SPECIAL ISSUE Education Finance and English Language Learners education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 25 Number 15 February 27, 2017 ISSN 1068-2341 Coign of Vantage and Action: Considering California’s Local Accountability and School Finance Plans for English Learners Julian Vasquez Heilig Lisa S. Romero California State University, Sacramento & Megan Hopkins University of California, San Diego United States Citation: Vasquez Heilig, J., Romero, L. S., & Hopkins, M. (2017). Coign of vantage and action: Considering California’s local accountability and school finance plans for English learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(15). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2818 This article is part of the special issue, Education Finance and English Language Learners: Examining Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Education Policy and Practice, Guest Edited by Oscar Jiménez-Castellanos. Abstract: Local control has been a bedrock principle of public schooling in America since its inception. In 2013, the California Legislature codified a new local accountability approach for school finance. An important component of the new California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) approach is a focus on English learners (ELs). The law mandates that every school district produce a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) to engage the local community in defining outcomes and determining funding for ELs. Based on an exploratory analysis of a representative sample of LCAPs, we show that, although California’s new approach offered an opportunity to support locally-defined priorities and alternatives to top-down accountability, few if any districts had yet taken full advantage http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2818 Coign of vantage and a ction 2 of the opportunity. That is, the school districts in our sample had not yet engaged with the local community to facilitate significant changes to accountability or redistribution of funding and resources to support educational equity for ELs. Keywords: Local control accountability, English learners, school finance, LCAP, LCFF “Coign of Vantage” y acción: Considerando la responsabilidad local de California y los planes de financiamiento escolar para los estudiantes de inglés Resumen: El control local ha sido un principio fundamental de la educación pública en América desde su creación. En 2013, la Legislatura de California codificó un nuevo enfoque de responsabilidad local para las finanzas escolares. Un componente importante del nuevo enfoque de California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) es un enfoque en los estudiantes de inglés (ELs). La ley exige que cada distrito escolar produzca un Plan de Responsabilidad de Control Local (LCAP) para involucrar a la comunidad local en la definición de resultados y la determinación de fondos para ELs. Basado en un análisis exploratorio de una muestra representativa de LCAPs, mostramos que, aunque el nuevo enfoque de California ofreció una oportunidad para apoyar las prioridades definidas localmente y las alternativas a la responsabilidad de arriba a abajo, pocos o ninguno de los distritos habían aprovechado la oportunidad. Es decir, los distritos escolares de nuestra muestra aún no se habían comprometido con la comunidad local para facilitar cambios significativos en la rendición de cuentas o la redistribución de fondos y recursos para apoyar la equidad educativa para los EL. Palabras-clave: Responsabilidad de control local, Estudiantes de inglés, Finanzas escolares, LCAP, LCFF “Coign of Vantage” e ação: Considerando a responsabilidade local e planos de financiamento de escola da Califórnia para estudantes de inglês Resumo: O controle local tem sido um princípio fundamental da educação pública na América desde a sua criação. Em 2013, a Califórnia Legislativo codificada uma nova abordagem à responsabilidade local para as finanças da escola. Um componente importante da nova abordagem local fórmula de financiamento Controle Califórnia (LCFF) é um foco em estudantes de inglês (ELS). A lei exige que cada distrito escolar para produzir um Accountability Plano de Controle Local (LCAP) para envolver a comunidade local na definição de resultados e determinação de fundos para ELs. Com base em uma análise exploratória de uma amostra representativa de LCAPs, mostramos que, embora a nova abordagem da Califórnia ofereceu uma oportunidade para apoiar as prioridades definidas localmente e alternativas a responsabilidade de cima para baixo, poucos ou nenhum dos distritos tinha tomado a oportunidade. Ou seja, os distritos escolares em nossa amostra ainda não tinha sido comprometida com a comunidade local para fazer mudanças significativas na prestação de contas ou redistribuição de fundos e recursos para apoiar a equidade educacional para ELs. Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade do controle local, English Learners, Finanças escola, LCAP, LCFF Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 3 Introduction Local control has been a bedrock principle of public schooling in America since its inception (Howe & Meens, 2012). Despite a long history of local control, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 sent us in the opposite direction of this traditional notion, with an intense focus on top-down goal setting and measurement via federally required high-stakes testing and accountability (Peterson & West, 2003; Vasquez Heilig & Darling-Hammond 2008). This focus on high-stakes testing and accountability continues to be central in the newly passed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), but there does appear to be some opportunity to leverage the recent federal law for more meaningful stakeholder engagement and democratize decision-making towards a more comprehensive accountability approach (Policy Analysis for California Education and The Opportunity Institute, 2016). Moving forward, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs), California’s bottom-up approach to accountability and school finance, has the potential to address the historical inequities that have existed in the US education system including low-quality pedagogy, low levels of teacher quality, and inequitable education funding present in urban schools (McNeil, 2000; Vasquez Heilig, 2011; Vasquez Heilig, Williams, & Jez, 2010). Challenges to meeting the demands of the top-down paradigm of accountability have been particularly acute in communities serving large numbers of English learners (ELs), where districts and schools are held accountable for improving ELs’ academic achievement on high-stakes exams as well as their progress toward English language proficiency (Crawford, 2004; Vasquez Heilig, 2011). Indeed, ELs comprise a large and growing sector of students who are segregated in schools plagued by failing academics, weak performance on standardized exams, low graduation rates, and high dropout rates (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003; Vasquez Heilig & Holme, 2013 ). These trends are not surprising in the context of the United States’ long history of legislative, executive, and judicial enactments that have codified unequal provision of resources for schools serving ELs (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2010). For example, the long-standing practice of relying on property tax revenue for school funding has meant that state and local funding systems tend to allocate fewer resources to schools that serve high-need populations like low-income students and English learners, and the extra federal funding schools receive under Title I and Title III of the ESEA do not adequately make up the difference (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2014; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014). Although NCLB accountability mandates did not explicitly incorporate local input, local and community-based input in accountability processes (Horsford & Vasquez Heilig, 2014), ESSA potentially allows flexibility for community-based input to include measures beyond standardized- testing achievement in state and local accountability systems, such as attainment and other indicators of educational opportunity. This type of bottom-up accountability offers several advantages over purely top-down approaches (Fullan, 1994). First, it redirects school and district attention from government mandates to community expectations and needs (Pisciotta, 2001). Importantly, it can shift attention to distinctly local priorities, recognizing, for example, that low- income, urban Oakland, California, is distinct and has different interests and needs than wealthy, suburban Elk Grove, California. Such approaches allow communities to determine both short- term and long-term community-based goals, to democratically develop a set of measures of educational quality that align with these goals, and to determine how funding and resources will be allocated to support them (Vasquez Heilig, Khalifa, & Tillman, 2013). By including a broader set of stakeholders in decision making processes, there is potential to shift what scholars have referred to as the zone of mediation within which local educational policies are developed (Renee, Welner, & Oakes, 2010). As we explain in more detail below, expanding the boundaries within which school Coign of vantage and a ction 4 district policy is constructed can facilitate the adoption of more equity-oriented approaches to serving the local student population (Oakes, Welner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005. Second, top-down accountability requires objective, quantitative goals that facilitate distal evaluation of schools. Hence under federal policy schools either meet, or fail to meet, a fixed standard of Adequate Yearly Progress. In California, schools also receive a single API (Academic Performance Index) score. Such scores, while facilitating measurement, are, of necessity, too simplistic, fail to consider local context, and fail to recognize the complex environment in which schools are nested. More subjective outcomes, while important, are not easily quantifiable and are, therefore, simply not feasible under top-down approaches. Bottom-up accountability makes it possible to incorporate subjective goals (Pisciotta, 2001), and thus could enable local communities to hold schools accountable along multiple measures in addition to, or instead of, standardized high-stakes testing. Top-down accountability is fundamentally based on governmental priorities, simplistic and inflexible measures and targets. Without a bottom-up component, such policies will prove ineffectual. As Fullan (1991) pointed out, “Governments can’t mandate what matters, because what matters is local [emphasis added] motivation, skill, know-how and commitment” (p. 8). Given the relative failure of top-down policies in supporting achievement and educational opportunity or allocating resources and funding in an equitable manner, especially for English learners, the purpose of this paper is to explore if and how emerging bottom-up accountability and funding approaches address the needs of California’s EL population. We selected California as the focus of our research because the state recently adopted a local accountability law requiring school districts to incorporate community input as they develop plans for accountability and funding, an approach hailed as a seismic shift to the local level in the way state funding and accountability operate (California Department of Education, 2014). Our paper explores whether local accountability in California is a viable policy alternative to completely top-down conceptions of accountability and high-stakes testing— a coign of vantage for EL success. The study was guided by the following research questions: How do local accountability plans describe community involvement in developing and including locally-identified priorities for ELs? Are the amounts of actions and new expenditures are explicitly directed at ELs? How are student outcomes measured for ELs? The purpose of our study was to determine the extent to which the new Local Accountability reform has served to augment support for ELs in the state of California. We find that while the Local Accountability policy in California offered an opportunity to support locally-defined priorities and alternatives to top-down accountability, few districts demonstrated in their initial local accountability plans that they had engaged with the local community in ways that facilitated significant changes to accountability or redistribution of funding and resources to support educational equity for ELs. We begin by describing the birth of top-down accountability and outlining California’s new bottom-up approach to accountability and school finance. Our zone of mediation framework is presented next, and then the study’s methods, which included a systematic document analysis that drew upon a critical discourse framework. Turning to findings, we first discuss the locally- identified priorities for ELs in the Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and then describe actions and expenditures specifically directed at ELs. We complete the findings with a discussion about the measurement of student outcomes associated with ELs in the LCAPs. Finally, we conclude the paper with the implications of our findings for both policy and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 5 Birth of Top-Down Accountability In 1993, Texas-style top-down accountability was enacted through Texas Senate Bill 7, the incipient statute that codified the state’s public school test-based accountability system that rated school districts and evaluated campuses. In the years following, publicly-reported achievement gains across grade levels, coupled with increases in high school graduation rates and decreases in dropout rates in the state, brought nationwide acclaim to the Texas accountability “miracle” (Haney, 2000). Due to its purported statewide success and especially in urban areas such as Houston and Dallas, Texas-style school reform was brought to Washington, DC. An alliance between Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy and Republican President George W. Bush, a former Texas governor, facilitated the passage of NCLB, which codified a wide-ranging top-down federal role in education largely through test-based accountability policy. NCLB replicated the Texas model of top-down accountability by injecting sanctions tied to testing into national education policy, ushering in an era where states and local public school districts are required to build accountability formulas based on high-stakes assessments. The centerpiece of NCLB required that schools and districts meet a federally-established Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goal as determined by high-stakes assessment results. AYP provisions established yearly minimum levels of improvement that schools and districts must attain for all demographic subgroups (e.g., all racial/ethnic groups, ELs, students receiving special education services), with the goal that all students in the United States would be rated as proficient by 2014. As outlined in the law, schools and districts that failed at the yearly and then penultimate goal of full proficiency would face federal sanctions and penalties. A burgeoning body of research has made clear that top-down high-stakes testing and accountability failed to deliver on their promise to improve urban education (Reardon, Greenberg, Kalogrides, Shores, & Valentino, 2012). In a recent review of the literature, Vasquez Heilig and Nichols (2013) found limited improvement in student outcomes after a decade of national high- stakes testing and accountability (and almost two decades in Texas). And these small improvements can be attributed at least in part to the ways in which schools (and entire districts) have, in desperation, sought to manipulate the accountability system by excluding low-scoring students of color and special populations (e.g., ELs) from testing through the use of exemptions and other gaming actions, resulting in the appearance of overall increased educational achievement (Vasquez Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008). It is also pertinent to point out that the high stakes tests mandated by NCLB have not been valid forms of assessment for ELs and accommodations have not (except linguistic modifications) increased test validity for ELs (Abedi & Sato, 2007). Additionally, because top-down accountability policies have focused on outputs (primarily test scores), policymakers have done little to attend to improving inputs such as EL teacher preparation and professional development (Vasquez Heilig, Lopez, & Torre, 2014). These issues have led to persisting high rates of grade retention as well as dropout and depressed high school completion for ELs (Vasquez Heilig & Nichols, 2013). Considering the failure of top-down accountability policies to close achievement and opportunity gaps (Reardon et al., 2012), it is important to identify and explore alternatives, such as the efficacy of community-based educational reform efforts designed to improve EL achievement and school success (Horsford & Vasquez Heilig, 2014). In discussions surrounding community- based reform efforts, however, a question remains as to whether these approaches will be community-based and efficacious in ways that support equity among student groups (Vasquez Heilig, Lopez, & Torre, 2014). As a result, we seek to extend the research literature on community-based education reform through our examination of community-engaged, locally- based accountability policies. Coign of vantage and a ction 6 Bottom-Up Accountability in California In his 2013 State of the State address, California Governor Jerry Brown supported a new direction for accountability and school finance that was more focused on local control. He called for new educational policy approaches in California to consider the principle of Subsidiarity. Governor Brown defined Subsidiarity as, The idea that a central authority should only perform those tasks which cannot be performed at a more immediate or local level. In other words, higher or more remote levels of government, like the state, should render assistance to local school districts, but always respect their primary jurisdiction and the dignity and freedom of teachers and students. (Brown, 2013) Governor Brown pressed for Subsidiarity by supporting Local Accountability, a new community- based approach that created a Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) process for school finance to increase flexibility, accountability, and input from the local level so that communities would have new input on student outcomes and strategic funding. The Local Accountability reform sought to involve superintendents, school boards, school staff, parents, students, and other community stakeholders at the local level by requiring school districts to develop Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). LCAPs must be based on short-term and long-term goals set relative to local priorities, and they must define outcomes and determine funding for ELs, students of low socioeconomic status, and foster children. Following Governor Brown’s State of the State speech, the California Legislature codified the new local accountability approach for school finance, and Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013 (AB 97 Committee on Budget) was enacted as part of the 2013-2014 budget package. This statute made major changes both to the way the state of California allocates funding to school districts and the way the state supports and intervenes in underperforming districts (Affeldt, 2015; Menefee-Libey & Kerchner, 2015; Vasquez Heilig, Ward, Weisman, & Cole, 2014). The San Jose Unified School District’s LCAP succinctly described the educational policy and school finance context of the LCFF and LCAPs. San Jose Unified, like all school districts throughout California, was forced to weather the most drastic cuts to public education funding in the state’s history beginning with the 2008-2009 fiscal year. With funding at only 80% of what SJUSD should have received, it was necessary for the district to reduce expenses wherever and whenever possible. Prudent stewardship allowed the district to successfully navigate these unprecedented cuts and, while the reductions were kept away from the classroom to the greatest extent possible, educational experiences for students were negatively impacted throughout California as a result of the state’s fiscal crisis. Due to the passage of California Proposition 30 in November of 2012 and the rebounding state economy, the cuts ended with the 2013-2014 fiscal year and per pupil revenues to the district are now increasing. While revenues have changed dramatically in a short period of time, California remains at the bottom of funding per pupil nationally, which necessitates that the prudent stewardship of the district’s resources not change. Rather than simply restoring what was cut, strategic investments are being made in services to students and in the district’s workforce to maximize the educational experiences for students... (p. 1) An important component of the new LCFF is a focus on English learners (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2014). To address long-standing achievement gaps that have persisted for ELs both in the state Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 7 and across the United States (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010; Vasquez Heilig, 2012), the new California law mandates that every school district, drawing on mandated local community meetings and input (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2014), produce an LCAP that outlines the specific strategies and resources it will use to address ELs’ language and learning needs. This re- envisioning of accountability and school finance is particularly important for ELs because districts have historically struggled with intradistrict reallocation of resources that would support this student population (Jimenez-Castellanos & Rodriguez, 2009). Prior to the new school finance law, districts received substantial categorical Economic Impact Aid (EIA), based on the number of students designated as Limited English Proficient, which was strictly allotted to provide supplemental services to ELs. Under the new Local Accountability reform, districts continue to receive additional funding for ELs as part of a supplemental grant equal to 20% of the adjusted base grant. Concentration grants are also available if students targeted by the LCFF exceed 55% of a local education agency’s (LEA) enrollment. However, the EL funds are now included as part of a larger block of funding instead of specifically targeted (those classified as ELs, eligible to receive a free or reduced-price meal, foster youth) by the state. Some advocates have raised concerns that a local approach opens the window for districts to divert funds away from EL students to other priorities and have noted that it is difficult to determine if EL services are increased or improved (Hahnel, 2014; Koppich, Humphrey & Marsh, 2015; Olsen, Armas & Lavadenz, 2016; Wolf & Sands, 2016). Given the history of neglecting instruction for English learners (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010), this is not a trivial concern. On the other hand, the new bottom-up approach, which requires expanded community input and involvement, opens up new avenues for the local community to demand that ELs are provided with high quality, innovative instructional programs and that funding be allocated to support them (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2014). Theoretical Framework California’s local accountability policy represents a shift in the dominant policy paradigm that has existed nationwide since Texas’ approach to high-stakes testing and accountability was incorporated into federal policy early in the George W. Bush administration. The state’s new locally-controlled funding formula has the potential to support an alternative paradigm for educational policy, one that focuses on bottom-up accountability and empowers communities to develop a local education system around their needs and to be accountable to themselves and the nation simultaneously. Local accountability is a revised form of educational policy where communities can democratically set the achievement and outcome goals that they desire. For some communities, improvement in high-stakes test scores might the goal, while other communities might choose to focus on a new and more robust set of outcomes that address gaps in both achievement and opportunity. The implementation of LCAPs in California represents an opportunity to include diverse stakeholders in the policymaking process and to move toward more equity-minded reform for ELs, a population that is often sidelined in educational policy efforts. To understand these efforts, we draw on a zone of mediation framework, which bolsters the case for bottom-up accountability and the inclusion of diverse community stakeholders in the educational policymaking process. This framework was developed by Oakes et al. (2005), who sought to examine the forces that shape the environment in which equity-minded reforms (i.e., those that aim to support equity of opportunity along race, class, and/or linguistic lines) are initiated and implemented. A zone of Coign of vantage and a ction 8 mediation framework acknowledges that school districts are “situated within particular local enactments of larger cultural norms, rules, incentives, power relations and values. These forces promote either stability or change, and they accordingly set the parameters of beliefs, behavior, and policy” (Welner, 2001, p. 95). The zone of mediation thus sets the boundaries within which school district policy is constructed; policies that fall within the zone’s boundaries are likely to be accepted by local actors, while those that fall outside these boundaries will likely be challenged (Oakes et al., 2005; Welner, 2001). Challenges often arise as equity-minded reforms are considered because they create a struggle between individuals or groups who perceive a scarcity of resources, and they require local actors to confront broader cultural patterns that shape their ideologies and beliefs about who should be educated and how (Oakes et al., 2005). Yet as people interact among themselves and between external normative and political forces in a zone of mediation, individuals or groups can navigate, confront, and shift the zone’s boundaries. Shifting the zone’s boundaries toward equity- minded reform thus requires that diverse stakeholders participate, including members of less powerful or marginalized communities and community organizers, as well as the professionals and elites who typically influence policy (Renee et al., 2010). Within a zone of mediation, school districts serve as “mediating institutions” that channel external forces into sites of interaction, or schools (Oakes et al., 2005). This mediating role requires school districts to negotiate normative and political forces at the community, societal, and global levels as they adopt new reforms or policies. In this process, school districts often come up against existing power dynamics related to race, class, and language that make the implementation of equity-minded reforms difficult (Holme, Diem, & Welton, 2014). As a result, it can be challenging for school districts to go beyond the technical aspects of reform, such as adopting new curricula or hiring instructional staff, to address normative and political aspects. While normative change requires confronting dominant ideologies related to intelligence or merit and the resulting structures developed around them (e.g., tracking, pull-out language programs), political change must address issues related to power and resource distribution (Holme et al., 2014). With respect to the latter, research suggests that district policymakers often relent to the demands of middle- and upper-class and White families who are threatened by policies perceived as redistributive (Frankenberg, McDermott, DeBray, & Blankenship, 2015; Posey 2012; Wells & Serna 1996), making it essential that diverse voices are included in district reform efforts. Drawing on a collective of diverse stakeholders, school districts must craft policies with sufficient specificity to expand the boundaries of the zone of mediation, thereby enabling the adoption and implementation of equity-minded reform. On-the-ground efforts by actors within schools are not likely to succeed “unless the zone of mediation is first made more receptive” through district-level mandates (Oakes et al., 2005, p. 296). These mandates must do more than set forth general principles for supporting equity, however, as resistance from the powerful elite would likely undermine any school-level changes. Instead, the school district “must craft a more specific mandate, sufficient to substantially shift the zone of mediation and thereby to overcome such local resistance” (Oakes et al. 2005, p. 297). These mandates must be responsive to and inclusive of the needs and goals of community members; thus, they must draw on bottom-up decision making processes. To explore the extent to which California school districts worked to shift the boundaries of their zones of mediation to support equity-minded accountability and funding for ELs in the development of Local Control and Accountability Plans, we undertook an analysis of California school districts’ 2014-15 LCAPs. Our analysis, which we detail in the next section, assessed the Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 9 extent to which diverse stakeholders were included in the process as well as the level of specificity used to allocate funding for high-quality and innovative instructional programs for ELs. Methodology Under the new state accountability policy, all local school districts in California were required to outline three-year plans that described how they would use their funds to support student achievement and locally-defined goals and outcomes. As the primary policy documents guiding district finance and decision making, we conducted a systematic document analysis (Bowen, 2009) of about 1,400 pages of documentation from Local Control and Accountability Plans developed by a sample of districts across the State of California. Specifically, data were drawn from LCAPs written for the 2014-15 school year from 20 districts that were randomly selected from a pool of the 50 largest districts in the state. The 20 districts included in our sample enrolled a total of 1,554,374 students in 2012-13, representing a quarter of California’s overall student population (see Table 1). They also enrolled 387,786 English language learners, representing 27.5% of the total EL population in the state. Table 1 Demographics of 20 Sample Districts, 2012-13 District Total ELL Native Asian Latino /a Black White Pacif. Isl. 2+ Races Los Angeles 655455 186593 2819 39854 482768 61817 60315 2399 5483 San Diego 130271 29524 373 17977 60616 13261 30271 823 6950 Long Beach 82256 17512 159 9006 44739 12543 12084 1374 2351 Fresno 73689 17586 458 8927 47653 6904 8823 241 683 Elk Grove 62137 10779 344 16643 15972 9540 14443 1101 4094 San Francisco 56970 14196 255 22358 14752 5405 6166 908 7126 San Juan 47752 4554 590 2951 9623 3662 29208 433 1285 Sacramento City 47616 11306 360 8833 17654 8433 8956 812 2568 Oakland 46463 14324 159 6672 19455 13498 4294 499 1886 Riverside 42560 7393 189 1889 25038 3195 10821 207 1221 Stockton 38435 11069 1103 5646 23719 4396 2877 223 471 San Jose 33184 8406 163 4759 17390 973 8579 142 1178 Anaheim Union High 32085 6987 152 5171 20582 878 4005 236 1061 Mt. Diablo 32001 7437 142 3631 12524 1418 11971 298 2017 Twin Rivers 31420 8859 301 2892 11922 4705 9549 482 1569 San Ramon Valley 30757 1599 47 9817 2556 568 15496 70 2203 Saddleback Valley 30355 4465 83 3059 9276 463 15783 76 1615 Irvine 29072 4442 100 13465 3044 670 9930 104 1759 Pomona 27186 10438 71 1421 22757 1505 1060 30 342 Compton 24710 10317 35 34 19456 4867 84 161 73 Coign of vantage and a ction 10 California 6224066 1412437 40629 691690 3280983 394550 1588428 33972 193814 Sample Total N 1554374 387786 7903 185005 881496 158701 264715 10619 45935 Sample % California 25.0% 27.5% 19.5% 26.7% 26.9% 40.2% 16.7% 31.3% 23.7% To begin our analysis, we gathered all of the LCAPs for the sample districts into an online Dropbox folder readily accessible to all members of the research team. While a few of the sample districts’ LCAPs were rudimentary and brief, other districts clearly had prior strategic approaches in place prior to the LCAPs that resulted in sophisticated documents that were several hundred pages in length. Incidentally, about a quarter of the LCAPs mentioned master plans that were in place before 2014-15. Due to their existence prior to the development of the LCFF and the LCAP, the master plans were beyond the scope of the current study. Drawing on a critical discourse framework (Tupper, 2008), we used document analysis to examine, interrogate, and interpret the sampled LCAPs. Document analysis (Bowen, 2009) is a qualitative research methodology that recognizes the importance of textual analysis in social science research. Like other qualitative methodologies, document analysis is “disciplined yet flexible” (Altheide, Coyle, DeVriese, & Schneider, 2008, p. 131). The LCAP documents, like interview transcripts or notes, were reflexively and recursively examined with the goal of identifying themes, patterns, and meanings embedded in the documents. The documents were also carefully examined for the presence and use of, as well as the absence of, key words and phrases (e.g. English learners, bilingual, parents, community, equity). Our approach to data analysis followed that described by Altheide et al. (2008). First, we became familiar with the LCAP process and the context of the new Local Accountability policy in California. We read all existing peer reviewed papers on the new accountability and school finance policy and several research reports produced by various organizations in California. After developing a sense of the broader context, we reviewed five LCAPs from our sample as a team to review the format and general style of the documents. Next, we generated a list of categories to guide our analysis (See Figure 1), and created a data analysis protocol in Excel (a spreadsheet rubric) to guide and compile data from our reading of each LCAP. Based on this list of categories, we then developed research questions that holistically guided our document review. To establish inter-rater reliability, we tested the protocol independently on five LCAPs, and then compared and triangulated our data. We then revised the categories listed in the data analysis protocol and selected two additional LCAPs for review, meeting again to discuss and refine the protocol. Once this process was completed, research team members conducted separate analyses of the 20 LCAPs and coded the LCAPs for the identified categories into the Excel spreadsheets. At the conclusion of the analyses, the research team met again to examine the completed coding and to develop emerging themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We used the constant comparative method (Patton, 1990) to analyze the dataset, allowing themes to emerge that had meaning in relation to the main topics and purposes of the study. After completing the coding process, informant counts by category were conducted to understand the representativeness of the dominant codes generated in spreadsheets. We used analytic matrices (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) to identify the most representative codes across all data sources the then wrote thematic summaries to develop descriptions of the information in the LCAPs presented in the findings section. To check the authenticity of the work and moderate the validity threats of description and researcher bias (Bowen, 2009), members of the Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 11 research team conducted member checks by examining the data and participating in joint review of the completed manuscript. Findings Identifying Local Priorities for ELs One of the goals of the Local Control Funding Formula approach to local accountability in California was to encourage engage democratic involvement from communities in the development of locally-identified priorities to be addressed in the LCAPs, a prerequisite for shifting school districts’ zones of mediation toward more equity-minded practices. In fact, the state explicitly looked for involvement from multiple constituents when assessing LCAPs submitted by school districts, and the first guiding question in the state’s LCAP Annual Template (5CCR Section 15497.5) addressed whether parents, community members, pupils, local bargaining units, and other stakeholders (i.e., LEA personnel, county child welfare agencies, county office of education foster youth services programs, court appointed special advocates, foster youth, foster parents, education rights holders, and other stakeholders such as parents of ELs, community organizations representing ELs, and others as appropriate) were engaged and involved in developing, reviewing, and supporting implementation of the LCAP. Our analysis showed that, while established district-level English learner committees were consulted in the development of the majority of LCAPs in our sample, few other stakeholders were mentioned in the documents. Specifically, 17 of the 20 sample districts reported consulting and soliciting meetings with their District-Level English Learner Advisory Committees (DELAC). In California, all public school districts serving grades kindergarten through 12 that enroll 51 or more ELs must form a DELAC, or form an EL-focused subcommittee made of up parents and guardians of district EL students. As an example, Compton Unified School District’s LCAP repeatedly referenced the ways in which the district’s DELAC was involved in the LCAP development process: DELAC Advisory council met on 1/23/2014, information about LCAP was presented and questions answered about the process. DELAC members provided [LCAP] input on 5/14 in writing to the Superintendent. Response will be provided in writing and face on 5/22. Superintendent provided written responses to input not included in the LCAP from DAC and DELAC committees. The Superintendent met with DELAC on May 27, 2014, to provide written responses to the comments and questions asked. Superintendent did a face-to-face presentation. In Compton and several other districts in our sample, intentional efforts were made to garner feedback related to the LCAP from the DELAC and to generate written responses to that feedback. In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), although parents were included in conversations related to LCAP development, they were selected from among existing DELAC members to serve on the Parent Advisory Committee: Regional delegate convenings were held for parents/guardians to elect their representatives to the Parent Advisory Committee. Members were selected from each of the 5 LAUSD regions, with two parents representing English Learners… The parents representing English Learners were selected from the members of DELAC by their regional representatives…There are 50 members of the DELAC... Coign of vantage and a ction 12 The DELAC in LAUSD thus superseded the Parent Advisory Committee and remained the primary consulting body related to ELs during LCAP development. This approach meant that few new stakeholders were identified for inclusion in LCAP development, suggesting that there was limited potential for the districts in our sample to expand their zones of mediation and foster inclusion of novel or innovative policies or practices for ELs. Moreover, while the DELACs were mentioned in the vast majority of LCAPs as stakeholders in the development process, most LCAPs did not explicitly outline the DELAC’s role in defining locally-identified priorities, other than to note that the DELAC provided feedback on existing plans. In the case of Mt. Diablo Unified School District, however, the LCAP did detail the role of this committee and the way in which the committee’s input was used in LCAP development: The superintendent and staff met with the DELAC to explain the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). All materials, and the PowerPoint presentation, were in English and in Spanish. As with the Community meetings, feedback from this meeting was important to the development of the district’s LCAP. This information helped the LCAP Focus Group align the feedback and the district strategic plan while developing the recommended LCAP Goals, Actions, and Expenditures. They also provided guidance about priorities for upcoming years. DELAC emphasized Celebration of Biliteracy seal, celebration of the reclassification of English learners, the need for clear communication, culturally responsive education, visions for different pathways, respect, and the development of strong English. In contrast with the other 24 LCAPs in our sample, Mt. Diablo’s described how the DELAC generated a list of priorities for the district related to ELs, and the way in which district leaders engaged with them. Thus, while our review suggests that the DELACs played a role in the development of the LCAPs in the 20 sample school districts – and thus EL-related priorities were likely included in the development process in some way – the role of the DELAC in setting locally-identified priorities for ELs varied across the districts. An important caveat is that the depth of community involvement in the development process is difficult to determine solely from analyzing the text of the district LCAPs. Nonetheless, the state did require that each district invite and then detail the stakeholders involved in the LCAPs, and our analysis suggests that the DELACs served as the primary stakeholders in the process who were focused on EL issues. Notably, established civil rights organizations were mentioned in only two of the 20 districts in our sample. Specifically, the NAACP was denoted in Stockton Unified School District’s LCAP as having been involved in an early planning meeting (in February 2014). In the Riverside Unified School District, Inland Congregations United for Change, a local civil rights organization affiliated with the PICO national network of faith-based organizations, was involved in their LCAP development. Beyond our sample, a keyword search (LULAC, NCLR, NAACP) of the top 100 largest California districts revealed that no other districts stated that an established, national civil rights organization had been involved in the development of local priorities. The overall lack of inclusion of civil rights organizations suggests a dearth of engagement with external advocates of students of color and ELs, which again indicates that most districts were working within unchanged zones of mediation as they developed their accountability plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 13 Allocating Expenditures for ELs We categorized the actions described in the LCAPs that were in some way focused on ELs into eight primary areas (see Figure 1). As can be seen in the figure, the majority of districts (16 out of 20) allotted funding to staffing and curriculum, often into the millions. With respect to staffing, when considering the school finance context discussed above in the San Jose Unified School District, it became apparent that staffing was a need that districts sought to address in their LCAPs. The smaller districts in our sample planned to spend several million dollars on new staffing, while larger districts such as LAUSD set aside tens of millions of dollars for their staffing needs. Although some of the allotments outlined in the LCAPs focused on substitutes and the hiring of principles, some of the staffing allotments were targeted for ELs, such as hiring English language development (ELD) staff. For example, Compton Unified School District specifically set aside $340,000 to hire ELD coaches. Riverside Unified School District designated $43,500 of LCFF funding for stipends for six bilingual teachers, materials and books. Figure 1. Categories of Actions Focused on ELLs in Sample Districts In regards to curriculum, most of the allotments for specific curricular programs mentioned in the LCAPs, such as AVID, a college readiness curriculum, were in the tens of thousands. However, there were less specific funding designations for curricular needs that drew dollar amounts beyond $100,000. For example, Oakland Unified School District set aside $250,000 for ELD materials, including online tools that supported blended learning and grade-level appropriate course placement for ELs in middle school and high school. The funding denoted in the LCAPs for EL- related curricular expenses, however, was typically dwarfed by the millions that were earmarked for various staffing plans. Among the other funding areas, half of the districts in our sample planned to allocate funding for parent engagement. For example, LAUSD focused on parent education by outlining the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Coign of vantage and a ction 14 ways in which they sought to provide training, learning opportunities, and workshops that would help parents support the literacy skills outlined by the Common Core Standards at home. Other districts focused more intensively on communicating with parents of ELs, such as Long Beach Unified School District that sought to: “Provide support to English Learners and their families… these efforts include translation/interpretation services.” Among all the LCAPs we reviewed, the largest allotment for parent engagement was in San Francisco Unified School District’s LCAP, where the district set aside nearly $1 million for Family Engagement Liaisons. Notably, four of the 20 districts appeared to take a “non-segregative” approach, in which the monies derived from the LCFF would not be spent specifically on the student population(s) from which the additional 20% supplemental allotment was derived. For example, Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD) developed their LCAP with a “general philosophy” that they would not exclude “non-identified students” (e.g., students not identified as ELs) from the programs the 20% allotment was meant to serve: To exclude non-identified students would mean our programs would be segregated on the basis of income or language, and we believe such segregation is antithetical to our guiding principles and counter to the interests of every student, as well as to the community at large. Specific examples of programs would include a class that might be specifically developed to provide improved achievement for English Learners (EL). This class would also serve students who are not identified as EL students but who would benefit from the EL-specific instructional activities. In essence, the district stated that it would spend the allotment on general curricular efforts that were not focused specifically on ELs’ needs. The example the district offered in the LCAP was a school wide summer program “developed to improve achievement for identified students [that] would also allow non-identified students to participate.” The EGUSD LCAP continued: In addition, not all services for identified students would be remedial in nature. Some schools in EGUSD with high percentages of identified students have a need to promote the achievement of their advanced students by providing additional GATE, Honors and Advanced Placement opportunities for these students. The four districts that took this non-segregative approach to allocating LCFF funding in their LCAPs, make clear that money previously targeted for ELs will be spent on other district priorities. Overall, we found that districts largely targeted their funding resources to staffing and curriculum, both of which address technical aspects of EL teaching and learning. Even resources focused on parent engagement tended to focus on technical features such as translators and providing parents with school-based resources. This attention to technical reforms is common in school districts that have not sought to expand their zones of mediation by including diverse voices in their decision-making processes in ways that would address more normative and political reform aspects (Holme et al., 2014; Oakes et al., 2005). Measuring English Learner Outcomes The state of California stipulated several areas that the 2014-15 LCAPs must address related to student achievement. In particular, the fourth priority in the state’s LCFF stipulates that district’s must describe their students’ performance on standardized tests and scores on California’s Academic Performance Index (API) in their LCAPs. Districts must also outline the share of pupils that are college and career ready, the share of English learners that have tested as English proficient as well as their reclassification rates, the share of pupils that have passed Advanced Placement exams with a Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 15 score of three or higher, and the share of pupils determined prepared for college by the Early Assessment Program. Although the potential was there for locally defined priorities for ELs to extend beyond standardized exams, all 20 of the LCAPs in our sample focused primarily on test- based student outcomes. For example, instead of using college and career ready measures that typically are tied to performance levels on ACT or SAT exams, districts could instead refer to data on college applications, retention after the first year, and graduation rates from institutions of higher education. The State also recognized that student achievement is a function of student engagement and school climate. Accordingly, the State required that districts improve pupil engagement as measured by school attendance rates, dropout rates and graduation rates, and school climate as measured by suspension and expulsion rates. For example, the Riverside Unified School District set goals by subgroup (including African American, English learners, Hispanics, and students with disabilities) to increase attendance, decrease chronic absenteeism, decrease suspensions and expulsions. The San Juan Unified Sacramento Unified School District also included these metrics, but did not establish goals for ELs. Additionally, local measures assessing safety and school connectedness were also encouraged. Here a few districts did include local outcomes. For example, Riverside Unified School District elected to implement the Healthy Kids and Gallup Student Poll. The Oakland LCAP included a focus on discretionary discipline on African American males. Overall, even though the state provided districts the leeway to envision student outcomes beyond standardized test scores, the districts in our sample did not generally avail themselves of this opportunity to include outcomes other than state mandates for ELs or other targeted groups. The limited changes we observed in the local selection of student outcomes again suggests that the zones of mediation in these school districts had not shifted in ways that supported more equity-oriented reform for ELs, due at least in part to the lack of participation from diverse stakeholders in the LCAP decision-making process. Discussion and Conclusion Our study explored whether local accountability in California is a viable policy alternative to the current top-down conception of accountability and high-stakes testing. Are the LCAPs a coign of vantage and action to address the needs of English learners in California schools? Our findings, though exploratory in nature, suggest that, while the Local Accountability policy in California offered an opportunity to support locally-defined priorities and alternatives to top-down accountability, few if any of the districts in our sample took advantage of it. That is, the school districts in our sample had not yet engaged with the local community in ways that shifted or expanded the zone of mediation to facilitate significant changes to accountability or redistribution of funding and resources to support educational equity among students, and especially for ELs. For instance, it remains to be seen if districts’ LCAP development enhanced community- based engagement, and to what extent district leaders drew upon the input of diverse stakeholders in the process. A limitation of this study is that it was difficult to assess community involvement and democratic decision making from a review of the approximately 1,400 pages in the sample LCAPs; ethnographic approaches would be necessary to understand on-the-ground decision making processes. Still, the state required that each district include community stakeholders in the LCAP development process and describe that interaction in the LCAPs, and we found limited evidence that diverse stakeholders were included. The primary source of input related to ELs’ needs were DELACs that had already been established in each district, indicating limited engagement with other stakeholders with an interest in the district’s EL population, including parents who were not Coign of vantage and a ction 16 involved in the organized committee, families, students, and community-based organizations. Moreover, there was there was very limited explicit and formal involvement of national and local civil rights organizations in the development of the LCAPs. Additionally, staffing and curricula were key funding concerns for districts, the former of which is not surprising given downturn in the economy that created staffing needs across the 20 sample districts. In some cases, LCAPs specifically noted how these funds would be allotted to support EL instruction, with respect to hiring English language development teachers and coaches, or adding supplement college and career reading programs (e.g., AVID). In other cases, however, funding originally targeted toward the 20% allotment for ELs was distributed in order to fund programs for all students, or advanced students in honors or AP courses, that likely included few ELs. Whether the best use of EL-dedicated funds is to support programs for all students is an issue that needs to be investigated further in the districts that adopted this “non-segregative” approach to funding. Nonetheless, it appears that advocates who raised concerns that districts may be using the block funding approach to divert funds to other priorities not necessarily benefitting ELs (Hahnel, 2014) may be correct. This approach is reminiscent of the ideology that teaching ELs is “just good teaching” (de Jong & Harper, 2005) and that, by addressing all students’ needs, ELs’ needs would also be addressed. Research focused on EL education indicates that this equality of treatment ideology severely limits the attention that is necessary to support ELs’ both academically and linguistically (Hopkins, Lowenhaupt, & Sweet, 2015; Reeves, 2004). Given the long history of neglecting EL instruction, especially in states like California that have implemented restrictive language policies (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010), this is an important concern that requires further research in districts that have taken this funding approach. Finally, very few districts in our sample described the use of measures beyond test scores and other state mandated measures in their LCAPs. California’s Local Accountability policy represented an opportunity for local school districts to consider multiple outcome measures, including those related to opportunity as well as achievement gaps. While our findings are limited to a sample of 20 districts, our findings indicate that few districts took advantage of this opportunity in 2014-15. This trend is particularly concerning when considering ELs whose achievement and progress is not adequately captured by standardized tests as a result of their emerging English language proficiency (Hopkins, Thompson, Linquanti, Hakuta, & August, 2013). Considering our zone of mediation framework, community-based approaches to accountability and funding have the potential to usher in a turn in community involvement in school district policymaking. In the United States, our communities, parents, and educators must see themselves as an important part of the solution rather than the problem. Returning to a community- based schooling approach could foment a multiple-measures approach driven by the community’s desire to see their children succeed, rather than a continuing focus on failed high-stakes testing and accountability policies. Whether California’s approach can facilitate a new efficacious community- based approach to school finance and accountability over the short- and long-term remains to be seen. Our findings covering the initial implementation year of Local Accountability are less than promising; yet additional research examining subsequent years is needed to understand how LCAP implementation, and in particular how LCAPs may or may not evolved and draw upon and expand the zone of mediation and support equitable educational opportunities for ELs. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 17 References Abedi, J., & Edynn S. (2007). Linguistic modification. In LEP Partnership (Issue Brief No. 17, pp. 53- 72). Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/ 11/abedi_sato.pdf Affeldt, J. T. (2015). New accountability in California through local control funding reforms: The promise and the gaps. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(23). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2023 Altheide, D., Coyle, M., DeVriese, K., & Schneider, C. (2008). Emergent qualitative document analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 127-151). New York: The Guilford Press. Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2014). Is school funding fair?: A national report card. Retrieved from http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Boyd, W. (1976). The public, the professionals, and educational policy making: Who governs? Teachers College Record, 77, 539-77. California Department of Education. (2014). Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Regulations. Subchapter 1. Article 1. §15494-15496. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/ Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to accountability for English language learners. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. de Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124.
 Frankenberg, E., McDermott, K., DeBray, E., & Blankenship, A. (2015). The New Politics of Diversity: Lessons from a Federal Technical Assistance Grant. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 440-474. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584661 Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education, 7-24. Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.) (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press. Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n36.2003 Hahnel, C. (2014). Building a more equitable and participatory school system in California: Local Control Funding Formula’s first year. Oakland, CA: The Education Trust-West. Holme, J., Diem, S., & Welton, A. (2014). Suburban School Districts and Demographic Change: The Technical, Normative, and Political Dimensions of Responsiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly 50(1), 34-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13484038 Hopkins, M., Thompson, K., Linquanti, R., Hakuta, K., & August, D. (2013). Fully accounting for English learner performance: A key issue in ESEA reauthorization. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12471426 Hopkins, M., Lowenhaupt, R., & Sweet, T. M. (2015). Organizing English learner instruction in new immigrant destinations: District infrastructure and subject-specific school practice. American Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 408-439. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584780 Horsford, S., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2014). Community-based education reform in urban contexts: Implications for leadership, policy, and accountability. Urban Education,49(8), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557647 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2023 http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/ https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584661 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n36.2003 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13484038 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12471426 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584780 https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557647 Coign of vantage and a ction 18 Jimenez-Castellanos, O. (2010). Relationship between educational resources and school achievement: A mixed method intra-district analysis. The Urban Review, 42(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0166-6 Koppich, J. E., Humphrey, D. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2015). Two years of California's local control funding formula: Time to reaffirm the grand vision. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Menefee-Libey, D. J., & Kerchner, C. T. (2015). California's first year with local control finance and accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(22). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2022 McGivney, J., & Moynihan, W. (1972). School and community. Teachers College Record, 74(2), 317-56. Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S., & Allen, R. (2005). Norms and politics of equity-minded change: Researching the ‘zone of mediation.’ In M. Fullan (ed), Fundamental Change (pp. 82- 305). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4454-2_15 Olsen, L., Armas, E., & Lavadenz, M. (2016). A review of year 2 LCAPs: A weak response to English learners. Long Beach, CA and Los Angeles, CA: Californians Together and The Center for Equity for English Learners and Loyola Marymount University. Retrieved from https://www.californianstogether.org/study-of-year-2-local-control-accountability-plans- lcaps-reveals-a-weak-response-to-the-needs-of-english-learners-save-and-exitexit-without- saving/ Policy Analysis for California Education and The Opportunity Institute. (2016). LCFF: How can local control keep the promise of educational equity in California? Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/lcff-how-can-local-control-keep-promise- educational-equity-ca Peterson, P., & West, M. (2003). No child left behind?: The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Pisciotta, J. (2001). School accountability: Top-down or bottom-up? Veritas, 19-25. Posey, L. (2012). Middle- and upper-middle class parent action for urban public schools: Promise or paradox? Teachers College Record 114(1), 1-43. Reeves, J. (2004). ‘‘Like everybody else’’: Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly 38(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588258 Reardon, S., Greenberg, E., Kalogrides, D., Shores, K., & Valentino, R. (2012). Left behind? The effect of No Child Left Behind on academic achievement gaps. (Working Paper). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Renee, M., Welner, K., & Oakes, J. (2010). Social movement organizing and equity-focused educational change: Shifting the zone of mediation. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 153-168). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_9 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tupper, K. (2008). Drugs, discourses and education: A critical discourse analysis of a high school drug education text. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(2), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300801966864 U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Dear colleague letter. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-resourcecomp-201410.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0166-6 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2022 https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4454-2_15 https://www.californianstogether.org/study-of-year-2-local-control-accountability-plans-lcaps-reveals-a-weak-response-to-the-needs-of-english-learners-save-and-exitexit-without-saving/ https://www.californianstogether.org/study-of-year-2-local-control-accountability-plans-lcaps-reveals-a-weak-response-to-the-needs-of-english-learners-save-and-exitexit-without-saving/ https://www.californianstogether.org/study-of-year-2-local-control-accountability-plans-lcaps-reveals-a-weak-response-to-the-needs-of-english-learners-save-and-exitexit-without-saving/ http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/lcff-how-can-local-control-keep-promise-educational-equity-ca http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/lcff-how-can-local-control-keep-promise-educational-equity-ca https://doi.org/10.2307/3588258 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_9 https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300801966864 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 19 Vasquez Heilig, J. (2011). Understanding the interaction between high-stakes graduation tests and English language learners. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2633–2669. Vasquez Heilig, J. (2012). Accountability: Are you ready for a new idea? Retrieved from http://cloakinginequity.com/2012/10/17/are-you-ready-for-a-new-idea/ Vasquez Heilig, J, & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689 Vasquez Heilig, J., & Holme, J. J. (2013). Nearly 50 years post-Jim Crow: Persisting and expansive school segregation for African American, Latina/o, and ELL students in Texas. Education and Urban Society, 45(5), 609-632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513486289 Vasquez Heilig, J., Khalifa, M., & Tillman, L. (2013). Why have NCLB and high stakes reforms failed? Reframing the discourse with a post-colonial lens. In K. Lomotey & R. Milner (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 523-537). New York: Routledge. Vasquez Heilig, J., Lopez, F., & Torre, D. (2014). Examining teacher quality, educational policy and English Learners in Latina/o growth states. In S. Horsford and C. Wilson (Eds.), Advancing Equity and Achievement in America’s Diverse Schools, (pp. 41-56) New York: Routledge. Vasquez Heilig, J. & Nichols, S. (2013). A quandary for school leaders: Equity, high-stakes testing and accountability. In L. C. Tillman & J. J. Scheurich. Eds., Handbook of Research on Educational Leadership for Diversity and Equity, (pp. 409-435). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076934.ch17 Vasquez Heilig, J., Ward, D., Weisman, E., & Cole, H. (2014). Community-based school finance and accountability: A new era for local control in education policy? Urban Education, 49(8), 871- 894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557647 Vasquez Heilig, J., Williams, A., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Inputs and student achievement: An analysis of Latina/o-serving urban elementary schools. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 10, 48-58. Wells, A., & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed high schools. Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 93-118. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.274848214743t373 Welner, K. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with educational equity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wolf, R., & Sands, J. (2016). A preliminary analysis of California's new Local Control Funding Formula. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2194 http://cloakinginequity.com/2012/10/17/are-you-ready-for-a-new-idea/ https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513486289 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076934.ch17 https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557647 https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.274848214743t373 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2194 Coign of vantage and a ction 20 About the Authors Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento heilig@csus.edu Julian Vasquez Heilig is an award-winning teacher, researcher, and blogger. He is currently a Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and the Director of the Doctorate in Educational Leadership at California State University Sacramento. He blogs at Cloaking Inequity, consistently rated one of the top 50 education websites in the world by Teach100. Follow him on Twitter @ProfessorJVH. Lisa S. Romero California State University, Sacramento Lisa.romero@csus.edu Lisa S. Romero is an Assistant Professor in the Doctorate of Educational Leadership Program in College of Education at California State University Sacramento. Her research interests include: school improvement, educational inequity, race/ethnicity and gender, and education policy and politics. Her research appears in a variety of journals including the Journal of Educational Administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, and Teachers College Record. Megan Hopkins University of California, San Diego mbhopkins@ucsd.edu Megan Hopkins is Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Drawing on organizational sociology, her research explores how to transform education systems to support teacher learning and development, with a particular focus on bilingual and multilingual contexts. mailto:heilig@csus.edu http://www.csus.edu/coe/academics/graduate/programs/overview-edlp.html http://www.csus.edu/coe/academics/doctorate/index.html http://www.csus.edu/coe/academics/doctorate/index.html http://www.csus.edu/ https://twitter.com/ProfessorJVH http://teach.com/teach100 https://twitter.com/ProfessorJVH mailto:Lisa.romero@csus.edu mailto:mbhopkins@ucsd.edu Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 21 About the Guest Editor Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos Arizona State University jimenezcastellanos@asu.edu Dr. Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos is an Associate Professor in Education Policy and Evaluation in Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University and a 2016-17 Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley, Graduate School of Education with a courtesy affiliation with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). He has published extensively in the area of K-12 education finance, policy and parent engagement and its impact on opportunity, equity and outcomes in low-income ethnically and linguistically diverse communities. Dr. Jimenez-Castellanos is a 2015-16 Morrison Institute Faculty Fellow, 2015 Distinguished National Education Finance Fellow, a 2014 School Finance Fellow with the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) and a 2012 Ford Postdoctoral Fellow administered by the National Research Council of the National Academies. He was bestowed the honor of a Fulton Professor in 2011 and served as Arizona’s Acting Director of the University Research Council (URC) in Education in 2011-12. SPECIAL ISSUE Education Finance and English Language Learners education policy analysis archives Volume 25 Number 15 February 27, 2017 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. mailto:jimenezcastellanos@asu.edu http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:fischman@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Coign of vantage and a ction 22 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Consulting Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: David Carlson, Margarita Jimenez-Silva, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley, Jeanne M. Powers, Iveta Silova, Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Gary Anderson New York University Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville A. G. Rud Washington State University Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Eric M. Haas WestEd Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Jeff Bale OISE, University of Toronto, Canada Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Jack Schneider College of the Holy Cross David C. Berliner Arizona State University Aimee Howley Ohio University Noah Sobe Loyola University Henry Braun Boston College Steve Klees University of Maryland Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia John Willinsky Stanford University Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Susan L. Robertson Bristol University, UK Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Gene V Glass Arizona State University Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 25 No 15 SPECIAL ISSUE 23 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Ezequiel Gomez Caride (Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina), Antonio Luzon (Universidad de Granada), Angelica Buendia (Metropolitan Autonomous University), José Luis Ramírez (Universidad de Sonora) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Juan Carlos Tedesco Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México José Luis Ramírez Romero Universidad Autónoma de Sonora, México Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México Paula Razquin Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1617') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') Coign of vantage and a ction 24 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil