Top-down accountability policies have arguably had very limited impact over the past 20 years. Education stakeholders are now contemplating new forms of bottom-up accountability. In 2013, policymakers in California enacted a community-based approach that creates the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) process for school finance to increase flexibility. The reform also seeks to involve stakeholders at the local level by creating a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). We conducted a statutory analysis of the state’s new funding formula in comparison to its predecessor. We also analyze the state’s new system of district implementation, support, and intervention. We then discuss the implications of California’s reforms for future K-12 funding and accountability policy.
AnyonJ. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
Assembly Bill 97, Cal. Stat. §§ 47-1-117 (2013).
3.
BersinA.KirstM.LiuG. (2008). Getting beyond the facts: Reforming California school finance. Berkeley: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity, University of California.
4.
BrownJ. (2013, January). State of the state. Speech presented at the California State Assembly, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17906
Fiscal & Administrative Services Division, California Department of Education. (2013). Local control funding formula. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/index.asp
10.
GoldfingerP. (2008). Revenues and limits: A guide to school finance in California. Sacramento, CA: School Services of California.
11.
HoweK. R.MeensD. E. (2012). Democracy left behind: How recent education reforms undermine local school governance and democratic education. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democracy-left-behind
12.
KirstM. (2006). Evolution of California state school finance with implications from other states. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice.
13.
LabareeD. F. (2005) Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41, 275-288.
14.
LopezP.ValenzuelaA. (2013). House Bill 5: Relating to public school accountability, including assessment, and curriculum requirements. Austin: Texas Center for Education Policy, University of Texas at Austin.
Vasquez HeiligJ.ColeH.SpringelM. (2011). Alternative certification and Teach For America: The search for high quality teachers. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 20(3), 388-412.
29.
Vasquez HeiligJ.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75-110.
30.
Vasquez HeiligJ.KhalifaM.TillmanL. (2013). Why have NCLB and high-stakes reforms failed? Reframing the discourse with a post-colonial lens. In LomoteyK.MilnerR. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 523-537). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
Vasquez HeiligJ.WilliamsA.JezS. (2010). Inputs and student achievement: An analysis of Latina/o-serving urban elementary schools. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 10, 48-58.
32.
Vasquez HeiligJ.YoungM.WilliamsA. (2012). At-risk student averse: Risk management and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 562-585.
33.
WarrenM. R. (2011). Community organizing for education reform. In OrrM.RogersJ. (Eds.), Public engagement for public education: Joining forces to revitalize democracy and equalize schools (pp. 139-172). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
WestEd. (2013). Local control funding formula overview. Retrieved from http://lcff.wested.org/
