Public interest groups join CSBA for wide-ranging discussion of LCFF
First-year implementation reveals promise, pitfalls to be worked out
Published: June 1, 2014
Now that districts and county offices of education have had some experience with developing and reviewing their first plans under the Local Control Funding Formula, many local educational agencies and public interest groups have questions and concerns with the way Local Control and Accountability Plans are rolling out. To help all work together to successfully meet the letter and spirit of the law, CSBA President Josephine Lucey invited several educational leaders to join her for a panel discussion at the May 18 meeting of the Delegate Assembly.
The panel included:
- John Affeldt, managing attorney at Public Advocates in San Francisco, who served as lead counsel in Williams v. California. He is also a board member in Emery Unified School District.
- Ted Lempert is president of the research and advocacy organization Children Now, based in Oakland. He is also a former California Assembly Member and cofounded EdVoice. He is currently a board member in the San Mateo County Office of Education.
- Arun Ramanathan, CEO Pivot Learning Partners, is the former executive director of The Education Trust-West. He is a former teacher and administrator with extensive experience in public and non-public schools.
Getting community engagement and input right is one aspect of developing an LCAP that has perplexed many districts, the panelists agreed. Some districts, such as Emery Unified, have found it helpful to reach out to local youth organizations to get input from students. Using existing parent advisory committees is easy, but those don’t provide sufficient input from parents who are not usually engaged at school. Providing child care and translation services helps get more parents to participate, Lempert suggested.
Imperfect though the various methods for community engagement may be, the LCAP process is changing the culture throughout the state, Ramanathan confirmed. “I always figure an educational initiative is having an impact when my wife talks about it,” he said when his spouse, a teacher in San Lorenzo, reported having translated for an LCAP meeting. “Clearly, this is something that’s front and center for folks.”
The extent to which district leaders involve the public in strategic planning and budget discussions will vary from place to place, and ultimately decisions lie with the board. Still, Ramanathan said, community and parent input should be documented so that its impact can be seen in the LCAP.
The LCAP template itself has its problems, the panelists agreed. How community engagement is recorded on the document, and how all priorities connect with the district budget, among other things, will need to be fine-tuned. Remember that the LCAP is more than a compliance document, Affeldt said, and should tell a narrative about what the district is trying to achieve. The whole process is overwhelming for many smaller districts, Lucey reminded the panelists.
While Affeldt initially said that soliciting a laundry list of wants from the public was not very helpful in setting district priorities, others disagreed. Documenting the community’s desires and concerns with a list of programs and services that they’d like to see restored after years of drastic budget cuts can be very useful data as educators advocate for increased funding. Even at the LCFF target, California will remain well under the national average in per-pupil spending, Ramanathan said. Additionally, Proposition 30 will not last forever. “That’s why LCFF is such a high-stakes process,” he said.
Despite being a high-tax state, California spends much less on education than other states, Lempert pointed out. “That’s crazy. … We’re just totally out of line in this state,” he said, arguing that districts should document as many responses as possible so the community and state leaders will understand the impact of poorly funded schools. Clearly, Affeldt agreed, schools don’t have the money they need to address the needs of their 21st century students.
Increasing teacher salaries with LCFF supplemental or concentration grants is tricky, the panel agreed. While an argument could be made that high-quality teachers are what low-income and English learner students need, the Legislature is deeply suspicious that districts will spend the money as they always have, panelists said, so spending needs to clearly address equity for target groups under LCFF.
“We would not be having this argument if we were implementing an LCFF formula when we were at the top of national funding as opposed to the bottom,” said Lucey. “If the base was higher, this would be a much, much easier thing to do.”
CSBA will continue to work with civil rights and public interest groups to inform its approach toward community engagement and governance recommendations for its members. Continue to check out CSBA’s LCFF toolkit for updates, best practices and resources.