This report examines California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) after eight years and suggests refinements to improve equitable funding, opportunities, and outcomes. Based on interviews, research, and data analysis, the report identifies four areas for improvement: revisiting and refining the funding formula, modernizing funding for students with disabilities, equitably distributing effective teachers, and strengthening transparency, engagement, and accountability. LCFF has been viewed as an improvement over the previous system yet gaps between equity goals and local outcomes remain.

The brief reports on California voters’ attitudes and engagement with local school district governance using data from the 2021 PACE/USC Rossier Poll. The findings show high support for school boards, but less satisfaction with their performance during the pandemic. Engagement patterns changed with some voters becoming more involved due to dissatisfaction with the educational system. The report highlights patterns of racial, socioeconomic, and partisan divisions in school district governance, with Black and low-income voters being the most dissatisfied.

This policy brief focuses on California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to provide guidance for involving the public in goal setting and resource distribution decisions. It highlights weak accountability for using public funds by LCFF’s target populations, low awareness and engagement among stakeholders, and a gap between interest and participation. To improve engagement, it suggests investing in communication, targeting a range of stakeholders, and capacity building.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in California was designed to increase flexibility, transparency, and equity in school districts. This report examines how Los Banos Unified School District and Chino Valley Unified School District used the LCFF to serve English Language Learners (ELLs). Both districts used the LCFF to create advocacy spaces and develop internal coherence to benefit ELLs with locally devised mechanisms and structures.

This report examines the early implementation of California's Statewide System of Support, which is designed to empower local educators in determining the best approaches to improvement. While COEs and district officials hold positive views of the system's emphasis on support over compliance, they have concerns about under-resourcing and the effectiveness of the Dashboard measurement tool. The report provides five recommendations to make the System of Support a more comprehensive system aligned with the Local Control Funding Formula.

Community engagement remains one of the most challenging expectations of California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), so much so that state leaders have funded an initiative to support regional networks focused on engagement. This brief shares insights from a session where a lead administrator from the San Bernardino County Office provided an update on that initiative. Other speakers shared their on-the-ground experiences working with educators, parents, and students to create the relationships needed for community stakeholder engagement to be consistent, meaningful, and productive.

This report updates previous research on California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) using a 2019 poll of California voters. Despite increased awareness, over half of voters are unfamiliar with LCFF. Support for the policy remains high but has decreased. Participation in LCFF engagement has increased but remains low, particularly among low-income voters. Low-income communities may not be meaningfully engaged in LCFF decision-making.

This report is the companion account of principal survey results from the Local Control Funding Formula Research Collaborative's (LCFFRC) fall 2018 surveys of stratified random samples of California superintendents and principals. The superintendent results were published in June 2018 in Superintendents Speak: Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) changed California's education policy in 2013 by transferring control of most education dollars to local school districts. It aims to address educational inequities and empower districts to allocate resources to meet students' needs. This brief examines promising practices of three school districts implementing LCFF's equity mission and highlights the new role of county offices of education.

California's Local Control Funding Formula highlights low performance of special education students. Many districts allocate more base funding for all students into special education. A study found state funding growth has not kept pace with district costs, and the current formula inadequately funds preschool programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The study suggests better alignment between special education and the LCFF, and improved governance and accountability structures.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) shifts control of education dollars to local districts, enhancing resource allocation practices. However, inadequate base funds may constrain progress. Stakeholder engagement is evolving yet remains challenging, and school board involvement is typically modest. LCFF communication and accountability mechanisms receive mixed reviews. County offices of education have expanded their role but will need to increase their capacity. Public awareness of the LCFF lags, but it enjoys substantial support.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides base funding and grants for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth, and allows local school systems to allocate resources as they see fit. The LCFFRC conducted a survey of 350 California superintendents to understand their experiences with and views of the law. Results inform policymakers and indicate areas where changes may be needed. The survey sample included districts of varying sizes and proportions of unduplicated students.

This article examines the democratic participation in the first-year implementation of California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) by analyzing data from 10 districts. It finds that power imbalances, institutional habits, and limited capacity constrain stakeholder involvement, while trust, support, and homogeneity foster deeper democratic engagement. The article concludes with implications for policy, practice, and future research.

California's LCFF is a significant change in education finance and governance that sends funds to districts based on student need and eliminates most categorical funding. The LCFF requires districts to engage with stakeholders and develop a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCFF Research Collaborative identified districts with innovative implementation efforts in stakeholder engagement, implementation of California State Standards, and resource allocation decision-making. These positive examples can serve as models for others to learn and improve from.

The Local Control Funding Formula gives local education leaders more power to allocate resources, but requires strategic budgeting practices to prioritize goals and make necessary tradeoffs. Three recommendations include integrating budgeting with strategic planning, focusing on critical questions, and developing internal structures to sustain strategic budgeting. These practices improve district policies and performance of local schools and students.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) requires districts to report student performance measures and use state and local data to monitor progress towards preparing students for college, career, and citizenship. Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) utilized principles of Improvement Science and a data dashboard to increase college access for students, in partnership with the University of California, Merced.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) gives districts funding authority and requires input from stakeholders to create Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for equitable resource allocation and improved student outcomes. This report explores stakeholder engagement, implementation challenges, resource allocation, and equity using eight case studies. Despite limitations, this study offers valuable insights into California's K-12 education system's finance and governance.

American schools have long suffered from inequitable distribution of funding, resources, and effective teachers. The LCFF reform in California is a promising solution to address achievement gaps for high-need students, but successful implementation is critical. Research has found that stakeholder engagement, explicit equity frameworks, and evidence-based programs are crucial to ensure positive impact. Studies have also revealed challenges such as underspending funds and insufficient stakeholder engagement, highlighting the need for continuous improvement.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) replaced categorical funding for schools in California in 2013, providing flexibility, targeted student funding, and local accountability. Two years in, research shows optimism and concern. The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) faces challenges, stakeholders need more engagement, and implementation requires capacity and overcoming the emerging teacher shortage. Public awareness of LCFF lags at 65%.

California's new accountability system aims to provide meaningful learning for students, allocate resources to schools and districts based on student needs, and offer professional development for educators. The system holds schools and districts accountable through Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs), professional accountability, and performance accountability across eight priority areas. This system is a departure from the state's previous policy of setting performance targets based on standardized test scores.

CA is undergoing significant changes in its education system. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has decentralized authority and responsibility, with the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) focusing on local strategies for improvement. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) aim for improved instruction and deeper learning, but require significant changes. A PACE/USC Rossier poll surveyed California voters on their knowledge and opinions on these changes, including the Vergara case, teacher employment policies, and charter schools.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) represents a major shift in the state's education system by empowering school districts to allocate funding based on the needs of their students, with added funds for disadvantaged students. The LCFF eliminates categorical funding streams and promotes local democracy by requiring stakeholder engagement. The implementation of the LCFF is still in its early stages, and this study examines how school districts are using their newfound budget flexibility and engaging stakeholders, as well as identifying opportunities and challenges.

The passage describes the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in California, which is expected to bring new revenues to school districts. The report suggests that strategic decision-making and goal-setting based on research-based strategies are crucial to realizing the potential benefits of the LCFF. Recommendations include an investment in four key areas that can produce real gains in school and student performance.

A PACE/USC Rossier poll in August 2013 surveyed California voters' views on the state's education system and recent changes, including the implementation of the CCSS, new assessments, funding increases, and the Local Control Funding Formula. The poll covered various education-related topics, such as curriculum, standardized tests, evaluations, and accountability. It also asked for opinions on Governor Brown's handling of education and Proposition 30. This was the third poll of its kind, with previous findings summarized in a 2012 report.

California’s school finance system has been criticized for being irrational, inequitable, and inefficient. The proposed Local Control Funding Formula aims to simplify funding and give local leaders more control, but raises questions about balancing transparency with improved outcomes, providing meaningful incentives, and effectively allocating funds.