scholarly journals Does the Measurement Matter? Assessing Alternate Approaches to Measuring State School Finance Equity for California’s Local Control Funding Formula

AERA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 233285841987742
Author(s):  
David S. Knight ◽  
Jesús Mendoza
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
District Level ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
State School ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Finance Equity ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
Funding Level

Scholars have not reached consensus on the best approach to measure state school finance equity. The regression-based approach estimates the relationship between district poverty rate and funding level, controlling for other district cost factors. A second commonly used approach involves estimating the weighted average funding level for low-income students or other subgroups. Meanwhile, policymakers have preferences for their own data systems and poverty indicators when reading reports and assessing progress. We constructed parallel, district-level panel data sets using data from the California Department of Education and the U.S. Census. We estimated changes over time in district-level school finance equity under California’s Local Control Funding Formula, using multiple school finance measurement approaches, with each of the two data sets. Our results show that different methods and analytic choices result in policy-relevant differences in findings. We discuss the implications for policy and future research.

Does Your Local Control Accountability (LCAP) Plan Deliver on the Promise of Increased or Improved Services for English Learners? 10 Research Aligned Rubrics to Help Answer the Question and Guide Your Program

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
First Year ◽  
District Leaders ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
New School ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula

As California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) came into effect in 2013, districts were given more flexibility to use state resources and create a new school finance system to improve/increase services for students with greater needs for support, including English Learners (ELs), students from low-income backgrounds, and foster youth. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) were tasked with preparing the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to describe how districts use their plans to meet their annual goals for all students. To aid LEAs in their design and implementation of programs to address the needs of ELs, Californians Together, the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), and the Center for Equity for English Learners (CEEL) collaboratively developed the rubrics with 10 focus areas that have a high impact on ELs. These areas include: (1) English Language Development, (2) Parent Engagement, (3) Professional Development, (4) Programs and Course Access, (5) Expenditures, (6) District Wide Use of Concentration and Supplemental Grant Funds, (7) School Wide Use of Concentration and Supplemental Grant Funds, (8) Actions and Services, (9) Proportionality, and (10) English Learner Data to Inform Goals. These 10 rubrics and their corresponding indicators are based on research-based principles and practices for English Learners. These rubrics were first employed in the review of first-year LCAPs by the above-mentioned organizations and remain an important analytical instrument for district leaders to gain insights into the planning for and improving programs and services for ELs.

scholarly journals Masking the Focus on English Learners: The Consequences of California’s Accountability System Dashboard Results on Year 4 Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magaly Lavadenz
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
California Department ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Accountability System ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
Policy Mechanisms

California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), signed into law in 2013, centers equity as a key to increased and improved services for three targeted student subgroups, including English Learners (ELs), low-income students, and foster youth. As a component of LCFF, districts develop Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to specify their goals and strategies for using LCFF funds for equity and continuous improvement purposes. The California Model Five by Five Grid Placement Report (Spring 2017 Dashboard) included the Five by Five Placement Grid, a key function of which is to identify the needs of diverse ELs. The Dashboard and the LCAPs are two policy mechanisms with great promise in combining school finance and accountability reform to promote equity and coherent state-wide. In this report, Lavadenz and colleagues review the EL policy context and examine the connection between the two contemporary policy mechanisms in California, namely the Year 4 LCAP and the California Department of Education’s Accountability Model (Spring 2017 Dashboard). The authors use a sample of 26 California school districts with high numbers/percentages of ELs and conclude that California’s current accountability system diminishes the urgency to respond to educational needs of the English Learner subgroup and undermines the equity intent of the LCFF. Few promising practices and assets-based approaches were identified in the LCAPs, and there is minimal mention of metrics focused on EL outcomes. The authors provide recommendations at state, county office of education and district levels.

scholarly journals Coign of vantage and action: Considering California’ local accountability and school finance plans for English learners

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Vasquez Heilig ◽  
Lisa S. Romero ◽  
Megan Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
School Districts ◽  
Local Control ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Educational Equity ◽  
Public Schooling ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula

Local control has been a bedrock principle of public schooling in America since its inception. In 2013, the California Legislature codified a new local accountability approach for school finance. An important component of the new California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) approach is a focus on English learners (ELs). The law mandates that every school district produce a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) to engage the local community in defining outcomes and determining funding for ELs. Based on an exploratory analysis of a representative sample of LCAPs, we show that, although California’s new approach offered an opportunity to support locally-defined priorities and alternatives to top-down accountability, few if any districts had yet took full advantage of the opportunity. That is, the school districts in our sample had not yet engaged with the local community to facilitate significant changes to accountability or redistribution of funding and resources to support educational equity for ELs.

scholarly journals A preliminary analysis of California’s New Local Control Funding Formula

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Wolf ◽  
Janelle Sands
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
First Year ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Early Implementation ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
K 12 ◽  
Public Education Finance

California recently overhauled its K–12 public education finance system. Enacted in 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) replaced California’s 40-year-old funding formula. The LCFF increases district officials’ fiscal flexibility; provides more resources to districts serving larger proportions of low-income, English learner (EL), and foster youth students; and requires district officials to engage community members in district decisions. This article expands on a study conducted by a team of 12 independent researchers that investigated the early implementation of the LCFF. The study sought to answer three research questions: (a) how are district officials using their newfound budget flexibility? (b) how are district officials engaging parents and other stakeholders? (c) what are the opportunities provided to districts under the LCFF and the challenges it creates for them? Data include 71 semi-structured interviews with district stakeholders across 10 diverse districts in California and 22 interviews with county office of education (COE) officials across the state. Findings include that respondents were cautiously optimistic about the LCFF. District officials appreciated increased budget flexibility and the focus on community engagement. Inevitably, however, district and COE officials experienced challenges in implementing the law during its first year. 

Civic Engagement in Education: Insights from California's Local Control Funding Formula

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 761-774
Author(s):  
Julie A. Marsh ◽  
Tasminda K. Dhaliwal ◽  
Michelle Hall ◽  
Morgan S. Polikoff
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Education Policies ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
The Public ◽  
Target Populations ◽  
State Education ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula

In this policy brief, we use the case of California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to provide policy makers and educators guidance on how to involve the public in goal setting and resource distribution decisions. We provide clarity around who is and is not participating, why, and what broader lessons we can draw for implementing federal and state education policies mandating public engagement. Our findings indicate tremendous room for improvement. LCFF's target populations (e.g., low-income, English learners) are not more likely to be aware of or participate in decisions than nontargeted groups, which suggests weak accountability for the use of public funds by the policy's target populations. Although LCFF has defined a broad set of stakeholders, only a narrow segment of the public (i.e., individuals with stronger ties to and positive views of schools) is aware of and engaging with the policy. Finally, we find a substantial gap between actual participation in LCFF and interest in participation, which may relate to a lack of self-efficacy, time, trust, perceived appropriateness, and information. As states and districts respond to mandates for engagement, these results suggest the need for greater investments in: (1) communication, (2) targeting a range of stakeholders, and (3) capacity building.

scholarly journals State school finance inequities and the limits of pursuing teacher equity through departmental regulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Baker ◽  
Mark Weber
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
School Districts ◽  
School Finance ◽  
District Level ◽  
School Level ◽  
Teacher Qualifications ◽  
State School ◽  
School Site ◽  
Teacher Salaries ◽  
State Education

New federal regulations (State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators) place increased pressure on states and local public school districts to improve their measurement and reporting of gaps in teacher qualifications across schools and the children they serve. Yet a sole focus on resource disparities between schools within a state ignores an important driver of those disparities: district-level spending variations, particularly when accounting for differences in student populations. The analyses herein evaluate connections between district and school level spending measures and teacher equity measures (such as salary competitiveness and staff: student ratios), and specifically whether inequality in “access to excellent educators” at the school level is greater in states where funding inequalities between school districts are greater. We find that district spending variation explains an important, policy relevant share of school staffing expenditures in 13 states. In many states, including Illinois and New York, a nearly 1:1 relationship exists between district spending variation and school site spending variation. In California, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, district spending is positively associated with competitive salary differentials, average teacher salaries, and numbers of certificated staff per 100 pupils. In each of these states, district poverty rates are negatively associated with competitive salary differentials, average teacher salaries and numbers of certified staff per 100 pupils. As such, regulatory intervention without more substantive changes to state school finance systems, addressing district-level inequities, will likely achieve little. Current federal policy pressures state education agencies to report and attempt to regulate inequities that arise because of school finance systems over which those agencies have no direct influence. Our analysis suggests that the administration would be more likely to meet its goals if it attempted to more directly address state school finance system disparities, placing pressure on state legislatures to equitably and adequately fund schools, and following through with the requirement that state-to-district equity provisions translate into district-to-school equity. 

scholarly journals Falling Short on The Promise to English Learners: A Report on Year One LCAPs

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elvira Armas ◽  
Magaly Lavadenz ◽  
Laurie Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Local Control ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
State Level ◽  
Student Outcome ◽  
English Learner ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
One Year

California’s Local Control Funding Formula was signed into law in California in 2013 and allowed districts the flexibility to meet their student needs in locally appropriate manners. One year after its implementation, a panel of 26 reviewers, including educators, English Learner (EL) advocates, and legal services staff reviewed the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to understand how districts employ this flexibility to address the needs of ELs. The report uses the English Learner Research-Aligned LCAP Rubrics with 10 focus areas, and reviews sample LCAPs from 29 districts, including districts with the highest numbers/percentages of English Learners in the state, districts representative of California’s geographic Regions, and districts providing quality EL services. The review centers around four questions of the extent to which first-year LCAPs: (1) specify goals and identify outcomes for ELs, (2) identify action steps and allocate funds for increased or improved services for all types of ELs, (3) reflect research-based practices for achieving language proficiency and academic achievement for English Learners in their actions, programs and services, and (4) are designed and implemented with EL parent input as reflected in stakeholder engagement. The results indicate that overall, the LCAP is inadequate as part of the state’s public accountability system in ensuring equity and access for ELs. Six key findings were: (1) difficulty in discerning funding allocations related to EL services and programs; (2) inability to identify districts’ plans for increased services for ELs; (3) lack of explicitly specified services and programs aligned to EL needs; (4) weak approach or missing English Language Development (ELD) or implementation of ELD standards in most LCAPs; (5) weak/inconsistent representation of EL parent engagement; and (6) lack of EL student outcome measures. The authors also present detailed findings for each focus topic and offer district and state level recommendations.

scholarly journals Spending More on the Poor? A Comprehensive Summary of State-Specific Responses to School Finance Reforms from 1990–2014

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Shores ◽  
Christopher A. Candelaria ◽  
Sarah E. Kabourek
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
State Level ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Multiple State ◽  
Legislative Reforms ◽  
K 12 ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity ◽  
Level Effect

Abstract Sixty-seven school finance reforms (SFRs), a combination of court-ordered and legislative reforms, have taken place since 1990; however, there is little empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of SFR effects. In this study, we estimate the effects of SFRs on revenues and expenditures between 1990 and 2014 for 26 states. We find that, on average, per pupil spending increased, especially in low-income districts relative to high-income districts. However, underlying these average effect estimates, the distribution of state-level effect sizes ranges from negative to positive—there is substantial heterogeneity. When predicting SFR impacts, we find that multiple state-level SFRs, union strength, and some funding formula components are positively associated with SFR effect sizes in low-income districts. We also show that, on average, states without SFRs adopted funding formula components and increased K-12 state revenues similarly to states with SFRs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document