District Administrators' Perspectives on the Impact of The Local Control Funding Formula on English Learners

District Administrator ◽

The Impact

Two years into implementation, this policy brief examines how California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and its accompanying Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) meet the needs of English Learners (ELs). Researchers seek to understand district administrator perspectives on the impact of LCFF for ELs through interviews and focus groups with administrators that represent districts from Northern, Central, and Southern California. Findings reveal that although the LCAP serves as a mechanism to increase personnel and PD efforts to address EL needs, it is still largely viewed as a compliance document that requires alignment with other strategic documents and is sensitive to changes in leadership. The following policy recommendations are made as a result of these findings: 1) re-design the LCAP to support districts in specifying EL learning goals, services, assessments and expected outcomes; 2) differentiate support for district administrators; and 3) invest (long-term) in district-level and site-level professional development with a focus on EL success.

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

Education Policy Analysis Archives ◽

10.14507/epaa.25.2818 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 25 ◽

pp. 15 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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 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.

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

10.15365/ceel.lcap2015.1 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Keyword(s):

Local Control ◽

Low Income ◽

School Finance ◽

English Learners ◽

English Language ◽

First Year ◽

District Leaders ◽

Funding Formula ◽

New School ◽

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.

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

10.15365/ceel.lcap2018.1 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Magaly Lavadenz

Keyword(s):

Local Control ◽

Low Income ◽

School Finance ◽

English Learners ◽

Great Promise ◽

California Department ◽

Funding Formula ◽

Accountability System ◽

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.

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

10.15365/ceel.lcap2015.2 ◽

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 ◽

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.

Equity for English Learners: Evidence from Four Years of California’s Local Control Funding Formula

Peabody Journal of Education ◽

10.1080/0161956x.2019.1598113 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 94 (2) ◽

pp. 176-192

Author(s):

Magaly Lavadenz ◽

Elvira G. Armas ◽

Marco A. Murillo ◽

Sylvia Jáuregui Hodge

Keyword(s):

Local Control ◽

English Learners ◽

Funding Formula ◽

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

Education Finance and Policy ◽

10.1162/edfp_a_00318 ◽

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 ◽

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.

The Influence of Administrators’ Allocations of the Local Control Funding Formula on African American Students’ Academic Achievement

10.26716/redlands/doctor/2020.3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Robin McIver-Brown

Keyword(s):

Academic Achievement ◽

African American ◽

Local Control ◽

African American Students ◽

Funding Formula ◽

American Students ◽

Global Value Chain: The Effects of Trade Mechanism on Energy Efficiency using Simultaneous Equation: Evidence from Asian Countries within Belt and Road

Business and Economic Research ◽

10.5296/ber.v11i3.18877 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 58

Author(s):

Mensah Patience Acquah ◽

Mandella Osei Assibey Bonsu ◽

Rosemond Atampokah

Keyword(s):

Energy Efficiency ◽

Value Chain ◽

Simultaneous Equation ◽

Global Value Chain ◽

Policy Recommendations ◽

Asian Countries ◽

Heterogeneous Effects ◽

Belt And Road ◽

The Impact

Long-term economic development is thought to necessitate the use of energy. To sustain steady economic growth, economies have increased their dependence on energy sources, tightened restrictions, and put pressure on energy supplies. Our paper employed simultaneous equations with GMM and SBM model to examine the impact of trade mechanism on energy efficiency of Asian countries within the Belt and Road Countries. We find significant increase in energy efficiency. After controlling the heterogeneous effects, the magnitude impact of the coefficient was noticeably which approves that the heterogeneity of countries and years influence the empirical findings of the model. Further, we find and validates that trade in the GVC mechanism helps to promote energy efficiency. Energy efficiency could be greatly promoted by emphasizing its significance in the age of GVC. Several policy recommendations support the findings

A review of year 2 LCAPs: A weak response to English Learners

10.15365/ceel.lcap2016.1 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Laurie Olsen ◽

Elvira Armas ◽

Magaly Lavadenz

Keyword(s):

Local Control ◽

English Learners ◽

English Language ◽

The State ◽

Teacher Capacity ◽

Weak Response ◽

Second Year ◽

County Offices Of Education ◽

Services And Supports

A panel of 32 reviewers analyzed the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) of same sample of 29 districts for the second year of implementation of the 2013 California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Using the same four questions as the Year 1 report, the Year 2 analysis also addresses the key differences between first and second-year LCAPs. Key findings from the Year 2 LCAPs review include: (1) similarly weak responses to the needs of ELs by LEAs in Year 2; (2) some improvement in clarity about services provided to ELs in some areas, though most evidence was weak; (3) minimal attention to the new English Language Development Standards; (4) minimal investment in teacher capacity building to address EL needs; (5) lack of attention to coherent programs, services and supports for ELs and failure to address issues of program and curriculum access; (6) weak engagement of ELs’ parents in LCAP process and content of LCAP plans; (7) poor employment of EL data to inform LCAP goals and weak use of EL indicators as an LCAP accountability component; (8) lack of specificity in describing district services and site allocations for supplemental and concentration funding; and (9) difficulty identifying the coherence of responses of EL needs in year 2 LCAPs. Overall, the analysis of the 29 LCAPs continue to signal a weak response to EL needs. The authors reassert the urgency of the recommendations in the Year 1 report, offer additional specific recommendations for the state, county offices of education, and districts, and call upon the state to reaffirm the equity commitment in the LCFF design.