Democratic Engagement and Local Control Funding Formula

• In Event: 63.018 - Examining Efforts to Achieve More Inclusive and Equitable Engagement in District Decision Making

Abstract

Purpose
Policymakers, community leaders, and researchers acknowledge the value of public participation in the political process (Fung, Wright, & Abers, 2003; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Head, 2007; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2000; Yang & Pandey, 2011). In 2013, California passed the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which reformed the way the state funded local school districts and mandated democratic engagement in districts’ educational and budget decision-making.
Given the nature of the mandate and the substantial investment to help districts comply, LCFF is a strategic case that helps us gain a deeper understanding of how civic engagement efforts play out and the extent to which they have achieved their democratic goals. Prior research on early implementation of the LCFF democratic engagement mandate found that power imbalances hindered accomplishment of the democratic goals, and climates of trust, partnerships with external organizations, and demographic homogeneity provided the foundation for deeper, broader engagement (Authors, 2015, 2017; Humphrey et al., 2014).

In this mixed-methods paper, we extend previous research on civic engagement and LCFF by examining implementation over multiple years and drawing on new, state representative sources of data. We asked: How have districts interpreted and implemented the LCFF requirement for democratic engagement over time?
Methodology and Framework
The paper drew on data from three sources: (a) case studies of 27 school districts conducted during three school years (2013–2016), including 383 interviews with district and civic leaders, school educators, parents, and community members; (b) a 2017–2018 survey of superintendents, and (c) three public opinion polls administered 2015-2018. We coded all transcripts and documents, wrote memos, and utilized matrix displays to analyze data and identify patterns (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).

Guided by a deliberative and participatory democratic theory (Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Pateman, 1970) and public administration theory (Fung, 2003, 2006; International Association for Public Participation, 2007; Nabatchi, 2012), we analyzed the data to understand the nature of engagement along the dimensions of who participated (ranging from participatory to representative) and how they participated (ranging from interest-based to deliberative).

Findings
We found that despite reported improvements and learning, most districts were complying with the literal requirements of LCFF, but not the true spirit of democratic engagement. We found variations in the breadth and depth of engagement in districts we studied within and across years: most districts demonstrated shallow engagement, while some “outlier” districts achieved deeper and broader engagement. Statewide surveys and case-study data indicated widespread struggles to attract participants, particularly traditionally marginalized stakeholders and the low-income, English learner, and foster youth groups targeted by LCFF. A complex array of individual, relational, organizational, and institutional conditions appeared to contribute to these patterns.

Significance
Our findings suggest important policy implications for LCFF and similar civic engagements initiatives, such as the need for improved public awareness, clarification of the purposes of local democratic engagement, greater attention to culturally relevant engagement strategies, and capacity-building at the district and community levels to ensure inclusive representation and meaningful engagement of all community stakeholders.

Authors

• Michelle Hall, Chapman University

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Eupha Jeanne Daramola, University of Southern California