Across families from all backgrounds, and for all students, when parents and the broader community engage in sustained systematic program improvements, schools and districts are more likely to focus on and maintain improvements. As a result, federal and state lawmakers have implemented engagement mandates. The ways in which these mandates are interpreted and implemented influence the success of the engagement practices.
Research Design:
We conducted a comparative case study and analyzed state representative survey data.
Research Questions:
How has Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) local engagement played out over time? What has been learned? What may be facilitating and inhibiting “meaningful” engagement?
Conclusions:
Through the lens of democratic engagement, we find broad community and district leadership support for the ideals of community engagement. However, we also find that community engagement over time has generally lacked both depth and breadth and was specifically constrained for traditionally marginalized communities. Our analysis also identifies outlier districts that have established ways to implement broader and deeper engagement activities that focus on utilizing their communities as assets. Our research suggests that district leaders and educators need greater support to fully realize these democratic processes.
AbramsL. S.GibbsJ. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home–school relations: Parent involvement strategies and practicees of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Education, 37(3), 384–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/00485902037003005
2.
AuerbachS. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school–family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757.
3.
AverillJ. B. (2002). Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 855–866.
4.
Barajas-LópezF.IshimaruA. M. (2020). “Darles el lugar”: A place for nondominant family knowing in educational equity. Urban Education, 55(1), 38–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916652179
5.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.KerbowD.RollowS.EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Westview Press.
CarreónG. P.DrakeC.BartonA. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498.
8.
CastagnoA. E.BrayboyB. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941–993.
9.
CooperC. W. (2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903228389
10.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
11.
DaramolaE. J.MarshJ. A.AllbrightT. N. (2022). Advancing or inhibiting equity: The role of racism in the implementation of a community engagement policy. Leadership and Policy in Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2022.2066546
12.
DeweyJ. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press.
13.
DiemS.WeltonA. D. (2020). Anti-racist educational leadership and policy: Addressing racism in public education. Routledge.
14.
Education Data Partnership. (2017). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California’s K–12 schools. http://www.ed-data.org
15.
EpsteinJ. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.
16.
FernándezE.Paredes ScribnerS. M. (2018). “Venimos para que se oiga la voz”: Activating community cultural wealth as parental educational leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117744011
17.
FuentesE. H. (2012). On the rebound: Critical race praxis and grassroots community organizing for school change. The Urban Review, 44(5), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-012-0208-3
18.
FungA. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.
19.
FungA.WrightE. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verson.
20.
GoldringE.SimsP. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through district–community–university partnerships. Educational Policy, 19(1), 223–249.
21.
GreenT. L. (2017). Community-based equity audits: A practical approach for educational leaders to support equitable community-school improvements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16672513
22.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
23.
GyurkoJ.HenigJ. R. (2010). Strong vision, learning by doing, or the politics of muddling through? In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 91–126). Harvard Education Press.
24.
HabermasJ. (1996). The European nation state. Its achievements and its limitations. On the past and future of sovereignty and citizenship. Ratio Juris, 9(2), 125–137.
25.
HeinN. P. (2003). Mexican American participation and administrative leadership. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 109–115.
26.
HendersonA. T.MappK. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
27.
HonigM. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: Central office administrators’ roles and capacity in collaborative education policy implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.
28.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.
29.
HowardT. C.ReynoldsR. (2008). Examining parent involvement in reversing the underachievement of African American students in middle-class schools. Educational Foundations, 22, 79–98.
30.
HumphreyD.KoppichJ.LavandezM.O’DayJ.PlankD.StokesL.HallM. (2017). Paving the way to equity and coherence? The Local Control Funding Formula in year 3. Policy Analysis for California Education.
31.
International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2007). IAP2 spectrum of public participation. Author.
32.
IshimaruA. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–51.
33.
IshimaruA. (2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district–community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188–216.
34.
IshimaruA. M. (2019). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
35.
IshimaruA. M.TorresK. E.SalvadorJ. E.LottJ.WilliamsD. M. C.TranC. (2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in family engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 850–882.
36.
KhalifaM. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 424–467.
37.
KhalifaM.GoodenM.DavisJ. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
38.
KoppichJ.HumphreyD. (2018). The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): What have we learned after four years of implementation. Getting Down to Facts II. Policy Analysis for California Education.
39.
KoppichJ. E.HumphreyD. C.MarshJ. A. (2015). Two years of California’s Local Control Funding Formula: Time to reaffirm the grand vision. Policy Analysis for California Education.
LuetK. M. (2017). Disengaging parents in urban schooling. Educational Policy, 31(5), 674–702.
42.
MacedoS. (ed.). (1999). Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement. Oxford University Press.
43.
MalenB. (2011). An enduring issue: The relationship between political democracy and educational effectiveness. Shaping Education Policy: Power and Process (pp. 23–60). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
44.
MansbridgeJ. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. University of Chicago Press.
45.
MarshJ. A.HallM. (2018). Challenges and choices: A multidistrict analysis of statewide mandated democratic engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 243–286.
46.
McCarthy FoubertJ. L. (2020). Still-restrictive equality in shared school governance: Black parents’ engagement experiences and the persistence of white supremacy in a liberal public school district. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1828644
47.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
48.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Vol. 28). Sage.
49.
NabatchiT. (2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708.
PatemanC. (1975). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
53.
PhillipsA. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press.
54.
Posey-MaddoxL. (2013). Professionalizing the PTO: Race, class, and shifting norms of parental engagement in a city public school. American Journal of Education, 119(2), 235–260.
55.
Posey-MaddoxL.Haley-LockA. (2016). One size does not fit all: Understanding parent engagement in the contexts of work, family, and public schooling. Urban Education, 55(5), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660348
56.
RobertsN. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
57.
SandersM. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based organization support and sustain school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1693–1712.
58.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper.
59.
SebringP. B.AllensworthE.BrykA. S.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2006). The essential supports for school improvement [Research Report]. Consortium on Chicago School Research.
60.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J.JohnsonJ. F.Jr. (2001). Introduction: Toward a new consensus on high academic achievement for all children. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 227–234.
61.
SpillaneJ. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87.
62.
SuC. (2010). Marginalized stakeholders and performative politics: Dueling discourses in education policymaking. Critical Policy Studies, 4(4), 362–383.
63.
TerriquezV. (2011). Schools for democracy: Labor union participation and Latino immigrant parents’ school-based civic engagement. American Sociological Review, 76(4), 581–601.
64.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177. https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
65.
WaandersC.MendezJ. L.DownerJ. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619–636.
66.
WarrenM. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
67.
WeissH. B.LopezM. E.RosenbergH. (2010). Beyond random acts: Family, school, and community engagement as an integral part of education reform. National Policy Forum for Family, School and Community Engagement. Harvard Family Research Project.
68.
WeltonA. D.FreelonR. (2018). Community organizing as educational leadership: Lessons from Chicago on the politics of racial justice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117744193
