was that interest groups would coordinate
their various media efforts aimed ‘at elevating citizen
consciousness regarding the need for a strengthened public

education system in California.

While PACE efforts in this regard were by no means a
complete failure, they did not result in a coordinated,
cooperative undertaking. As a result of PACE efforts, however,
interest-group representatives appeared to be substantially
better informed regarding the individual efforts of other groups
and how their own efforts might complement or supplement those of
other associations. However, education interest groups simply
did not have sufficient available resources, nor were they
sufficiently motivated at that time, to devise and conduct the

overarching public information strategy that was initially

conceived.

Assessing PACE's Performance

It is difficult to measure precisely the impact of any actor
or organization on the fashioning of public policy. Many
different perspectives and influences feed into the complex web
of policymaking. As this proposal stresses, PACE enlists

numerous techniques, methods, and approaches for influencing

policy.

Policy analysts and brokers such as PACE have more
effectiveness at some phases (M? the policymaking process than

others. The policymaking process can. be divided into four

phases.

1. Problem recognition and definition. Social Scientists operate
most effectively when data are used to assess the nature and

extent of a problem and to question assumptions about how to

begin solving it.

2. Formulating specific proposals to address the problem. This
requires specific policy analysis skills for designing
legislation or devising administrative actions. A key step

is providing alternatives and analyzing their relative

merits.

3. Building a political coalition for policy approval. The
policy proposal is amended and reshaped as it passes through

the formal processes such as legislative voting.

4. Evaluating the impact and effectiveness of approved policies.

In the past this has involved simple program evaluation, but

now more complex methods are needed.

PACE has focused on stages 1, 2, and, to a lesser extent, 4.
(Formal policymakers and politicians are the key players in phase

3.) Often when people ask whether an organization such as PACE

has made a difference, the answer focuses on phase 3 rather than
phase 1. At any given stage PACE cooperates with numerous actors
at the appropriate state government level to make a difference.
Consequently, PACE may intercede intensively with staff in the
legislative or executive branch without the knowledge of all our
efforts by the political executive.

Some of phase 1 PACE efforts can be illustrated by the
titles of published papers.

1. Some Reflections on the Honorable Profession
of Teaching

2. Demographic Shifts and Their Implications for
Education: The Hispanic Population

3. Preparing California School Leaders: An Analysis
of Supply, Demand, and Training

4. Projections of California Education Revenues

and Expenditure Through 1990

In phase 2, we conducted a number of efforts through
specific papers such as:

l. Credentialing in California: Alternatives for
Governance

2. New Directions for State Education Information
Systems

3. High School Accreditation

PACE activities attempt to influence the decision process
through what Carol Weiss labels "knowledge creep." Often

policymakers do not know precisely from where they obtained an

idea or proposal. Several different sources are often involved.
Sometimes PACE assists policymakers to change the way that they

approach a problem or rethink their strategy.

A Slender Case Study: Quality Indicators

Efforts in developing and refining school performance
indicators illustrate points made above. PACE assisted several
levels of the State Education Department in understanding that
the problem should be redefined (e.g., local bottom-up reports)
as well as refine specific indicators. PACE activities involved
everything from arranging for an out—of-state consultant to
suggesting specific indicators for measuring writing. The short
case history' below illustrates the manner in which this PACE

effort proceeded.

In February 1984 PACE was requested by Superintendent Honig
to assist in devising state performance indicators for education
quality. No state had ever attempted as comprehensive a system
as Honig envisioned. The time line was short and the technical
assistance methods varied. PACE arranged for and funded a
testing consultant from the University of North Carolina to
advise regarding the overall conceptual design of an indicator
system. Berkeley and Stanford researchers undertook an intense

assessment of five separate indicators to appraise their utility

assessment of five separate indicators to appraise their utility
for inclusion in an indicator system. Professor David Stern of
UCB was asked to prepare a paper describing a weighting system so
that once the state included several indicators, more weight
could be given to test score changes than school climate. PACE
contacted Florida officials to secure their ‘evaluations of a
bottom-up locally generated performance report used in that state
since 1975. Professor' Walter Garms wrote ea paper on the 1984
Florida Merit Schools program that pays local schools for higher

results on Florida statewide indicators.

In March 1984, PACE convened two meetings at UC Berkeley of
state education department staff to discuss progress and to
review technical data. The target audience was composed of
officials at the technical level, belOW’ division heads. PACE
directors subsequently drove to Sacramento to work with a state
technical analyst on the format for the locally generated portion
of the performance report. In all these instances PACE analyzed
the definition of the performance indicator, the ability to
measure it accurately, its cost and intrusiveness in local
operations, and the value of this measure relative to other

potential indicators.

These tasks enabled PACE to realize that there were severe
inadequacies in state data bases. PACE then prepared two papers

on reorganizing and revamping the California Basic Education Data

System (CBEDS) and several other major data streams. PACE
recommended a "state data czar" to better coordinate these

separate data bases.

While PACE worked at technical assistance, it also
commissioned papers that questioned the philosophy, fundamental

assumptions, and utility of a state performance indicator

system.

In the winter of 1985, the California State Education
Department launched its "Quality Indicators" project measuring
school productivity throughout the state. We believe that PACE's
varied approaches to inform policy about school performance
indicators had a significant outcome. However, it is not likely
that any single state policymaker would be aware of the totality
of PACE's efforts. Consequently, PACE should be assessed through
reflection on the contents of this entire proposal as well as
inquiries to state officials. This case study could be
replicated for several other policy areas that involve a

large-scale PACE effort.

What We Have Learned

In the initial operational year, we have learned that PACE
cannot accomplish all that others expect.of the project or even
all of that which its directors would themselves like.
Accordingly, we have deliberately begun to restrict our role on
several dimensions. Additionally, where we have seen that PACE
is particularly effective, we have begun to redirect and expand

PACE activities. A few examples are in order.

When the project began, it was thought that PACE could
usefully play a role in convening major policymakers and
brokering new ideas. In fact, it was discovered that education
policy in California seldom is catalyzed by such group activity,
outside the legislature itself. Rather, it is through individual
personal contact, conversations, letters, papers, and phone

calls, that policymakers appear to be reached most effectively.

Consequently, we altered the initial plan to hold monthly
PACE forums in Sacramento for policymakers. In the place of this
arrangement, we have begun to make periodic visits to Sacramento
to hold personal conversations with individuals. The PACE forums
are still on our agenda, but not for elected officials. We use
them for meetings of high level legislative and executive branch

staff and for influential interest group representatives.

After approximately six months of operation, PACE was

approached by education interest groups with an inquiry about
providing staff analysis from their organizational perspective.
The point was that California's education reform movement was
state initiated, heavy in its "top down" feeling for local
educators, and now it was time for achieving a better state-local

balance.

PACE directors agreed with the premise, but did not accede
to the request for two reasons. First, resources were too
slender. Second, we ‘wanted PACE to be unbiased suppliers of
information and ideas to all interested parties. We were wary of
assisting specific interest groups in developing proposals for

fear of being perceived as having taken sides on issues.

A solution to this problem has been to formulate a new kind
of PACE forum. This forum is intended for interest group
representatives and ii; is patterned after tflma Washington, D.C.
meetings operated by the Institute for Educational Leaders (IEL).
These will serve all interest groups, not simply selected ones on
selected issues. We describe this idea in greater detail in the

section on future activities and the expansion of PACE.

We have also learned that the state-level focus for PACE

activities is appropriate, but by itself insufficient. In order

to understand state-level policy issues it is necessary to
maintain a measure of contact with local school districts and

schools. This permits a better grasp of the interaction between

state regulation and incentives and local operational reactions
and responses. Consequently, PACE deliberately became intensely
involved in the strategic planning processes of one local
district, Oakland. This project does not rely upon PACE funds,
but it does provide insights into the interactions between state
policy initiative and local district responses. PACE also moved
to conduct research in several high schools throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area. We do not expect to dilute our future efforts
with numerous local district forays, but we do intend to maintain
sufficient contact at the operational level to inform PACE

understanding of state—local interaction.

I

Another dimension which became apparent during the initial
year of operation was the heavy northern California weighting to
PACE efforts. PACE directors made speeches in southern
California, distributed materials statewide, and attempted to
commission papers from southern California analysts.
Nevertheless, the PACE orientation has been weighted toward

Sacramento, northern California, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

In order to redress the geographic imbalance we propose a
trial linkage with the University of Southern California. If
refunded, PACE} will subcontract. with USC to undertake related
Southern California activities. These ‘will be coordinated by
Professor Allan Odden, formerly of the Education Commission of

the States, now an Associate Professor in the USC School of

Education. These southern California activities are described in
more detail in a subsequent section on the expansion of PACE. The
point however, is that the overwhelming proportion of
California's population and school growth is in the southern part

of the state and we wish to pay more attention to the region.

PACE has identified its primary audience, namely, persons
involved in assessing, mediating, and developing issues of state
education policy, and initiated contacts with each. They are the
direct beneficiaries of PACE analyses and the ones to whom we
report and from whom we take cues. This group includes
individuals at policy and staff levels in the state
superintendent's office, state departments of education and
finance, State Board of Education, senate and assembly education
committees, senate and assembly finance committees, senate and
assembly Democratic and Republican caucuses, speaker's office,
governor's office, legislative analyst's office, senate and
assembly offices of research, school administrators' and school
board members' associations, teacher unions, superintendents of
large school districts, significant education lobbyists and
business leaders, representatives of the University of
California, California State University, and the California

Community College system, California Teaching Commission,
California Postsecondary Education Commission, and the education

press.

In summary, we have learned the following. PACE can
usefully compile and distribute education information, and
commission analyses and evaluations. PACE has become a credible
source: of data and advice. PACE can broker the formation of

groups and facilitate the flow of ideas, expert opinion, and

technical skill to the appropriate level of state government.

To do all of this yet more effectively, we now know that (l)
PACE personnel must interact personally, not in group settings,
with major policymakers in order to exchange ideas, (2) we must
serve education interest group and legislative and executive
branch staff in separate settings, (3) maintain at least a
modicunl of local school and school district contact in order
better to understand state—local interaction patterns and enhance
PACE credibility with both practitioners and state policy makers,
(4) induce a yet wider range of academics to pay attention to
education policy, (5) expand PACE knowledge of and influence in
southern California, and (6) undertake an appropriate, but
modest, expansion in the administrative side of PACE. These

understandings are reflected in our future plans.

The Evolving Policy Environment for California Education

and the Shape of PACE ‘

 

The education scene in California has changed for the better
since PACE began in November 1983. There is optimism and forward
movement with improved morale at many levels of the system.
State funding has increased almost 20% in the last two years, and
education has moved up the state budget priority list. Senate
Bill 813 has strengthened efforts to increase standards and has

provided a new program and funding base for the next few years.

This higher state priority for California education is part
of a national movement as evidenced by over 30 states that
increased high school graduation and college admission
requirements Ihl the ‘past few years. Economic recovery and a
willingness to raise taxes have provided revenues for reform in
numerous states, including California where economic growth has

been sufficient to forestall the need for more taxes.

California's state education policy style tends toward
omnibus bills that attack numerous education targets at cmce.
Senate Bill 813 contained 80 distinct "reforms" that covered
everything from teacher dismissal to 53 substantial increase in
school finance equalization. This large bill mobilized a broad

coalition, and most interest groups came away with something they

wanted.

The leadership came from the state superintendent and the
Education Committee chairs in the legislature. The local-based
organizations——administrators, school board members, and
teachers--1argely reacted. Senate Bill 813, however, attracted
the attention and participation of a substantially broader
spectrum of noneducation interest groups than.had been the case

in a quarter of a century. For example, the California Round

Table played an important role in the early stages.

Senate Bill 813 appears much like the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 in that it has established an
agenda for the foreseeable future. There will be much discussion
about funding levels for SB 813, and about the efficacy of SB

813's initiatives, but little attempt to add or remove major

program components.

State policy is now heading into a phase stressing
evaluation and local implementation. Evaluation of SB 813,
however, will be unlike prior evaluations of school finance
reform (Serrano), or state categorical programs for groups such
as the handicapped or gifted. The concept driving school revenue
increases now is pupil performance outcomes rather than the
former paramount concern, equity in taxes or spending. Education
can garner a large share of the California economy, but only if

public support grows, and this public support depends in part on

general "barometers" of how effective educators are (or are

perceived to be) in using SB 813 funding increases. The public
wants assurances that educational standards are being raised,
high quality teachers are being attracted, and student discipline
is improved. Senate Bill 813 addresses these concerns. Yet the
targets of the SB 813 reforms are broad and elusive, particularly
when compared to the movements aimed at the needs and rights of

special populations, e.g., the handicapped.

These conditions suggest at least two major levels of future
PACE activity: (1) state focused assessments and evaluations and
(2) understanding of the manner in which state politics and

activities interact with local school and school district

practices and outcomes.

At the state level are 1questions such as, are new state
reform initiatives working? Do the many sections of this omnibus
reform bill operate effectively in combination with one another?
What can California gain from the experiences of other states?

What comprises the next set of state—level issues?

Second, since the key to successful reform implementation is
at the local level, how can local district capacity and
enthusiasm be built? What is the best mix or balance of state

versus local initiative and control? What. is the interaction

between state activities and local response?

What PACE Will DO

PACE will focus upon state and, to a lesser degree, local
undertakings during the next three years; We cannot now specify
all proposed PACE activities with precision. However, PACE can

list the major categories in which we will operate and offer

illustrations within categories.

State—Level Activities

0 Information.

PACE will continue to distribute information
about California education. For example,
"The Conditions of Education" publication
will be continued each year.

PACE will continue to convene appropriate indi-
viduals and organizational representatives for

briefings, discussions of new ideas, exchanges

of information, etc.

0 Policy Analyses.
PACE will continue to utilize the advice
of public officials and others to construct
a state issue policy analysis agenda and
commission papers from a broad range of
knowledgeable individuals to address these
topics. This will be a rolling agenda which
will continually evolve and be extended.

PACE will continue to provide direct advice
to public officials and professional educa-
tion organizations when they request.

0 Evaluation. PACE will continue to assess effec-
tiveness of Senate Bill 813 provisions, e.g.,
high school graduation standards, mentor

teacher plans, and extended school day and
year incentives.

o Brokering.

Where a reasonable need appears, PACE will
facilitate formation of appropriate new
organizations or encourage cooperation
between existing organizationsfi

Anticipating Future Issues

 

There are a substantial number of state-level future policy

issues which PACE will address through one cur a combination of

the four avenues listed above. What follows is an illustrative

list of anticipated specific activities.

1.

School construction is an issue likely to attract
increasing attention. (This is primarily because

of enrollment growth in southern California.)
California has neglected its physical infrastructure
for schools for more than a quarter century. As a con—
sequence, construction and maintenance were deferred.
It now appears as if a substantial construction and
maintenance backlog has accrued, and attention must

be paid to the problem. PACE will commission an analysis
regarding the magnitude of this problem and proposals
whereby California can begin to address the issue.

Another likely future issue is the prospect of state—
determined teacher salaries. Now that 82% of Cali—
fornia's education costs are paid by the state and it
is ever more clear that the legislature is primarily
responsible for whatever revenue increments are allo—
cated to education, increasing discussion is given to
the utility of a state—determined teacher salary sched-
ule. PACE will produce and distribute a paper which
will weigh advantages and disadvantages of a state—
determined salary system.

School governance is a third likely future education
policy concern. Senate Bill 813 establishes an ap-
pointed commission charged with generating ideas for
the reform and reshaping of school governance in

California. PACE directors have each testified be-

fore this body, and Jim Guthrie has acted as a
consultant to the commission. In addition, PACE

will issue a paper about this topic which suggests
means for reshaping school districts in California,
altering functions of school boards, returning'greater
authority to school site decisionmakers, and generally
realigning school districts in a fashion which might
render them economically more effibient and govern-
mentally more accountable to clients.

Evaluation of the impact of SB 813 and other influ-
ences to increase academic standards. The first
phase of this will focus on changes in curriculum
offerings by high schools. For example, are courses
or sections being added in math, science, and social
studies? If so, are other types of courses being
dropped? What level of difficulty and types of
academic courses are expanding or contracting?

An analysis of the changing job structure and skill
levels in California with implications for education.
There have been many analyses and debates about
national job trends, but none with specific data for
California. Many of the national analyses tend to
deflate claims that there will be a large growth in
the total number of high-tech, high-skill jobs. Will
this trend apply to California?

PACE will assist in the preparation of a user's manual

that stresses policy implications for the new system of

state education performance indicators. In prior stages,
PACE assisted in refining the indicators, but there is urgent
need for school boards, administrators, and curricu—

lum specialists to understand what policies need to

be changed based on the indicators. (This project

will draw advice and possible assistance from the
"Achievement Council" about which we say more later.)

An analysis of the growing demand for child care (before
and after school), and an assessment of the role schools
can play in providing or organizing these services.
(This study can be done in conjunction with IFG or the

Far West Regional Laboratory, and we say more about this
later.)

It is probable that California's school finance system
will soon need another major overhaul, in part because
of SB 813. Several of SB 813 provisions run counter

to the equalization focus of Serrano. Moreover, finance
mechanisms need to be devised that provide advance fund—
ing for California schools and that link funding more

10.

11.

directly to the SB 813 productivity reforms. (This

study may also be undertaken in partial cooperation

with IFG.)

PACE will conduct a longitudinal evaluation of the impact
of SB 813's teacher dismissal provisions and its revision
of probationary teacher status. The bill attempted to grant
local schools more discretion in dismissing tenured or
probationary teachers. Our initial 1985 conference
indicated that state laws will affect probationary, but

not tenured, teachers. PACE will facilitate exploration of
possible changes in the statutory language.

PACE will collaborate with the Achievement Council and
other organizations to improve the educational performance
of minorities. Our initial focus will be to expand the
state public policy debate and concern for Hispanics
beyond the language issue. This is not to imply that
language is unimportant, but this narrow View has almost
monopolized the state policy debate so far, and tended to
inhibit consideration of other facets of the issue.

PACE will establish a forum for interest group
representatives patterned after the Institute for
Educational Leaders forum in Washington D.C.

Approximately each two months a topic and informed speaker
will be selected which is appropriately connected to a
developing education policy issue in California. The
executive officer and one or two elected officials of the
California School Board Association (CSBA), Association

of California School Administrators (ACSA), California
Teachers Association (CTA), California Federation of
Teachers (CFT), and the Superintendent of Public Instruction
will be invited to the presentations. These forums will
facilitate transmission of information and promote the
exchange of ideas across organizational boundaries.
Legislative staff will hear many of the same presentations,
but through a separate avenue. PACE will cooperate with
the Sacramento-based Education Staff Seminars to reach

this audience.

These eleven upcoming policy issues and activites were

discussed during recent conversations with state policymakers,
continuing the process of engaging public officials and their
staffs le developing the PACE research agenda. This list is

intended to illustrate future activities. Other activities will

result from continuing conversations with lnembers of the PACE
Policy Board, PACE constituents, other policy organizations with
which we intend to build closer working relationships, and the

evaluation of the policy environment.
Local Capacity for Educational Improvement

The initial year of PACE has made clear the utility of an
appropriate level of participation in local education activities
in order to understand state policy implementation. In this
section, we first. provide a .rationale for a lnodicum of local
level PACE activities, then. provide specific illustrations of
such efforts, and, lastly, explain the mechanism we propose to

use in engaging in local—level activites.

Rationale. Senate Bill 813 seeks to alter simultaneously
many parts of schools and school district operations and,
consequently, sometimes lacks programmatic connections. The SB
813 reforms are not a "program" but a set of state initiatives
and regulations that will take varied forms in numerous
localities. These state initiatives will require a committed and
enthusiastic local response to be effective. So far, state
initiatives have not viewed local schools as integrated
organizations. States pass piecemeal reforms in an additive
fashion. A. problem frequently' arises because schools most in
need of improvement are sometimes the least capable or least

committed to change. In these difficult schools, institutional

conditions are not favorable to state curriculum and teaching
initiatives. Thus, there are serious limitations to state
top-down strategies. Local school employees must feel pride in

their performance, and have sufficient flexibility to be

creative.

This View of schools as complete institutions is linked to
the positive school climate stressed fix: the effective schools
research. This research contends that goals and norms exist that
characterize the school community and create a shared identity.
No one knows or has a precise blueprint to construct a positive,
enduring school climate. There are only signs but not road maps
to prescribe what principals or teachers can do to shape school
expectations. This type of research, however, cautions that
merely mandating a new state curriculum or testing program will
not "solve" the problem of school climate or change the basic

nature of the school organization.

Specific local activities. This local perspective also
suggests neW' approaches for evaluating SB 813 that PACE ‘will
employ and subsequently feed back into state policy
deliberations. Conventional program evaluation strategies will

miss the richness and complexity of the current reform effort.

Consequently, PACE will:

1. In its evaluations of SB 813 provisions, PACE will study the
local system and not simply the state program or project.

Since SB 813 addresses many parts of local schools
simultaneously, educational improvements will result from
many small changes. It is hoped that SB 813 ‘will shift
school climate cumulatively and enlarge the View of local
officials regarding their opportunities. As Mike Knapp of
SRI International stresses, these changes such as "higher
curricular standards" can best be evaluated by "taking the
pulse" of the local educational system. Superintendent
Honig's school site performance indicators are ea step in
this direction. PACE will search for additional indicators
of local district "output" and productivity.

2. Focus on local attentiveness, morale, and incentives. This
approach involves exploring whether state reforms capture
the attention of local educators and galvanize them to

respond. Does the state policy generate new local hope,
creativity, and motivation?

3. Assess local problem—solving strategies and adaptation of
state policies over time. Prior research stresses that
local schools adapt, clarify, and alter state initiatives.
The PACE evaluation focus should be broader than compliance
and extend to this local problem-solving response.

4. Explore and separate early local responses from longer range
reactions. The initial local response may focus on union
negotiations or even uncertainty. Gradually, however, there
may be shifts in local habits and expectations. Moreover,
early local response can best be measured by changes in
inputs and these should be analyzed by PACE. Do local
schools merely proceed through the motions of compliance?

Over the longer term we can turn to outcomes such as
achievement scores?

5. Practical Mechanisms. PACE will incorporate the desire for
added understanding of local-state interactions into as many
of its SB 813 evaluations as possible. For example,
anticipated studies of mentor teacher programs, high school
graduation standards, tenth grade counseling, minimum salary
schedule increases, and teacher dismissal will all pay
particular attention to local district responses to state
policy initiatives. In addition, the proposed new link with
the University of Southern California will expand PACE's

ability to assess local district responses to state level
regulation.

Following approximately two years of research which gives

attention to local—level reaction to state initiatives, PACE may
have accumulated sufficient insight and information to offer
advice regarding useful means by which state and local officials

and professional educators can cooperate to build local capacity

for continued self assessment and reform.

Developing PACE: The First Eighteen Months

Administration

PACE has been administratively slender throughout its first
full operating year. The two directors supervise all of PACE's
operations and serve also as principal analysts. Additionally,
there is one half—time administrative assistant/secretary, and a
recently' employed half-time "factotum" who oversees production
and distribution of PACE papers and relations with the media,
arranges conferences, and maintains liaison with PACE's primary
constituents. Increasingly, this person is responsible for the
administrative operation of the project, acting in the capacity
of an associate director and freeing the directors for

developmental tasks.

Project Procedures: PACE and the Policy Brokering Process

How does PACE work? How are topics derived for policy
analysis papers and program evaluation projects? How are
analysts and evaluators selected? How are topics agreed upon and
refined? How much does a PACE project paper cost? How are PACE

projects coordinated? How are papers reviewed? Through what

channels does dissemination occur?

PACE projects flow through a generalized pattern from

conception to distribution. The procedure will vary, within
limits, depending upon the topic under scrutiny and-the ventual
audience. However, the overall procedures involved are as

follows.

Setting an Agenda

Possible PACE project topics stem from two primary sources.
The directors themselves strive to be informed regarding
important state policy issues. It has been the case that a
potential topic will occur to a PACE director and, after having
verified its utility with others connected with the policy

process, a paper will be commissioned.

A second likely source of topics is the systematic
conversations that PACE directors hold with public officials,
legislative and executive branch staff in Sacramento, and
representatives of major statewide education interest groups.
During these conversations a state senator, member of the
assembly, staff member, or executive branch official may mention
a topic of particular importance. In subsequent conversations
with others, the topic will be assessed. If some form of
"triangulation" reveals that there is wide interest in the
subject, and, in the judgement of PACE directors, it has a
utility which is likely to be lasting, then a decision is reached
by the directors to commission a paper. A one to three paragraph

description_ of ‘the proposed topic is generally' written in an

effort to refine the scope. Thereafter, an effort is made to
identify potential analysts. (In the future, this agenda setting
process will continue. However, topics will undergo review by a

PACE Policy Board before a paper is commissioned.)

Commissioning a Paper

The co-directors assemble a list of potential analysts or
evaluators for 21 particular topic. This may involve faculty
members at UC Berkeley, Stanford, University of Southern
California, another academic institution, individuals outside of
academia, consultants, and professional researchers. Once having
narrowed the list of potential analysts to some reasonable
number, phone calls and letters are issued in an effort to assess
likely candidates' interest and availability. After such a
winnowing, a decision is made regarding a prime candidate and a
"letter of agreement" is drafted. This contains a description of
the intended project, potential sources of data, intended
audience, approximate length, time allocated for writing a first
draft, payment to the analyst, PACE resources that will be
provided (research assistants, travel, computer time, etc.),
scheduled check points, review processes, coordination with other

PACE research efforts, and final completion dates.

Following an exchange of drafts, final agreement is reached
on the project description. PACE arranges for whatever

additional resources are to be 51 part of the undertaking. A

research assistant may be employed, a computer account number
assigned, access to data sources arranged, or whatever else

appears useful.

Project Management and Coordination

The PACE associate director, Jacob Adams, is apprised of
potential projects from the outset. He is included in whatever
conversations and correspondence transpire between directors and
potential analysts. Once agreement is reached with an analyst,
then logistical arrangements, schedules, and various managerial
activities are assumed by Jacob. Moreover, he begins to plan for
the distribution of the final document. It is his responsibility
to coordinate any particular research undertaking' with others
occurring simultaneously. We array the possible PACE agenda
topics so that their publication coincides as closely as possible
with the priorities of state officials in handling the issues on
their' policy' agenda. An effort is made to avoid embarassing
redundancy in data requests of state agencies or other
organizations. Wherever possible, a pooled effort at data
collection and compilation is made. Contacting analysts to

ensure that they are on schedule is also Jacob's responsibility.

Review and Revision

 

Once a commissioned paper is completed in draft form, it is

read by PACE directors and associate director. A conference is

held among the three in order to decide upon appropriate (one to
three individuals) external reviewers. Their judgments are
sought regarding the paper and their suggestions solicited for
alterations or improvements. The review covers both the quality
of the research and its likely policy utility. The results of
both the internal and external review are subSequently provided
the analyst and a schedule for revisions is agreed upon. These
procedures are intended not only to generate high quality
analytic products but also to ensure that the information is

distributed in a timely fashion to the right audiences.

Submissions and Distribution

When a completed paper is submitted, it is once again read,
editing is undertaken, and the paper is converted to what has
evolved as a standardized PACE format. Thereafter, distribution

begins.

A prime mailing list is maintained, comprised of the public
officials and staff primarily involved in the development of
state education policy. This list also includes

extragovernmental officials, representatives of educational

interest groups, and education writers.

If the paper justifies widespread distribution, effectively
beyond Sacramento, then the secondary PACE list is utilized.

This includes prominent educational professionals throughout the

-44—

state, and, to a Inore limited degree, national distribution.
Also, efforts are made at this level to gain newspaper coverage
of the paper and the author is encouraged to submit it for

publication in whatever professional or academic outlets are

appropriate.

Personal Dissemination

The PACE paper now becomes a portion of the directors'
"portfolio." When next they travel to Sacramento to meet
personally with public officials, they carry copies of this PACE
paper with them providing personal briefing, background, and
discussion of policy consequences. It is given to officials and

their staff along with a personal conversation regarding its

content and portent.

The paper may also serve as the focal point for an interest
group seminar. To this PACE invites the chief state school
officer, Bill Honig, and the executive officers of CFT, CTA,
ACSA, CSBA, and possibly, CSEA. Each of these latter individuals
is encouraged to bring one, at the most two, of the elected
officials from their organizations. The analyst responsible for
the commissioned paper is invited to meet with these individuals
along with PACE directors at a Sacramento, Bay Area, or Southern
California dinner meeting. A presentation is made regarding the
paper and its findings. PACE directors thereafter lead a

discussion regarding the policy consequences of the paper. Ideas

may be derived from this session for additional analyses or other

topics which naturally flow from it.

A second conference might be scheduled with all the
legislative and executive branch staff in Sacramento connected
with educational policy. This will be conducted jointly with the
Institute for Educational Leadership educational staff seminar.
A mailing list of approximately 70 individuals is maintained. A
date, usually a Thursday afternoon, is agreed upon. The
principal analyst is scheduled to meet with these individuals and
make a formal presentation regarding the paper. Thereafter, a

broad ranging discussion is held regarding its implications.

Criticism and the Next Round

Following completion of the above cycle, participants, both
analysts and those intended as the audience, are asked to
evaluate the process, the paper, and the outcome. This
evaluation procedure, particularly when i1; has been iJi place a
sufficiently long time to accumulate definite impressions, will

shape or reshape the manner in which PACE continues the process

in the future.

Institutionalizing PACE: The Next Three Years

If refunded, the major activity of PACE will be to continue
its role in the generation and distribution of information about
education in California, undertake analyses of proposed policies,
commission evaluations of existing policies, and, where
appropriate, facilitate the formation and cooperation of other
education related organizations. The primary objective will be
to continue these functions and ensure that they are done
properly. Thereafter, there are two (”mansions on which PACE
activities should be enlarged. The first is to do more of the
same. That is, to respond to the many requests which PACE cannot
now fulfill. The second expansion. dimension is 113 experiment
with something of a PACE "satellite" at the University of

Southern California addressed to the southern region of the

state.

Expansion of PACE

 

We have come to generate the agenda for PACE issues through
extensive personal conversations with state education officials,
representatives of statewide education interest groups, analysts
located in universities and elsewhere, and members of the press.
These procedures have succeeded in identifying more topics than
those to which PACE can typically respond. In its initial

operating phase, PACE has commissioned and produced approximately

20 major policy papers and evaluations. Had resources existed,

there were closer to thirty to forty topics to-which PACE

reasonably could have paid attention.

PACE was limited not only in the funds for commissioning
such papers but also in not having an administrative structure

which permitted coordination, supervision, and dissemination of

such an expanded volume.

The major reason for requesting added funding is to build
the capacity to respond more completely to the range of requests
for PACE services. This will be done not only by involving a
larger pool of analysts, from both northern and southern
California, but also by engaging a larger proportion of the PACE
directors' time and utilizing an associate director. The latter
can assume added responsibility for the coordination and

dissemination roles.

Another dimension on which we anticipate expanding PACE is
through a link with the University of Southern California. The
School of Education at that institution recently' employed Dr.
Allan Odden as an associate professor. Allan previously served
as an associate director of the Education Commission of the
States in Denver, Colorado. He is held in high regard throughout
the United States in the general field of school finance and
educational policy analysis. He is informed about education

issues in California, Southern California particularly.

Adding a southern "branch" to PACE renders several
benefits. One is simply to have a better linkage with the large
population area of Southern California. Additionally, it places

PACE in closer contact with the potential pool of analysts at

USC, UCLA, Rand, etc.

Third, there are several sets of education problems which
are found to aa substantially' more intense degree in Southern
California. Prime among these is the issue of bilingual education
and the appropriate schooling of large numbers of immigrant
youngsters. These, however, are not the only southern California
education issues. This is the region of the state which is also
experiencing the most explosive pupil population growth. School
housing and school finance are becoming ever more intense
topics. The linkage with the University of Southern California
will assist. on all these dimensions, plus it. will facilitate
better understanding of the impact of state initiatives on local
practice. In addition, Allan Odden is capable of assisting PACE
directors on topics which are of statewide educational

importance. Odden would become the Southern California

coordinator of PACE.

We anticipate that the relationship with the University of
Southern California will be tested in 1985—1986. PACE will
provide a seed grant through a subcontract arrangement. If the

undertaking is to be sustained, an attempt will be made to obtain

grant support from Southern California regional foundations

beginning in 1986 and continuing thereafter.

With what we believe to be one minor exception, there is no
plan to expand the administrative operation of PACE.
Administration presently is conducted primarily by the directors
themselves and a half—time administrative assistant. The single
addition is that of an associate director who will take
responsibility for day to day management of matters such as
oversight of commissioned research, production and dissemination
of papers, planning of conferences, and the substantial flow of
communication which is crucial for PACE's proper functioning.
PACE will continue to Lndlize an administrative assistant for
matters related to budget, clerical supervision, and office

management.

Advisory Committee

In. order" to convert PACE from its present "experimental"
status into an agency with a substantially greater prospect for
long-term service to California's public, we propose to engage in
two major undertakings. The first is to establish a structure of
governance and administration which can contribute to a cohesive,
stable, and permanent organization. The second dimension will be

to seek one or more permanent sources of financial support.

We propose the creation of a Policy Board to advise, guide,
and evaluate the organizational development of- PACE. We
understand fully that, within the governance structure of the
University of California, the Board of Regents is the pdenary
authority. Consequently, PACE cannot exist within the University
of California and cede authority to outside individuals. Thus,
we do not specify that PACE will have a Board of Directors in the
legal or technical sense. However, the co-directors are anxious
to have an advisory board with substantial formal influence. We

propose that the Board be constituted in the following manner and

serve the purposes we specify below.

The PACE Policy Board will be constituted of notable
representatives from the university, policy, and school
communities such as fun. John Orr, Dean, School of Education,
University of Southern California; Dr. Eugene Webb, Professor,
Business School, Stanford University; Dr. Sanford Dornbusch,
Professor of Sociology, Stanford University; Eugene Lee,
Professor of Political Science and Director, Institute of
Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley; Dr.
Aaron Wildavsky, Professor of Political Science, University of
California, Berkeley; Bill Honig, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, State of California; A. Alan Post, former
Legislative Analyst, State of California and Professor,

University of California, Davis; Al Rhodda, former state senator;

Mr. William Whiteneck, Chief Consultant, Committee on Education,
California State Senate; Dr. Harry Handler, Superintendent, Los
Angeles Unified School District; and Dr. Tom Boysen,

Superintendent, Conejo Valley Unified School District.

We expect the combined expertise and wisdom of Board members
to enhance PACE's utility in the following ways: (1) to guide the
agenda of PACE projects, (2) to review and evaluate PACE's
activities, (3) to assess, on a continuing basis, PACE's role in
the California policy environment, (4) to provide continuing
advice on dimensions of research and effective communications,
(5) to seek long—term foundation support, and (6) to cuitique
PACE Policy Papers on an ad hoc subcommittee review basis. A
subset of at least three Board members will be asked to serve as
"referees" on draft PACE papers. Their suggestions and
evaluations will be crucial to the eventual publication and

distribution of such papers.

This Policy Board will meet at least once, and more likely
twice each year. It will be chaired by Jim Guthrie and Mike
Kirst. The initial meeting will be to review and supplement PACE
directors' recommendations for the forthcoming PACE work plan.
At this meeting the directors would submit a proposed agenda of
policy analysis papers, evaluation projects, conferences, and
other appropriate PACE activities. It would be understood from

the outset that there would be a degree of flexibility.

Otherwise, PACE loses its ability to respond quickly to a policy
relevant activity. However, insofar as activities can be
specified six to twelve months in advance, they will meet with
the approval of this Board. Indeed, the Board itself may add or

delete items proposed by PACE directors.

The first Board meeting will be scheduled for July of 1985.
This meeting will be devoted to establishing the PACE agenda for
at least the forthcoming six months. A second meeting will be
scheduled for December of 1985. The purpose here ‘will be to
review PACE progress to that point and to review the agenda for
the subsequent six months. The Board will be convened every six
months thereafter for purposes of adding to the agenda, assessing
past performances, and undertaking whatever mid-course
corrections appear in order. Between meetings, regular and
uniform communication with Board members will occur through
vehicles such as an associate director's bimonthly report on PACE

activities and other, routine communications.
Relationships with other Policy Analysis Agencies

PACE will continue to stay informed about and assess other
policy centers with which cooperation would facilitate the
analytic and research functions of PACE. Among these other
centers is the Institute for the Study of Finance and Governance
(IFG) at Stanford University. In 1984, the National Institute of

Education, which funds the Stanford center, altered arrangements

under which it intends to fund such agencies. Stanford is
responding by bidding to become the National Research and
Development Center focussing upon "state and local leadership."
Should Stanford succeed in obtaining this grant, then IFG's
national focus on state policy will become more congruent with
PACE's concern for California statewide edUcational policy.
Several proposed IFG national research areas could provide basic

information for specific PACE papers tailored to the California

context.

Based upon the planning proposal IFG submitted to the
National Institute of Education, it appears that there are at
least four areas upon which IFG plans to concentrate which have
implications and overlap for PACE. These are use of tests and
educational indicators, expansion of childcare, impact of state

control on local school districts, and improved teacher

compensation plans.

As Stanford develops its plans for IFG, we will continue to
explore PACE cooperation. In addition, through a clear PACE-IFG
relationship, it may prove possible to involve larger numbers of
Stanford researchers to supplement PACE technical resources. An

example here: would be the deployment of Stanford scholars in

evaluations of Senate Bill 813 provisions.

In addition to IFG, there are at least three other prime

potential collaborators for PACE: the Far West Regional

Educational Laboratory in San Francisco, the Southwest Regional
Educational Laboratory iJI Southern Cblifornia (SWERL), and the
Achievement Council. The Far West Laboratory, also seeking NIB
refunding, is proposing an expanded role in state-level policy
analysis, particularly in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California.
In that this effort is only at the proposal stage, it is too
early to know precisely what will happen . Nevertheless, Guthrie
has consulted with the planning group responsible for the
proposal, is informed regarding their‘ plans, and has ‘proposed

that they' cooperate: with PACE. Similarly, Kirst. has consulted

with SWERL.

The newly launched, Hewlett Foundation-supported Achievement
Council does not immediately overlap with PACE. However, PACE
directors have conferred with Ms. Kati Haycock, Achievement
Council Director, and have agreed to cooperate on the
construction of a users manual for the State Education

Department's "quality indicators" and other projects that

emerge.

Collateral Benefits

PACE's primary purpose is the provision of service to
state-oriented public officials and professional educators.
However, there are coincidental outcomes associated with the PACE
project. Among these are the employment and professional

preparation of graduate students and the attraction of academic

professionals to public education policy issues. PACE's
operation for approximately one year has resulted in the direct
employment of twenty U.C. Berkeley and Stanford graduate students
in education and public policy. (One .of these completed his
doctoral studies in December and was immediately employed by the
Legislative Analyst Office in Sacramento.) 'Also a total of
fifteen Berkeley and Stanford, one S.F. State, and two USC

faculty have been involved in PACE analytic projects.

_56_

Subsequent Refunding Strategies

We propose to pursue four strategies for placing PACE on a
sustained financial basis. These will be pursued during the next
three years such that by early 1988 it shouhfl be possible to
determine if PACE has succeeded sufficiently to justify support
from sources other than or in addition to The William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation. The four avenues we intend to explore are as
follows: (1) state government funding, (2) funding supplements by
other philanthropic foundations, (3) contract research and
analysis, and (4) fee—for-service projects involving educational
policy analysis, program evaluation, conference organizing,
public speaking, etc. As is obvious, the four strategies for
seeking long-range support are not nmtually exclusive, and it
will be possible to attempt all of these avenues without
necessarily jeopardizing any’ one of them. What follows is a

brief description of the tactics we will pursue in each

instance.

State Funding. In an ultimate legal sense, education is a
state responsibilty. If PACE assists in the improvement of
education in California, then PACE is an asset to the state. To
the degree to which PACE can construct a favorable record, it may
be possible to persuade California executive and legislative
branch officials that PACE is a legitimate object of state

financial support. The state funds a number of analytic agencies

such as Senate and Assembly Offices of Research and the
Legislative Analyst Office. Similarly, both the governor and the
superintendent of public instruction have government-funded units
capable of conducting analyses. Thus, the issue is not one of
precedent for government support. However, PACE strives to be
different from each of the above-listed examples in that it seeks
to be free of partisan political influence and to focus primarily
upon education issues. Second, PACE acts as an intermediary
between those generating new knowledge--academic researchers-~and
those interested in the application of knowledge——policy analysts
and evaluators. In this secondary capacity, PACE also acts as a

preparation ground for future education policy analysts.

Attributes such as nonpartisanship and the mix of academic
research with policy-oriented analyses cannot easily be
duplicated in a direct state government setting. A more likely
setting for PACE continues to be in an institution. of ‘higher

education.

What will be necessary is to persuade state officials, as
well as University of California administrators, that the
establishment of PACE as a UC Berkeley—based Organized Research
Unit (ORU), or part of such a unit, is aa useful idea. Then,
funding could be included as a line item in the UC annual
budget. Should it continue to prove useful to have PACE operate

from more than one center, then subcontracts with other

institutions can be arranged.

Among other models for such an operation is the Institute
for Governmental Studies (IGS) on the Berkeley campus. This ORU
is state funded and provides analyses and long-range forecasting
for the state on a number of dimensions. Presently, education is
not a prime focus of IGS, but it could be in time. PACE will

explore all of these facets with appropriate parties.

Additional Foundation Support. There are components of PACE
projects which might prove attractive to other foundations. To a
degree, we are. exploring this avenue already. Our desire to
extend PACE to Southern California is an example. We will begin
conversations with appropriate Southern California regional
foundations to assess their desire to fund the activities
envisioned in the long run for the University of Southern
California. As items of potential interest to other foundations
occur, we will explore them fully. However, we are not anxious
to alter the focus of PACE or dilute the energies of its primary
participants in the frequent pursuit of outside funding. There
will have to exist a substantial congruence of interests before

we invest heavily in the pursuit of other foundation support.

Contract Research. Where it is consistent with PACE's
overall mission, we will bid for contract research. It is not
possible to stress sufficiently, however, the caveat regarding

consistency with the organization's mission. There is no desire

59

to convert PACE into a consulting firm or contract research
center filled with ever-hungry entrepreneurs busily searching for
the next financially sustaining contract even before having
completed previous assignments. However, a recent event provides
a useful example of the kinds of research which make sense for

PACE to undertake on contract.

The California Commission for the Teaching Profession
announced its research agenda in late 1984. Several of the items
are consistent with research PACE already had undertaken and
represented but a logical succession for the analysts involved.
Hence, agreements were made to summarize information regarding
teacher supply and demand and to conduct a poll of teacher
opinion for a sample of instructors representative of public
schools in the state. Pursuit of these research contracts

involved neither a great deal of time, nor did it distort the

purposes of PACE.

Similar issues arise for both houses of the state

legislature, for the State Education Department, and for other

state agencies.

Moreover, not all contract research need be from the state.
The contract with the Board of Directors of the Oakland Unified
School District involved no time-consuming negotiations and
provided an excellent opportunity to observe in a local setting

the effects of recently enacted Senate Bill 813 provisions. We

will continue to search for similar complementary endeavors.

Fee-for-Service Arrangements. The distinction between a
fee-for—service undertaking and aa contract research project is
small. If a distinction exists it probably has to do with the
time and magnitude of the project. Nevertheless, from time to
time functions emerge for which a neutral but centrally situated
agency is useful. For example, there have been several occasions
during the initial. phase where PACE was requested to convene
groups. To this point, we have performed this function free on
grounds that it was a developmental activity which would assist
PACE over the long run. In time, however, a modest fee could be
charged for such activities so as 11) cover PACE overhead and
direct costs. PACE publications are another obvious example of
self-paying endeavors. Plans presently are being developed to
circulate brochures describing PACE} publications which can be
purchased at cost. As is probably obvious, no effort will be

made to make a "profit."

There may be other routes through which PACE can seek
sustained financial support. If so, we will attempt to do so.
However, the above-listed four strategies present themselves
initially, and we will pursue each as appropriate. If it should

be the case that, after three years, PACE has not demonstrated
itself to be of sufficient utility to several kinds of
potentially interested audiences, then perhaps the idea is not

durable, or has not been creatively implemented.

-61..

 

 

‘ 3, ' _
‘ {,aa’§’§ “% r-‘n‘f ‘ ‘ ,

 

 

my "v: L‘, f
(”r-f}: h {1.7 1v

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
      
   

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

(21.1.9?