State Board poised to elevate parents' role in setting district priorities

Berkeley Unified Superintendent Donald Evans speaks to parents Tuesday at a forum on the new spending law. Credit: Mark Coplan, Berkeley Unified School District

Berkeley Unified Superintendent Donald Evans speaks to parents last month at a forum on the new spending law. Some districts have already begun to engage parents in the budget process, knowing that the regulations and template for the Local Control and Accountability Plan would be passed this month. Credit: Mark Coplan, Berkeley Unified School District

Engaging parents is one of eight priorities that school districts must address under the law creating the new state finance system, the Local Control Funding Formula. Parental and community involvement will also soon become a guiding force behind the funding system’s central element: a three-year budget plan explicitly tying spending to student achievement goals that every district must create.

On Thursday, the State Board will pass the template for that document, the Local Control and Accountability Plan or LCAP (starting on page 7). The Board also will adopt regulations instructing districts on how much latitude they will have – too much, according to some advocates for disadvantaged children – in spending the money that the funding formula earmarks for low-income students, English learners and foster youth.

The goal of the Local Control Funding Formula is to decentralize power and shift decision making from Sacramento to local districts. Together, the LCAP template and the spending regulations will make that happen – and establish what the system’s architect, State Board President Michael Kirst, hopes will be a new national model.

What’s in the LCAP

In the first of its three sections, the proposed LCAP (starting on page 7) provides guidelines for reaching out formally, through district advisory committees, and informally to parents, teachers, students and others in the community.

The second section requires that the district state how its goals and actions respond to the eight state priorities for all students and for subgroups of students, especially the students getting additional dollars. Goals might include increasing access to Advanced Placement courses, with a focus on Hispanic students; raising graduation rates; and increasing parental participation in back-to-school nights. It asks the district to list the data and metrics on which the district set its goals. And it requires the district to detail how goals and actions may differ by individual school, implying that the district should be incorporating suggestions of school site councils. Actions might include recruiting and training more teachers to teach AP courses, adding Partnership Academies that engage students at risk of dropping out in job internships, and introducing home visits to students with high absentee rates.

The third section requires the district to detail how much programs and services to achieve various goals will cost, with breakdowns for students subgroups. It should be clear how the extra dollars for high-needs students will be spent.

The biggest disagreement, which will generate the most testimony on Thursday, will be over the rules for allowing districts to spend those extra dollars for schoolwide or districtwide purposes. Advocates for poor and English-learning students acknowledge benefits from districtwide learning strategies, like adding extra periods for all low-performing students or training all teachers in how to improve English learners’ reading skills. But they want stricter rules to prevent money targeted for high-needs students going to purposes with little direct benefit for those students, like granting across-the-board staff raises or buying tablet computers for all students. The proposed provisions “risk undermining the significant progress that has been made to ensure these grant dollars will benefit the students who generated them,” said a Jan. 10 letter to the State Board from 30 children’s rights and community organizations.

The initial LCAP will be a three-year plan, taking effect on July 1 for the 2014-15 school year. It will be updated annually, with districts asked to cite metrics showing progress in meeting district goals. County offices of education must approve each district’s LCAP; they can’t modify it but can send it back for changes.

Guiding questions for involving parents

The law’s underlying assumption is that local school boards will make wise decisions, based on local needs, after listening to and including the advice of the community, especially parents. The LCAP doesn’t dictate how that will take place, but it does require a school board to document the process by addressing a series of questions. A failure to answer questions fully would be revealing – and in theory grounds for reviewers at the county office of education to reject the LCAP and district budget.

Those questions, in the opening section of the LCAP, include:

  • How did the district reach out to a range of groups – not only parents in general but also guardians of foster children, parents of English learners, community organizations, teachers unions and students?
  • Did it do so early in the process to allow for meaningful discussions?
  • What information and metrics did the district provide parents and members of the district advisory committee?
  • What changes were made to the district’s LCAP as a result of the suggestions it received?
  • Did it listen to school site councils, which will continue to meet and make recommendations for their schools, as before?

Under state and federal law, districts are required to solicit ideas and recommendations from school site councils for spending of categorical grants. Critics say some principals and school boards merely pay lip service to the law and so doubt the LCAP will make a difference. “All of the decisions on allocation of funding will be made behind closed doors by school district administrators without ‘real’ public and parental input, and will be packaged by the district like a large Christmas present in a marshmallow PowerPoint that no average college graduate can understand — and Board will rubber stamp after 72 hours of review,” commented an EdSource reader from Mount Diablo Unified.

“We have experienced that frustration. I was a school site council chair for five years,” said Roberta Furger, a congregation-based community organizing network. Furger will call on the State Board to be clearer on the role of school site councils in helping to shape the LCAP and to be more explicit on expectations and best practices: who should be on a district parent advisory committee, when and where meetings should be held, how to make data understandable and available, how to best learn what parents really want from their schools. Guiding questions are not the same as guidance, she  said.

But at the same time, Furger said, “We have to embrace this opportunity and hold everyone accountable for the spirit and letter of the regs. This is our shot at bringing the community into the process and to serve kids who have been underserved for years.”

Brooks Allen, the new deputy policy director and assistant legal counsel to the State Board of Education, said, “There will always be some skepticism about something that is new. One can’t argue against a hypothetical.” But nothing on this scale has been tried across the nation to integrate budget and instructional goals, he said, and there will be mistaken comparisons with site councils. With the LCAP, the total budget will be subject to a public scrutiny; specific state priorities must be aligned to district goals and shared with advisory committees, and reviewed by county offices of education, he said. The intent is for a two-way conversation, Allen said.

“There will be some variance among districts,” Allen said. “A lot of success will depend on effective engagement process. We hope that this will limit the outliers.”

John Fensterwald covers state education policy. Contact him and follow him on Twitter @jfenster. For EdSource Today’s full coverage of the Local Control Funding Formula, go here.







Filed under: Local Control Funding Formula, Parent Involvement, Policy & Finance, Reforms, State Board, State Education Policy

Tags: , , ,


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective.
  • Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to.
  • EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

4 Responses to “State Board poised to elevate parents' role in setting district priorities”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. Paul Muench on Jan 16, 2014 at 7:04 am01/16/2014 7:04 am

    • 000

    Most parents would ignore any system of parent input if they believed schools worked well. That’s why I think this issue is going to boil down to class sizes. Schools with more highly funded students will have smaller class sizes. That is something both teacher unions and parents have a long history of believing effective. And under the right conditions that may even prove more useful than in the past. Class sizes are also easy to prove and verify. Teachers salaries are also the lions share of district budgets so if parents want any significant input into how districts operate this topic must be addressed. If some minor part of a district’s budget can be realigned for significant student impact I’d sure like to know what it is and I’d hope that all students could benefit from such a minor change.

  2. Jerry Heverly on Jan 15, 2014 at 1:53 pm01/15/2014 1:53 pm

    • 000

    I’m very worried about LCAP’s ultimate impact on my district. I’m worried because every proposed metric seems, to me, to be pernicious. They look good to outsiders but I fear they will hurt my students. I spent some time on Google surveying districts proposals. Here are my reservations:
    1. AP pass rates. This seems a very popular one so far. Use of this metric will assure that minority access to AP classes will decline immediately. Many AP teachers insist that only well prepared students should be admitted to their courses. Can’t have those slow students interfering with pass rates. {AP participation rates as a metric would be preferable to me but that might be an incentive to get everyone in an AP class.}
    2. Graduation rates. Every June the counselors wander the hallways importuning teachers to give Johnny a few more points so he can graduate. This number is so easily manipulated as to be nearly worthless. You can attend a California JC without a high school diploma and I’ve known several kids who benefited by quitting high school to work, and then attend a JC.
    3. Students earning A-G requirements: That kid who would like to take accounting or sculpture? Can’t do it. You need that third year of French. You don’t like French? Can’t speak a sentence? Tough. We need you to get your A-G requirement.
    4. EL reclassification rates: I get the forms in my mailbox. Can you reclassify Johnny? He’s been in the SDAIE program for four years. We need him to be reclassified. It’s a subjective judgment to begin with. Now, with this added pressure I’ll probably err on the side of pushing them out
    5. Suspension/Expulsion rates: let’s face it, the implication is that teachers and admins are racially biased. That must be why suspension rates are so much higher for minority youth. Whether you believe that or not the result of this metric will be warehousing kids in “time out rooms” or other on-campus detention sites. It won’t change the lives of a single kid. And the metric will paper over the problem.

  3. Doctor J on Jan 15, 2014 at 12:18 pm01/15/2014 12:18 pm

    • 000

    The proof is in the pudding. All the state reg’s and laws don’t mean a whoot, unless there is enforcement and penalties imposed which will prompt compliance. Example, I asked the Mt. Diablo USD “How many YEARS has it been since the Board reviewed the “parental involvement” policy of BP/AR 6020 ? Federal law 20 United States Code 6318 requires ANNUAL REVIEW. How many YEARS has it been since the Board reviewed the “student participation”, “extracurricular” and “open enrollment” policies of BP/AR 6145 & 5116.1 ? Ed Code 35160.5 requires ‘ANNUAL REVIEW’. How many YEARS has it been since the Board reviewed its “investing policy” in BP/AR 3430 ? Government Code 5346 requires ANNUAL review.” These Board Policies and Administrative Regulations are the models provided by the California School Board Association — adopted by most Districts — yet ignored by most Districts. Its time for TEETH in the policies and regulations. Otherwise, the law will simply be ignored just like a Speed Limit sign without enforcement.

  4. navigio on Jan 15, 2014 at 9:38 am01/15/2014 9:38 am

    • 000

    I’d argue that the skepticism does not exist because this is something new. In fact, more the contrary: that this seems to many to be just a different flavor of the old. Dont argue against the hypothetical, argue against why things have worked the way they have (or not have) for the last decade. That will address your skeptics.

    I also dont believe the comparison with school site council’s is mistaken. Firstly, the SSC is tasked with authoring the site plan, which is not just a justification of categorical funds (though its supposed to include that) but is essentially a document outlining the school’s entire strategy for a year. That strategy is driven by templates that require assessing needs and explaining how they were addressed (sound familiar yet?).
    In addition, there is a district-level version of the SSC which is the same group that would be providing input to the LCAP process. That group already exists, and is already tasked with providing guidance (note its usually called an ‘advisory council’). There is one difference in that a board is required to put in writing what its response to these advisory councils is, though a valid response would be ‘thanks for the input, but no thanks.’
    Also, the entire budget is not open for scrutiny in any kind of new way. The existing budget is supposed to be entirely open for scrutiny already (whoops), and the LCAP talks about extra dollars, not justifying base usage.
    And lastly and notably, the SSC does not even achieve those things now with reams of law requiring it to. How is a freer version of that dynamic supposed to make that more likely to happen? Especially when you add in growing pressures for encroachment from even supplemental grants?

Template last modified: