1. Policy Brief: The Formulation and Implementation
of California’s Local Control Funding Formula
by Ifeanyi Ihenacho, on behalf of the California State Board of Education
Figure 1: Percent of low-socioeconomic status, foster youth, and all students in high
schools, as concentrated in different API decile ranks.
API Decile
Source: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2013.
Executive Summary
Historically, California’s education system has underserved its children, especially those with
significant learning challenges, such as foster children, English- learning students, and those who
come from impoverished backgrounds. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) establishes
a budgetary overhaul of California’s education system, increases community involvement, and
ultimately seeks to improve effectiveness of schools to accurately address student educational
needs, especially for students whom are in the greatest need of help. LCFF faces implementation
vulnerabilities that would be remedied by better allocation of funding and the engagement of
community groups and stakeholders.
Problem Definition
High school foster youth and low-income
status students are concentrated
in lower-performing schools (Center for
the Future of Teaching and Learning,
2013). Many of these students have
special needs that have not successfully
been addressed in the past. Foster
children often lack education services
that continue despite location changes
(Judiciary of New York, 2007). They
often also lack parental involvement and
advocacy for their scholastic
achievement (Judiciary of New York,
2007).
Percentage
English- learning students face a special
education roadblock that also has been inadequately
addressed. Just 60% of high school English- learners
graduate, and about a quarter drop out (California School Boards Association, 2013). Less than
a quarter are proficient in English language arts, as demonstrated by their scores on California
Standardized Tests (Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2013). The language
blocks faced by these students impair their ability to become effective communicators in our
society.

2. Schools within which these students are concentrated face higher costs, yet funding does not
adequately flow to them. California’s funding of schools varies by as much as $3,871 per
student across local education agencies (LEAs) (Public Policy Institute of California, 2014).
Differences in the sizes of LEAs, the types of LEAs, the amount of local property tax revenues,
and the categorizations of grant programs, all contribute to the development of a complex and
variable funding education formula. Consequently, schools districts which have higher per-pupil
costs due to their disproportional share of disadvantaged youth end up receiving inadequate
recompense for their needs (Weston, 2010; Imazeki, 2006). This constrains the ability of schools
to have quality facilities, quality education materials, adequate class sizes, and other resources
that influence student success. This funding disparity violates the basic principle of equitable and
quality education for all students in California.
Source: California Department of Finance, 2013.
Political Context
California has had a history of resource constraints in its schools for decades. California’s per-pupil
spending currently ranks as 49th in the nation (EdSource, 2014), and its pupil-staff ratio
likewise poorly ranks as 50th (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Attention to this issue
magnified in 2010 as various coalitions filed law suits against the state and Governor
Schwarzenegger for their failure to provide equal opportunity through the adequate education of
students (Weston, 2010). Schwarzenegger had not demanded education reform beforehand
primarily due the fiscal instability of California, which, in 2004, he had promised to restore
(Hogen-Esch, 2006).
In May 2012, Governor Brown introduced the “Weighted Student Funding Formula,” a
preliminary budget proposal to the House which sought to adjust education funding and improve
the quality of K-12 education. In August, 2012, twenty-five organization leaders from across the
state joined to write a letter to legislators, arguing that a weighted formula is necessary in order
to remedy educational inequity (Children Now, 2012). Nonetheless, this measure failed.
Primarily, legislators were hesitant to change education funding due to the State’s poor fiscal
status. The financial crisis of 2008-2012 had led to large reductions to the funding of the
California education system. Schools experienced deficit factors upwards of 20%, leading to
various lay-offs, increases in class sizes, and the reduction of various K-12 school services
(Cabrillo Unified School District, 2011). Education funding was at a low—dropping from $56.6
billion in fiscal year 2007-2008, to $47.3 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012 (California Department
of Finance, 2013)(Figure 2).
The media attention to the Weighted
Pupil Funding Formula nevertheless
further bolstered public concern for
education equality and mobilized
dozens of organizations to support
Proposition 30. Proposition 30 passed
in the November 2012 ballot,
increasing the amount of funds
Figure 2:

3. available for education by imposing a temporary increase in sales and income taxes. It increases
sales taxes by a quarter of a percent and imposes an additional one percent income tax for
taxpayers who earn over $250,000 (California Secretary of State, 2012). This proposition is
expected to increase education funding for K-14 schools by a total of $19.1 billion by fiscal year
2016-2017, from its low of $47.3 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012 (California Department of
Finance, 2013)(Figure 2).
The improving economy and Brown’s platform of fiscal austerity also provided a supportive
political environment for promoting policies that would alter education funding. By 2013, the
California economy had seen strong indicators of recovery. Unemployment had dropped
(California Department of Finance, 2014); per capita personal income had rebounded; and
housing construction had returned (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2014). Furthermore,
Governor Brown had eliminated or made spending cuts and corrections for various programs,
such as redevelopment, the criminal justice system, state welfare programs, state employment,
and other factors (California Department of Finance, 2013).
Brown also dodged opposition by moving LCFF through the budgetary process, so that the
measure avoided the risk of being killed in legislative committee. The bill nonetheless received
the input of stakeholders. It was vetted in terms of its base funding amount, the concentration
factor for concentration funding, its provisions for transparency, its phase-in period of
implementation, and its treatment of categorical programs (Fensterwald, 2012). This inclusive
negotiation increased constituents’ and stakeholders’ overall support of LCFF. Ultimately,
LCFF was supported by over seven dozen organizations and local leaders who promoted its
adoption (Children Now, 2013). The bill was signed in the July 2013.
The Local Control Funding Formula Objectives
LCFF reforms the funding structure of California’s education system. Revenue limits are the
amount of general purpose funding that school districts are entitled to, as defined by their student
average daily attendance (ADA) (EdSource, 2013). This is funded by local property taxes as
well as state taxes (EdSource, 2013). If local property taxes are sufficiently high, the state has no
obligation to add further funds and the school has the ability to retain the excess as general
purpose funding. Now, however, this excess revenue will count against the amount of state aid
provided to these districts (Weston, 2013). Due to LCFF’s “Hold Harmless” provision, no school
districts will actually receive less state aid than it had received in 2012 (Legislative Analysts,
Office, 2013). These excess tax districts will receive only that amount, however; they will not
receive any additional state aid above their 2012 funding levels, until their local tax revenues fall
below their ADA entitlement levels.

4. Despite this change, all school districts will have higher revenue limits. Schools districts are
categorized and funded by four education categories: K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-12 (Legislative
Analyst’s Office, 2013). LCFF provides an increased base rate of education funding for each
category. Furthermore, LCFF provides supplemental funding of 20% for each student who is
English- learning students, low-income students, or foster youth. If a school district has a greater
than 55% student body ratio of any of these categories, that district will receive additional
concentration funding of 55% for each student above that threshold (Legislative Analyst’s
Office, 2013).
Figure 3:
Implementation Feasibility Assessment
Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2013.
Depending on the district, LCFF will face varying levels of conflict in its implementation,
undermining the feasibility of its effective implementation. An effective public policy will have a
sound theory regarding how to achieve its objectives, with unambiguous directives and
structures, committed implementation leaders, constituency support, and little policy or
demographic conflicts that may undermine the technical aspects of implementation (Sabatier &
Mazmanian, 1978). At the state level, the general desire to increase overall school funding by
utilizing LCFF has low conflict due to the political history of education reform efforts, the pre-adoption
negotiations for the policy, and the ultimate resounding support for its adoption. At the
district level, however, LCFF faces critical implementation hurdles due to the high ambiguity of
its individual state directives, and the various demographic factors which undermine its technical
implementation.

5. The state’s implementation goals are clear, but the strategy for effective implementation is left
highly ambiguous. In terms of goals, the state has identified eight priorities that school districts
must ensure (Children Now, 2014):
1. Providing students with quality teachers and materials
2. Implementation of California’s standards of education.
3. Parental involvement and community engagement
4. Improving student achievement, as seen by test scores
5. Student engagement
6. Elucidation and correction of the school climate
7. Providing students with classed that would grant them college readiness
8. Measuring student outcomes in areas of study outside of math and English
In attempt to ensure that funds are being used toward the achievement of these goals, LCFF
requires that each school district develop and annually updates a three-year accountability plan.
This Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) contains rubrics that evaluate the strengths and
needs of students as measured across multiple performance indicators (California Department of
Education, 2014). This also aims to ensure that the educational experience is constantly evolving
to address yearly changes in student demographics and needs. These eight state priorities
provide an understanding of what school districts need to achieve, but these priorities provide
districts with no clear strategy through which they may achieve these priorities.
By simply directing the funding to local school districts and mandating LCAP fulfilment, the
state essentially defers a large proportion of the LCFF implementation responsibility to local
school districts. This dynamic is a key characteristic of this policy’s design. This strategy relies
on the assumption that a subsidiary control of education funding would ultimately remedy the
achievement gap more effectively than could an overarching state government. Local school
districts are believed to have a better access to the local constituents, and a better understanding
of the local demographics; therefore, they may have a better understanding of student needs and
how to redress them. Additionally, allowing this experimental implementation of state goals
enables the whole state to learn from each district’s experiences (Matland, 1995). In exchange
for the flexibility that this ambiguity provides, however, many districts may be confronted with
great conflict regarding how exactly they may strategize to achieve state goals and how they may
measure their degree of achievement. The ambiguity and conflict may also result in questions
regarding true accountability.
Feasibility of Implementing Directives
In particular, community engagement is one state priority whose technical implementation will
present significant challenges to many school districts. LEAs must consult parents and the local
community regarding their LCAPs (California Department of Education, 2014). The
effectiveness of this provision relies largely on the ability of the community to have readily
accessible methods of communication with the school district.
The demographics that are particular to each school or community may create unique
complications in this endeavor. For example, the City of Bell faces particular difficulty in
engaging its community in the Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) program. Students’

6. participation in the FRPL program is important because it is used as an indicator of their family’s
socioeconomic status. The magnitude of this participation partly determines the magnitude of
LCFF supplemental or concentration grant funding that the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) will receive to spend on Bell and other schools. The vast majority of Bell students do
qualify for free-and-reduced price lunch, but they face language barriers that impede their
participation. Almost 90% of Bell residents live in a household in which English is not the
language spoken at home (City of Bell, 2014). LAUSD would need to develop a strategy for
effectively communicating the FRPL program to these non-English families, motivate them to
participate in the program, and properly arrange for the exchange of required documents.
Without doing this, LAUSD may receive less of the state funding that it is otherwise entitled to,
and the schools within the City of Bell may likewise receive less funding. As this problem
replicates amongst the schools of various cities, this reduces the full remedial potential of LCFF.
Utilizing advocacy groups may help ameliorate this difficulty. Smaller schools districts with a
strong community network are predisposed to have a better opportunity to determine methods of
encouraging community involvement. The Parent Teacher Association (PTA) has begun
providing many school districts with parental resources such as nightly meetings with parents
and discussions that explain effective strategies for school changes (EdSource, 2014). This
collective organization may assist large school districts understand the needs of constituents.
This benefit of this strategy still somewhat diminishes, however, in the context of large school
districts such as LAUSD. LAUSD still has a large administrative burden if it is to adequately
articulate the needs of over a thousand schools and synthesize them in a comprehensive LCAP.
The technical feasibility for school districts to create a specialized process for increasing the
community engagement in each community is further constrained by the fact that they must do
so within a very short timeline. In the fall, districts must solicit community input regarding
LCAPs and the eight state priorities (Edsource, 2014). By July of the next year, these school
districts must update their LCAPs according to that community input (Legislative Analyst’s
Office, 2013). This creates a particular challenge to large and diverse school districts. Time
constraints and the burden of these large school districts may ultimately encourage them use
simple decision rules to resolve these issues that might not actually effectively engender
community involvement and ultimately treat the achievement gap of the underserved groups
(Lipsky, 1971).
This high conflict, high ambiguity scenario indicates that in these large school districts, LCFF is
likely to undergo symbolic implementation. In this form of implementation, coalitions and
macro-level level actors are the individuals whom have sufficient voice to promote their
objectives (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1978).
Measuring the Achievement of Directives
Even if school districts develop a strategy to feasibly implement community development, there
is high ambiguity regarding how school districts should measure any improvements in
community engagement. Due to the ambiguity of measuring this and the high workload of large
school districts, administrators may resort to simple quantifiable measures such as the aggregate
district-wide number of community engagement events that are hosted, the number of related

7. surveys completed, or the percentage of the population that participates. This could ultimately
lead to biased results. Such quantitative decision rules may fail to properly account for
socioeconomic or demographic factors that inhibit the engagement of particular constituent
groups.
There is also no clear scale for gauging the degree of improvements within school districts. With
no clear uniform scale of measurement, some school districts may measure achievement more or
less accurately than other school districts. The recorded measure of improvement may have bias.
This flexibility, however, may be preferred at times. Improvements in community engagement
may justifiably need to be regarded differently depending on the demographics of the location.
Lower-socioeconomic status parents have lower levels of community engagement compared to
high-income parents (Stacer and Perruci, 2013). These parents face greater barriers to scholastic
community involvement due to their time constraints, their relative inability to secure paid leave,
their work inflexibility, and their general perception regarding their role in their child’s education
(Heymann and Earle, 2000; Stacer and Perruci, 2013). Accordingly, wealthy areas may be more
capable of engaging their communities; working-poor areas may have more difficulty. This
disadvantages the ability low-income school districts to effectively engagement low-income
schools communities. Consequently, a uniform measure of the degree improvement might not
be appropriate; school districts may need to account for the unique characteristics of each school.
Ultimately, the ambiguity surrounding this issue makes it more difficult to properly gauge how
well state funds are being used.
Challenges to Accountability
Due to the ambiguity of measuring achievement, there arise questions regarding the degree of
accountability that LCAPs actually provide constituent communities. One major concern is that
school districts will be dispersed equally amongst all school within the district, only continuing
intra-district disparities rather than remedying them (Public Policy Institute of California, 2013).
The open question is how lawmakers can ensure that districts will distribute funding adequately
to schools that are in greatest need. There are two components of accountability, each of which
confronts challenges in implementation.
First, the policy relies on procedural mechanisms for accountability, utilizing community and
stakeholder engagement as the primary method to ensure responsiveness to local priorities. As
discussed above, the technical difficulties of effective implementation of this engagement call
this approach into question, particularly for large urban districts, such as LA, that have particular
challenges in poor schools.
Secondly, if a district fails to satisfy that state’s directive to improve student achievement, the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction may intervene. However, the range of remedial actions
that he or she the may enact is not clearly defined. This superintendent may unilaterally change
a district’s accountability plan budget in a manner that he or she feels would be more conducive
to the achievement of the eight state priorities (EdSource, 2014). The superintendent may also
appoint a board trustee and rescind the actions of the local board of education (EdSource, 2014).
Yet, the state superintendent is not explicitly required to consider community or stakeholder
input. Consequently, he or she may potentially provide recommendations that are biased to

8. outside influences or the use of heuristics that may obscure the effectiveness of his or her
intervention.
CONCLUSION
The high ambiguity and varying level of conflict surrounding LCFF indicates that it will undergo
either experimental or symbolic implementation, depending on the size and diversity of the
school district. For smaller school districts, the experimental implementation process may occur;
outcomes will be dependent on the actors and resources at the local level (Matland, 1995). The
implementation will be contingent upon contextual aspects of the school district such as the size
and demographics of the school districts, and the political experience of its superintendents.
These factors will affect how well districts may resolve the ambiguity in determining an effective
process for achieving state goals, the appropriate measures of success, and the actual degree of
accountability that the policy ensures.
In larger school districts, however, the high conflict and high ambiguity will lead schools to
symbolic implementation. This is particularly true for large and diverse school districts, such as
LAUSD, where the needs of a large variety of stakeholders need to be taken into consideration.
Community engagement strategies will be particularly difficult for these districts. These districts
will have difficulty determining how to engage each community, process the input of the
families and stakeholders of each community, and then accordingly adjust the funding and the
methods for promoting academic achievement at each individual school. The voice of strong
coalitions or wealthy schools may have more weight and their needs may be achieved through
preferable funding allocation and resource allocation.
We may need targeted funding based on capacity factor of our school districts, with large school
districts receiving more funding to account for the administrative difficulties of implementing
LCFF. As aforementioned, utilizing organizational networks such as the PTA may maximize
collective communication. However, their effectiveness is limited in the contexts of school
districts that are sufficiently large due to the raw administrative burden required for these school
districts to interact with all of these community groups. There currently is no infrastructure in
place to facilitate the degree of communication and interaction that LCFF demands, and LCFF’s
remedial potential is constrained so long as this remains unresolved.

9. References
California Department of Education. (2014). “LCFF Frequently Asked Questions.” Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp#FC
California Department of Education. (2014). “Local Control Funding Formula Overview.”
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California Department of Finance. (2014). Unemployment Rate, California and U.S.. Retrieved
from www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/documents/BBUNR.XLS
California Department of Finance. (2013) 2013-2014 Governor’s Budget Summary. Retrieved
from http://www.dof.ca.gov/documents/FullBudgetSummary_web2013.pdf
California School Boards Association. (2013). California High School Graduation and Dropout
Rates. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/~/media/CSBA/Files/Governance
Resources/GovernanceBriefs/201305FactSheetHSGradRates.ashx
California Secretary of State. (2012). Proposition 30 – State of California. Retrieved from
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2013). “The Invisible Achievement Gap.”
Retrieved from
http://www.cftl.org/documents/2013/IAG/Invisible_Achievement_Gap_Full_Report.pdf
Children Now. (2013). LCFF Public Support List. Retrieved from
http://www.childrennow.org/index.php/movement/lcff_public_support_list
Children Now. (2013). Policy Decisions to Further Guide LCFF’s Implementation. Retrieved
from http://lcff.childrennow.org/implementation/pending-policy-decisions
Children Now. (2012). Re: Weighted Student Formula Is Critical for Students, Schools and
Communities. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/WSF-SupportLet-
ChildrenNowETC082812.pdf
City of Bell. (2014). Demographics. Retrieved from http://www.cityofbell.org/?navid=49
Edsource. (2014). Deadlines and Milestones for Implementing Local Control and Accountability
Plan. Retrieved from http://edsource.org//wp-content/iframe/topic-features/lcff-topic/
assets/timeline-big.png
Edsource. (2014). California drops to 49th in school spending in annual Ed Week report.
Retrieved from http://edsource.org/2013/california-drops-to-49th-in-school-spending-in-annual-
ed-week-report/25379#.Uz-WTfldVqU

10. EdSource. (2013). “Highlighting Strategies for Student Success.” Retrieved from
https://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_revlimits.html
EdSource. (2013). “PTA program creates parent advocates.” Retrieved from
https://edsource.org/today/2014/pta-program-creates-parent-advocates/
57755#.UxOXaoUXeZR
Fensterwald, J. (2012). This time, groups get to say their piece on weighted student funding.
Retrieved from http://edsource.org/2012/this-time-groups-get-to-say-their-piece-on-weighted-
student- funding/22924#.U0G34_ldVqV
Heymann, S. J., & Earle, A. (2000). Low-income parents: How do working conditions affect
their opportunity to help school-age children at risk? American educational research
journal, 37(4), 833-848. Retrieved from: http://aer.sagepub.com/content/37/4/833.short
Hogen-Esch, T. (2006). Taking california's temperature: prospects for reform under
schwarzenegger. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/cscs/research/Taking-Californias-
Temperature.pdf
Imazeki, J. (2006). Assessing the Costs of K-12 Education in California Public School.
Governor's Committee on Education Excellence. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/states/ca/18-Imazeki%283-07%29.pdf
Judiciary of New York. (2007). Addressing the educational needs of children in foster care.
Retrieved from
https://www.nycourts.gov/ip/justiceforchildren/PDF/EducationalNeeds.pdf
Lipsky, M. (1971). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs
Review, 6(4), 391-409. Retrieved from http://uar.sagepub.com/content/6/4/391.refs
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2013). An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula.
Retrieved from http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-
072913.aspx#Major_Decisions_Lay_Ahead
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model
of policy implementation. Journal of public administration research and theory, 5(2),
145-174.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2013). California School District Revenue and Student
Poverty: Moving Toward a Weighted Pupil Funding Formula. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_213HRR.pdf
Public Policy Institute of California. (2014). Funding California Schools: The Revenue Limit
System. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=921

11. Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1978). The conditions of effective implementation: a guide to
accomplishing policy objectives. Policy analysis, 5(4), 481-504.
Stacer, M. J., & Perrucci, R. (2013). Parental involvement with children at school, home, and
community. Journal of family and economic issues, 34(3), 340-354. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10834-012-9335-y#page-1
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (2014). Housing Permits & Starts, California
and United States. Retrieved from
www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/documents/BBAnnualResConstCA-US.
xls
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2013). Real Per Capita
Personal Income, California and U.S.. Retrieved from
www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/documents/BBREALPCPI.xls
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). “Staff, enrollment, and pupil/staff ratios in public
elementary and secondary school systems, by state or jurisdiction: Selected years, fall
2000 through fall 2010.” Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_096.asp
Weston, M. (2013). “Basic Aid School Districts.” Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_913MWR.pdf
Weston, Margaret. (2010). “Funding California Schools The Revenue Limit System.” Retrieved
from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_310MWR.pdf
Weston, M. (2010). School Finance Reform. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_1110MWAI.pdf