NewsroomThe latest CSBA news, blog posts, publications, research and resources for members and the news media

A conversation with ... Jannelle Kubinec 

A key consultant to the SBE looks at LCFF and its local accountability plans

As director of the Comprehensive School Assistance Program at WestEd and a recognized expert in school finance and research, Jannelle Kubinec was a natural choice to lead the California State Board of Education’s exploration of a process for implementing the Local Control Funding Formula for K-12 schools.

She helped staff review and categorize the considerable feedback the board received on the first draft of the LCFF regulations and first thoughts on a much-anticipated template for the Local Control and Accountability Plans that school boards must prepare. 

At WestEd, Kubinec is also director of California’s Regional Comprehensive Center, one of 15 federally funded centers charged with implementing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and closing achievement gaps. Her experience ranges from consulting in educational productivity and management effectiveness to advising the state Legislature on school finance issues while at the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

She has a bachelor’s degree in rhetoric and a master’s degree in public policy from the University of California, Berkeley. That background was a good fit for the job at hand at the State Board’s meeting last January: translating statute and regulations into language that parents, community advocates and students, as well as administrators and school board members, could understand.

LCFF greatly simplifies how California funds education, Kubinec told the State Board the morning of Jan. 16: “In fact, it takes us from being one of the most complicated states to one of the most simple states. … How do we take this relatively simple formula and make it make sense?”

That’s the multibillion-dollar question, of course, and one that governance teams all across California are wrestling with. It comes down to one simple concept, Kubinec says: “Make money matter for our students.”

I’m hoping that you can look at the State Board meetings as an example. Take the November board meeting, which I think was largely critical and generally negative. The difference between where we were in November and where we came to in January reflected a real effort to listen, to learn, and respond. And I think you saw a very different tone in the kinds of comments and the way people were feeling about the regulations.

I think the big shift we saw at the State Board is an example. We had a process to [allow people to] really respond—and to be thoughtful at the leadership level about the kinds of questions we ask and what it means to engage. I think we need to ask ourselves what is it we want for kids, and how will we develop structures and policies to see that happen?

How can that example be applied in local communities as they discuss their LCAPs?

Everyone has their roles and responsibilities. I think boards have a significant role in setting the policy and tone and vision for our districts. Our parents should be providing input and support and reflection on practice. So we don’t have everyone trying to do everyone else’s job, right? Let’s clarify what our roles and responsibilities are. We should be looking to our boards to create the vision and ask for feedback and monitoring. But as part of that, I would anticipate and expect that they’re listening to the community, they’re asking for parents’ input, and then they’re providing parameters and direction for the management—our superintendents and our leaders in the districts—to really follow through and execute the plan.

So boards need to convey a clear message that they really want to hear what community members have to say and to understand what their concerns are.

Yes. I think we’re asking the community to help inform our decisions. We’re not asking our community to make our decisions, right? Board members have been elected to provide leadership. Essentially, what we’re saying when we vote as community members is that we are electing a board to represent us and to help guide policy and direction and vision for our schools.

So it is important for the board to not cede the fact that they’re ultimately the decision-makers. But as part of being responsible and responsive decision-makers, having some community reflection—and thinking about that as part of what contributes to making decisions on behalf of our district—should be an important part of the process.

That’s a good point. LCFF shifts most of the responsibility for shaping educational programs and investing resources from the state to the local level. What challenges do you think this culture shift presents to the State Board, the Department of Education and also to local governance teams?

We’re going from a culture of a state-funded system to truly a locally funded system. What that means is we have a chance to say what we need and then try to do it. But we are—I wouldn’t say out of practice—but we haven’t developed the muscle groups or the memories that are about making that  kind of local decision. So the question is, how do we go about practicing that? Not expecting that it’s going to be perfect out of the gate, but when we’ve talked about what’s good and found out what we need, how do we actually get it done?

Now, there are areas where boards, superintendents and others who are leading our schools have been involved in a strategic planning process. I thought it was said really well at the State Board meeting by Gary Rutherford, the superintendent from Desert Sands, when he said this is exciting because this is something that we’ve done or seen done in districts—strategic planning. One of the challenges is that we’ve done great strategic plans and then what happens is we don’t fund them. This is now a real opportunity to take on the kinds of things that come out of strategic plans that I know not only board members and superintendents—our leaders—get excited about, but so does our community, because they’ve often contributed to good plans.

This really is a culture shift, not only for local boards, but for the state as well, don’t you think? Just think of how State Board meetings have been predominated by waiver requests in recent years.

I think you’re absolutely right. This is not just a change in a local system, but it’s also a change in the way our state is working and supporting the local process. And you’re right, we won’t be seeing the kind of waivers that we’ve seen—or we shouldn’t be. I think some of the program micromanagement shouldn’t be there. The sense that it’s all about compliance will diminish. But I really think it’s going to take some time.

We’re going to be transitioning into this new system; I think it’s appropriate that we’re looking at a seven-year remaining time frame [to implementing a fully funded LCFF] and that it’s going to take us time to adjust to what’s new and what’s different. I think we should have the right expectations for what change looks like. I expect we’re going to start doing some things differently. Some of the things we’re going to start doing, we’re going to look back and say gosh, why’d we ever think that was good? But we’ll be able to see that things are getting better. If we think everything’s going to be perfect and it’s going to be polished right out of the gate, that’s really underappreciating the significant change that we’re making here to our system.

I was just at a board meeting in a district and as I was explaining LCFF to the board, the reaction was one of first disbelief, and then a sense that wow, this is really great. And it’s refreshing.  But what does that mean for our behaviors is what they’re wrestling with now. How are we going to operate? We’re not used to this. So that’s going to take some practice, I think. I encouraged this particular district, because they had a good strategic plan, to remember what that felt like and what that meant to them; something they need to build from.

But we have shifted from a school finance system that was almost 40 years in the making. If you reflect on that, the change or the shift from that system that took 40 years to make is not going to take four months, a year, or even two, to make. It’s going to take us several years of continued effort and progress to really take advantage of what I think are the tremendous opportunities and refreshing opportunities, quite frankly, in LCFF.

I agree with you. It seems that now it’s the trust factor that has to be built up on both sides, really.

Yes, and the other part is to recognize that there are genuinely more options for making these decisions. For the most part we’re hemmed in with our money, right? Now that we have some more latitude in those decisions, let’s think about a process that’s enduring, that really keeps people informed.

Part of engaging our communities in decision making means that we have a responsibility as leaders in our system to provide people with the basic education they need so that when you ask them to contribute to decisions, they feel that they are informed to be participants in the conversation.  We can’t overlook that.

That really begs the question about what sort of professional development governance teams need—and that probably extends to the community as well. They need their own kind of professional development in how to participate in the process.

Yes, I agree. I think at all those levels we have to think about what is it we need for our community, for our teachers, for our administrators, for our board members. Given the responsibilities, what’s the information and the education that is needed to inform the kinds of input, decisions, responsibilities that we’re expecting to be fulfilled?

That’s such a great question for governance teams to consider. Now, if I may switch gears just a bit. How is the State Board thinking it will proceed during this next year on the accountability aspects of the LCAPs?

The first year the basic requirements are not as [well defined]. We don’t have the rubrics yet. County offices need to provide oversight to districts; the Department of Education needs to provide oversight to our county offices. The expectation is that the LCAPs will be reviewed and checked for alignment. As we move ahead—and I expect [the State Board] is taking this seriously—while we’ve gone far with having a template, it would be helpful to soon have some indication of where the rubrics are going to go. In the statute they’re due in October 2015. I think the board is looking to provide a preview of some of the thinking behind the rubrics.

So we really see this next phase in terms of the rubrics being practitioner-focused. What we had in terms of getting to the regulations—we had a very broad spectrum of stakeholders, mostly statewide organizations, including our civil rights groups, participating and providing information and support from an implementation perspective. And now what we’re looking at as we go into rubrics is really thinking about how do you engage and get practitioner support? You know, getting the people who are really doing the work to talk about what it looks like to support success, improvement, performance, accountability and all of that in the rubrics.

So what is it that boards have to adopt by June?

They have to have their first LCAP in place, their first three-year plan. That’s the spending plan that accompanies the budget. When you think about the LCAP, it’s not a standalone plan. It really is the spending plan that accompanies that district, county office or charter’s adopted budget.  So this is just to explain—we got money and here’s the good stuff we do.

So it will be at some future date that districts will start using the LCAP to look at the results they’re getting from their plan?

Yes. It’s not going to be a compliance check—it’s not going to be are you meeting standard X, Y, Z.  It should be about seeing if we are really promoting promise, taking the spending plan and making it an action plan, as evidenced in the kinds of outcomes we’re seeing that are in the areas of the eight state priorities.

That’s good to hear. I think most districts are concerned about the accountability, because that’s where we’ve come from. Do you have a sense for what sorts of sanctions might be coming if districts don’t get the results they hoped for?

I think there is going to be some kind of accountability, but it’s going to be around providing systems of support. This is where the Collaborative on Education Excellence comes into play. Whatever these rubrics end up as, it’s not going to be guess what—you’re doing horrible, you’re going to be under sanctions. It really is, we think there’s ways to help, here’s the support structure. 

The Collaborative hasn’t even been planned out. The cleanup legislation for LCFF does indicate membership in the Collaborative, how it’s going to be governed. But that’s really out a year or so before we have some more details about the Collaborative. But the whole intention behind it and its structure is really, how do you provide support, not how do you provide sanctions.

So, once districts have some time to work with their plans, what do you think the process will be to modify the regulations going forward if it looks like there’s a need to?

That’s a good question. Right now, the emergency regulations have been adopted by the Board and the permanent regulations are now moving forward; March 17 [was] the first public hearing by the Office of Administrative Law. They’ll get public comment on the permanent regulations. I suspect at subsequent Board meetings we’re going to be hearing more about this as the permanent regulations are working their way through.

The emergency regulations are good for 180 days; it’s a six-month window. If the permanent regulations are not in place by then there’s a way to extend the temporary regulations. I expect some refinement; I don’t expect the permanent regulations will be the exact replica of the emergency regulations. I think that’s a chance for further public comment. I think, given what we’ve heard from folks, that this is a good start; we need to see how this works.

I’m expecting that what we’ll see in terms of informing the refinements on the permanent regulations is the experience the districts are going to have—and the county offices and the charter schools. I think that real-world check on this is really important, because this is not meant to just be theoretical. This is meant to be something that works. This is not meant to be just on paper. What is it really going to take to work and do this right? I expect that’s what we’ll see next.

Kristi Garrett (kgarrett@csba.org) is a staff writer for California Schools.