The A–G Resolution and Educational Equity in LAUSD High Schools

Beatrice Fuchs

Master of Public Policy, May 2013

Certificate of Public Management, May 2013

Beatrice is a Master of Public Policy student at the Price School of Public Policy at USC. She works as a research assistant at the USC Center on Educational Governance studying K–12 public education reform and public school choice. She will be an Education Pioneers Fellow in the summer of 2013.

Abstract: This paper analyzes the A–G Resolution passed by the LAUSD Board of Education that altered district-wide high school graduation requirements, adding a mandatory 15-course sequence that aligns with the requirements for admission to the University of California and California State University. This paper analyzes the impacts of the first of two implementation phases, begun in 2005. The paper provides a detailed examination of the policy goals, target population, implementing agent, implementation process, mandate design, and existing evaluation, supported by academic research. The paper concludes with a recommendation to the LAUSD Board of Education for the second implementation phase, which began in the fall of 2012.

The A–G Resolution and Educational Equity in LAUSD High Schools

Executive Summary

The A–G Resolution was passed in the summer of 2005 by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education. It alters the LAUSD high school graduation requirements, adding a mandatory 15-course sequence that aligns with the requirements for admission to the University of California and California State University, referred to as A-G courses.[1] The resolution is being implemented in two phases. Phase 1 opened enrollment in all A–G courses to any students who requested it. Phase 2 (commencing in Fall 2012) requires that all students entering Grade 9 complete the 15-course sequence prior to graduation. The second phase is a scaling-up of the first, as it disseminates the new graduation requirements to all 140 high schools and all students in LAUSD. This paper is an analysis of the policy at this intermediary period, after implementation of Phase 1 and prior to implementation of Phase 2, an interesting and timely period to analyze in the life of the policy.

On a cursory reading of the A–G Resolution, the actions of the Board of Education seem well intended, aiming to achieve educational equity by ensuring all students take the same courses. However, in a detailed examination of the policy goals, target population, implementing agent, implementation process, mandate design, and existing evaluations it is clear the policy fails to address several aspects that are essential to achieving the intended goal of district-wide educational equity. The Board of Education very clearly detailed the intended goals of the A–G Resolution in the text of the policy.[2] The target population of high school students are addressed as well; however, the policy fails to address the inherent differences between students in LAUSD. The policy fails to acknowledge the existence of divergent sub-groups within the target population. This failure presents reoccurring issues for implementation.

The Board of Education’s failure to incorporate tacit knowledge in the treatment of the target population and in the creation of conducive learning environments calls into question whether the policy will be able to achieve its goal of educational equity, or whether the A–G Resolution will compound the existing problem and deepen the continually expanding achievement gap. The Board of Education should re-evaluate the A–G Resolution after implementation of Phase 2, consider the importance of addressing the different target population sub-groups and the divergent school environments, to ensure that all students have equitable preparation to succeed in the A–G courses.

The A–G Resolution: Background and Policy Goals

Educational inequity has long plagued LAUSD. The Los Angeles City Board of Education has acknowledged its failure to properly educate a significant number of students and its failure to provide students with skills necessary for success in the 21st-century workforce.[3] In 2005, the Board of Education recommitted to “becoming one of the best urban school districts in the nation and ... eliminating the Achievement Gap amongst all of its students.”[4] They set out to eliminate this gap in achievement by restructuring the course requirements for high school graduation.

On June 14, 2005 the Board of Education passed the A–G Resolution. The resolution dictated that the Superintendent must provide access to A–G courses for every student who desires enrollment in any of the courses. Furthermore, the resolution prescribed that commencing in Fall 2012, all students entering Grade 9 must complete the A–G course sequence to graduate. The disparities between completion of the A–G course by students of different races reflects a severe inequity in the educational services provided by LAUSD high schools.[5] Since a portion of the A–G courses have not been required for graduation, students were not guaranteed access to these classes depending on their high school’s specific course offerings until the implementation of this two-phase regulatory policy.

The A–G Resolution seeks not only to bring about educational equity within LAUSD but also to fulfill a series of goals for students in the district. The goals of the resolution were clearly defined in the motion presented to the Los Angeles City Board of Education on June 14th, 2005 and include:

1.  Give students the choice to pursue post secondary education, vocational/career technical education, a career, and other career options;

2.  Close the Achievement Gap;

3.  Increase high school graduation rates and reduce drop out rates.[6]

The A–G Resolution states that its ultimate goal is to implement the A–G course sequence as a catalyst to bring about educational equity. The resolution states that as a result of implementing the 15-course sequence, students will be better prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce.[7] More specifically, “The A–G course sequence is a rigorous life readiness curriculum that does not guarantee college admission but rather allows students choice.”[8] Increasing options and the possibility for success for students has many desired positive effects. These societal benefits include decreased crime rates, increased earning potential, and decreased need for welfare assistance.[9] All of these benefits hinge on altering the behavior of students so that they graduate high school armed with the knowledge of the A–G courses and prepared for the future.

Whether these goals are likely to be achieved can be determined through analysis of the A–G Resolution: the definition of equity underlying it, the diversity of its target population, its overall design, and the method of evaluation used to assess it. After this analysis, a recommendation will be made as to how best to implement the policy to achieve the desired goal: educational equity.

Achieving Educational Equity

The ultimate goal of the A–G Resolution is to create educational equity and eliminate the achievement gap by equalizing the courses available to the target population: LAUSD high school students. In Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone states, “Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment; and the same distribution may be seen as equal or unequal depending on one’s point of view.”[10] This statement does not hold true in the analysis of the existing inequity in the achievement gap between LAUSD high school students. To achieve educational equity, equal treatment is essential. Stone defines equality as distributional uniformity and equity as fair distribution.[11] In the case of the A–G Resolution, fair distribution is distributional uniformity, because LAUSD exists to serve all students both fairly and uniformly.

The three central goals of the A–G Resolution require equal and equitable treatment of all students and courses. Whether the social process by which distribution of courses to students is determined is currently equitable in Phase 1 remains to be determined. The resolution dictates that all students should have access to courses, but inequity (lack of fair distribution) still exists in Phase 1 of implementation because not all courses are offered at all high schools.[12] Stone argues, “Process is important because our notion of fairness includes not only the end result but the sense of fair process by which the results occurred.”[13]

Stone creates an analogy regarding dividing a cake equitably based on diet versus equal serving sizes for all, can be applied in the analysis of equity and the new graduation requirements. Because of students’ differing elementary and middle school experiences, some may not be as well prepared for the courses as others and thus may not derive an equal level of value from the classes. This issue is a continuing theme throughout analysis of the A–G Resolution, as it poses problems within the target group, in the mandate design, and is related to a key warning that reappears in the official evaluation of the policy. If LAUSD desires to create educational equity, the Board of Education cannot only agree to allow all students equal slices of the metaphorical cake but they must ensure that the slices of cake are equally accessible for all students, regardless of which high school they attend within the district.

Target Population and The Importance of Sub-Groups

The most significant target population of the A–G Resolution is the current and future high school students in LAUSD. More specifically, the A–G Resolution targets two distinct sub-groups of students: the students who would not choose to take the 15-course sequence and the students who lack access to the courses. In Social Construction of Target Populations, Schneider and Ingram present a model for the classification of the construction and power of target populations.[14] According to this model, the A–G Resolution's target population is portrayed as weak (the Board of Education must advocate and take action on their behalf) and negative (many students are not choosing to take these courses, thus they are constructed as “deviants”). By implementing the A–G Resolution, the Board of Education aims to reconstruct the target population upon graduation as “strong and positive” – as college-ready high school graduates.

Schneider and Ingram argue that policy is powerful and attempts to achieve goals by changing people’s behavior.[15] Through requiring all students to complete the 15 courses of the A–G requirements, LAUSD seeks to improve conditions of educational equity by altering student’s behavior. Prior to the Resolution, only 15% of Latino students, 21% of African American students, 36% of white students, and 50% of Asian students completed the A–G requirements.[16] Through this policy, LAUSD seeks to ensure that 100% of graduates complete the A–G requirements.

The Power of Regulatory Change, Causal Theory, and Co-Production

In Evidence Based Policy: II - The Promise of ‘Realist Synthesis’ Ray Pawson writes, “The causal power of an initiative lies in its underlying mechanism, namely its basic theory about how programme resources will influence the subject’s actions.”[17] In the A–G Resolution, policy dictates an expansion of resources (courses) for students as a mechanism to produce the desired change in the target population’s behavior.[18] The course expansion arises as a function of the policy’s change to graduation requirements, and thus the Board of Education’s re-writing of the requirements is a causal mechanism for the desired change.

The desired change of the A–G Resolution is 100% completion of the A–G courses for all graduates, to produce a more equitable district.[19] For the A–G Resolution to reach its ultimate goal, students (as the target population) must act as co-producers of the policy. In Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery, Gordon Whitaker argues that this is particularly important for policies where “change in the client’s behavior is the product which is suppose to be delivered.”[20] Within the context of a target population that desires to take these courses but has issues with access, the policy will produce the desired result of equity. Within the context of a target population who would not have chosen to take these courses, the policy may not be as effective. For students struggling with the previous, less rigorous, graduation requirements this policy may be an obstacle to graduating. In this context, the A–G Resolution will work in opposition to its ultimate goal of reaching educational equity, by deepening the achievement gap. This issue must be addressed in the implementation of policy to encourage all students to act as co-producers and embrace the newly required A–G courses.

For the A–G Resolution, the effectiveness of the regulatory mechanism of altering graduation requirements varies depending on the portion of the target population it is reaching. Pawson argues that for the mechanism to be triggered “context must align,” where context depends on “characteristics of both the subjects and the programme locality.”[21] In examining the mechanism of the A–G Resolution, it is not specifically the context of where the policy is being applied, but to whom it is applied that produces the divergent degrees of effectiveness.

The Role of the Implementing Agent

LAUSD was instructed to implement the A–G Resolution in a two-stage process. In the first stage of implementation, schools were to provide A–G courses to every student who requested enrollment.[22] By Fall 2012, the second phase of implementation requires that all students entering Grade 9 complete the 15-course sequence prior to graduation.[23] The district (the Board of Education and Superintendent) represents the primary implementing agent of the A–G Resolution.[24]

It is important to note that LAUSD is situated in a web of supportive entities including: teachers, professional development staff, local district superintendents, students, parents, and community groups. In Politics, Markets, and the Organization of Schools, Chubb and Moe argue, “Politicians have the authority to shape the schools through public policy, and precisely because they have this authority, they are consistently under pressure from interest groups to exercise it.”[25] All of the supportive entities of LAUSD can be seen as interest groups of the A–G Initiative. One key interest group, Alliance for a Better Community (ABC), did play a large role in presenting this issue to the Board of Directors and pushing for graduation requirement changes. However ABC, like the other groups listed above, is not the agent upon which the successful implementation of the A–G Resolution is contingent.

In Politics, Markets, and the Organization of Schools, Chubb and Moe craft a theory addressing the role of environment in implementation: