WIXLIB

AN LAO REPORTState Requires Districts to Develop PlansStatute Requires Districts To Set Goalsand Identify Related Actions and Funding. Thelegislation enacting LCFF laid out the frameworkfor LCAPs. The framework is centered arounddistricts’ goals and the process for districtsto develop and adopt those three-year plans.Specifically, statute requires districts to set goalsand to describe the actions they plan to taketo achieve those goals. Statute further requiresdistricts to identify the associated fundingsupporting each planned action and align theirLCAPs with their budgets to demonstrate thatsufficient funding is allocated to support all of theplanned actions. (For example, a school districtcould specify that it intends to provide tutors toall EL students below grade level to improve itsreclassification rate. To ensure the LCAP andadopted budget are aligned, the school district mustinclude sufficient funding for tutors in its adoptedbudget.)Statute Establishes Eight Priority Areas and24 Performance Indicators. For each goal a districtsets, statute requires that districts align the goalwith one or more of eight state priority areas. Asshown in Figure 3, the priority areas span fromstudent achievement and engagement to parentalinvolvement and basic services (such as teachersand textbooks). For each state priority area, statutespecifies certain performance indicators intendedto monitor districts’ performance. Statute lists atotal of 24 performance metrics (see Figure 3). Thepriority area with the greatest number of associatedperformance metrics (8 of the 24) is the studentachievement area. Metrics in this area includestudent performance on standardized tests, EnglishLearner reclassification rates, and the share ofGraphicstudents that pass Advanced Placement examswith Sign Offa score of 3 or higher. In addition to addressingtheSecretarystate priority areas, statute allows districts’AnalystLCAPsto include locally developed metrics.DirectorStatute Requires Districts To EstablishDeputyPerformance Targets. For each of the 24performance metrics and any locally developedmetrics, statute requires districts to establishperformance targets for all students and studentsubgroups and schools. (Statute identifies 12student subgroups—eight student racial andFigure 2Continuous Planning and Evaluation SystemDistrict LCAP Development and/or UpdateCOE Support (If Needed)COE Assessment of District PerformanceDistrict LCAP Adoption and COE ApprovalDistrict LCAP ImplementationLCAP Local Control and Accountability Plan and COE county office of education.6Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov

AN LAO REPORTethnic groups as well as English Learners,low-income students, foster youth, and studentswith disabilities.) Statute requires that districtsestablish these targets for the coming school year aswell as the next two years. Figure 4 (see next page)provides a simplified illustration of the relationshipamong goals, priority areas, actions, metrics, andtargets.Statute and Regulations Contain AdditionalSet of Requirements for EL/LI Services. Statutespecifies that a district must “increase or improveservices” for EL/LI students “in proportion tothe increase” in its LCFF supplemental andconcentration funding. Statute also allowsdistricts to use supplemental and concentrationfunding on a districtwide or schoolwide basis.Statute directs the State Board of EducationGraphic Sign Off(SBE) to develop regulations implementing theseSecretaryprovisions. Regulations allow districts to reflectAnalysttheir increase or improvement in services inDirectorvarious ways. Districts demonstrate adherencewith the regulations through their LCAPs.DeputyIn theirLCAPs, districts must report the total amountof supplemental and concentration funding theyexpect to receive. They also must report the resultof a complicated formula known as the “minimumproportionality percentage.” This formula isintended to link the proportional increase inFigure 3The Eight State Priority Areas and Associated MetricsStudent AchievementParental Involvement Efforts to seek parent input. Promotion of parental participation.Performance on standardized tests.Score on Academic Performance Index.Share of students that are college and career ready.Share of English learners that become Englishproficient. English learner reclassification rate. Share of students that pass Advanced Placementexams with 3 or higher. Share of students determined prepared for collegeby the Early Assessment Program.Student Engagement School attendance rates. Chronic absenteeism rates. Middle school dropout rates. High school dropout rates. High school graduation rates.Basic Services Rate of teacher misassignment. Student access to standards-alignedinstructional materials. Facilities in good repair.Implementation of State Standards Implementation of Common Core State Standardsfor all students, including English learners. Implementation of English language developmentstandards.Other Student OutcomesCourse Access Other indicators of student performance inrequired areas of study. May include performanceon other exams. Student access and enrollment in all requiredareas of study.School Climate Student suspension rates. Student expulsion rates. Other local measures.www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office7

AN LAO REPORTfunding with the proportional increase in services,but it does not explicitly require a certain level ofEL/LI spending. In addition, districts must describehow they plan to use their supplemental andconcentration funding for the benefit ofEL/LI students. Districts’ LCAPs also must containjustifications if supplemental and concentrationfunding is not targeted to services specifically forEL/LI students, with higher justification for thosewith low shares of EL/LI students.Districts Must Use LCAP Template Createdby SBE. Statute creating the LCAP directed SBEto develop an LCAP template. The template isdesigned to cover all the statutory LCAP elements(goals, actions, funding, alignment with priorityareas, performance indicators, and targets) andcreate some consistency across districts’ LCAPs.The template contains some guidance for districtson how to develop their plans but does notprescribe any particular actions districts musttake. The template provides space for districtsto differentiate between services for all studentsand those for EL/LI students. The first iteration ofthe LCAP template was created in the spring of2014 for LCAPs covering the 2014-15 school year.For the 2015-16 LCAPs, the SBE adopted anupdated template.Districts Required To Solicit Input FromStakeholders in Developing LCAPs. The LCAPlegislation also laid out the process by whichdistricts were to develop and adopt their plans.Statute requires that districts involve variouslocal community groups in plan development.Specifically, statute requires that districts consultwith teachers, principals, administrators, parents,and students to determine what strategies theybelieve will improve student outcomes. Districtshave some flexibility in determining how best toengage these groups. To ensure parents are involvedin the LCAP process, statute requires that districtspresent the LCAP to the district parent advisorycommittee and the English learner parent advisoryGraphic Sign Offcommittee (if applicable). In addition, the districtSecretarymust provide the opportunity for publiccommenton the plan and hold at least one publichearingAnalystto solicit recommendations and commentsMPA frommembers of the public. School districts’boardsDeputymust approve their LCAPs annually by July 1.Boards approved their first round of LCAPs byJuly 1, 2014.Figure 4Simplified Illustration of Goals, Priority Areas, Actions, Metrics, and TargetsGoalEnsure all studentsare prepared forcollege or a careerupon graduation.Priority AreasActionsOffer additional sciencecourses to ensurestudents meet universityprerequisites.MetricsPerformance on10th grade sciencestandardized test.Number of newscience teachers hired.StudentAchievementState metricCourseAccess8Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.govLocal metricYear 1TargetsYear 2Year 375% proficient80% proficient82% proficient2 teachers1 teacher2 teachers

AN LAO REPORTCOEs Must Review District Plansand May Suggest ChangesSBE Developing Criteria forIdentifying Struggling DistrictsCOEs Can Ask for Clarification and MakeRecommendations To Improve Districts’ Plans.Each district must submit its LCAP to its COE forreview. The COE can then seek clarification fromthe district about the contents of its LCAP. If a COEseeks such clarification, a district must respond inwriting. Based on a district’s response, the COEcan submit recommendations for amendments tothe LCAP back to the district. The district mustconsider any COE recommendations at a publichearing, but the district is not required to makechanges to its plan. The COE must approve adistrict’s LCAP if it determines that (1) the LCAPadheres to the SBE template, (2) the district’sbudgeted expenditures are sufficient to implementthe strategies outlined in the LCAP, and (3) theLCAP adheres to the expenditure requirementsfor supplemental and concentration funding.Districts and COEs went through the first LCAPreview process in the summer of 2014. The annualdeadline for approval or rejection of a district’sLCAP by a COE is October 8. For the 2014-15school year, COEs approved the vast majority ofLCAPs submitted by districts by the deadline. Ourunderstanding is a handful of districts requiredtechnical support from COEs in order to have theirLCAPs approved.Struggling Districts To Be Identified andSupported. The SBE is developing rubrics toevaluate districts’ performance. The evaluationrubrics will serve two functions—allow districtsto evaluate their strengths and weaknesses andallow COEs and the Superintendent of PublicInstruction to gauge whether districts areimproving outcomes for students. The rubricsare to be comprehensive and consider multiplemeasures of district and school performance. Inaddition, statute requires the rubrics to set statelevel expectations for improvement in each ofthe eight state priority areas. These expectationsare the basis for determining whether districtsrequire support or intervention from COEs, theCalifornia Collaborative on Educational Excellence,the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or otherexternal advisors.Components of Rubrics To Be Developed bySBE. Within the guidelines laid out above, statutegives the SBE discretion over the content anddesign of the rubrics. Of particular note is theSBE’s latitude in setting state-level expectations forimprovement, thereby affecting which districts andhow frequently districts are identified for additionalsupport. The SBE must adopt evaluation rubrics byOctober 1, 2015. Districts’ 2015-16 data likely willserve as the baseline for determining if districtsare meeting the state-level expectations set forthby SBE in the rubrics. (Districts begin receivingsupport after they have failed to improve outcomesin at least one state priority area.)ANALYSIS OF 2014-15 LCAPSReviewed 50 LCAPs. Our review aimed tosummarize the content of a sample of LCAPs—including districts’ goals, actions, metrics, and usesof supplemental and concentration funding—andidentify common themes among the plans. As partof this review, we examined whether the LCAPswww.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office9

AN LAO REPORToverall reflected thoughtful strategic planning bydistricts. We did not aim to critique the specificprogram decisions made by particular districts,but rather explored the fundamental usefulnessof LCAPs as implemented by districts in 2014-15.We read and catalogued 50 LCAPs representing adiverse set of districts.Sample Included Districts of Different Sizesand EL/LI Enrollment. To select the bulk (39) ofdistricts for our sample, we created categories oflarge, mid-size, and small districts based on totalenrollment. Within each of these size categories,we selected some districts that had high, average,and low EL/LI enrollment. Using this stratificationmethod, we selected 21 large districts (withenrollment between 10,000 and 50,000 students), 9mid-size districts (with enrollment between 5,000and 10,000), and 9 small districts (with enrollmentunder 5,000 students). We then added the state’s 11largest districts to round out our sample. These 11districts alone comprise 18 percent of enrollmentin the state. Our entire sample covers 26 percentof enrollment across the state. In selecting specificdistricts for our sample, we also ensured geographicdiversity. Our sample contains districts from24 (of 58) counties, as displayed in Figure 5.Interviewed Some COE and District Staff.To better understand the LCAP developmentand review process, we spoke to several COEsand districts about how the process worked forthem. Our questions for districts focused on howthey engaged their communities, who within thedistricts worked on LCAP development, and whatimpact the LCAP process had on districts’ plansfor the school year. We asked COEs about theirprocesses for reviewing districts’ LCAPs, focusingon how COEs supported districts through theprocess. These interviews provided helpful contextthat enriched our LCAP analysis. Figure 6 (see page12) summarizes our major findings and assessment,which we discuss in more detail next.10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.govLCAP DesignStatute Establishes Ambitious Set ofRequirements. The statute governing thecomponents of the LCAP requires districts to setgoals in all eight state priority areas, identify anddescribe actions to reach those goals, and trackprogress using 24 metrics (plus any local metrics).In addition, the statute instructs districts to setspecific goals and identify actions for 12 studentsubgroups and each of their schools for all thepriority areas. Taken together, these requirementsare a daunting undertaking for districts toaccomplish and accomplish well. Though most ofthe LCAPs we reviewed attempted to comply withmany of the statutory LCAP requirements, nonecompiled with every statutory requirement.First SBE Template Very Complex. Theorganization of the first SBE template separateddistricts’ actions from their associated metrics. Thisdisjointed template design created challenges fordistricts to develop coherent strategies that alignedtheir goals, actions, and metrics. In some cases,we also found that districts listed metrics thatwere not measuring the impact of the actions theychose to pursue. This made tracking the impact ofdistricts’ actions on student outcomes particularlychallenging.New Template Organizes Information in MoreUseful Way. The new template recently adoptedby SBE groups all of the relevant informationassociated with a particular goal together.This organizational change will not condenserequired information, but it will ensure that allrelated information is in the same section. Asa result, readers will be able to identify whicharea of improvement each goal is addressing, theactions to be taken to address the goal, and themetrics the district will use to measure progresstowards meeting the goal. Moreover, the newtemplate should help districts better establishthe relationship between their areas in need of

AN LAO REPORTSecretaryAnalystMPADeputyFigure 5Districts Included in Our SampleSample 50 districts. Districts comprise 26 percentof statewide enrollment located in 24 counties. 19 High EL/LI districts. 16 Average EL/LI districts. 15 Low EL/LI districts.Note: “High” districts are defined as those with morethan 75 percent EL/LI enrollment, “average”districts between 50 percent and 75 percentEL/LI enrollment, and ”low” districts less than50 percent EL/LI enrollment.EL/LI English learner, low-income and foster youth students.Template CA County Map.aitARTWORK#140598www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11

AN LAO REPORTimprovement, goals, and actions, which shouldresult in better plans.LCAP Has Potential as Strategic Plan. Thoughthe first LCAP template had notable shortcomings,we believe the revised LCAP template hasovercome some of those issues and is a more usefulframework for helping districts develop coherentplans. Despite the refinements to the template,however, the fundamental challenge for districtsin developing clear LCAPs remains the tensionbetween being comprehensive versus focusing onthe areas in greatest need of improvement.GoalsSome Districts Lack Overarching Goals.Whereas some districts’ LCAPs focus on a few,key overarching goals (such as improving collegeand career readiness), other districts set manynarrow goals (such as reducing the dropout rate by5 percent, decreasing the teacher misassignmentrate to 2 percent, and increasing the numberof science courses offered). When districts setnumerous, narrow goals without any broader ones,the overall direction and emphasis of those districtscan be more difficult to follow.Figure 6Summary of Major Findings and AssessmentFindingsAssessmentLCAP Design Statute establishes ambitious set ofrequirements, including requiring districtsto set goals for 12 student subgroups andeach of their schools. LCAP has potential as a strategic plan ifrefined to be more focused on districts’key performance issues.Goals andPriority Areas Some districts lack overarching goals. Statute appears to emphasize eightstate priority areas equally. Districts areprioritizing among them. Districts’ goals not targeted to areas ingreatest need of improvement. In some cases, districts do not appearto be carefully considering whichpriority areas to align with their goals.Actions Districts pursuing relatively similaractions. Detail of districts’ actions varies widely.Some provide step-by-step information,while others only provide generalinformation. Districts vary in extent to which they linkfunding with actions. Districts rarely differentiate betweennew and ongoing actions, makingunderstanding new strategies difficult. Districts vary in which funding sourcesthey include, thereby omitting someactions supported with non-LCFFfunding.Metrics and Targets Districts include some, but not all metricsand targets in their LCAPs. Most districts set single target for allstudents. Many metrics do not apply to elementaryschool districts. Districts rarely include baseline datafor metrics, making targets lessmeaningful.EL/LI Services Districts’ information on EL/LI servicesvaries. Difficult to determine if and how districtsare improving services. Districts often fail to justify rationale forproviding districtwide or schoolwideservices.LCAP Local Control and Accountability Plan; SBE State Board of Education; LCFF Local Control Funding Formula;COEs county offices of education; and EL/LI English learner, low-income and foster youth.12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov

AN LAO REPORTIn Many Cases, Districts’ Goals Not WellAligned to State Priority Areas. Few districts’ goalsfocus on a single priority area. Instead, districts setgoals and then align priority areas to those goals.As a result, each priority area often is attributedto multiple goals. In some cases, districts attributeall priority areas to all their goals even when littleconnection between the goals and priority areasexists. In these cases, districts do not appear to becarefully considering which priority areas alignwith their goals. Districts may have set goals firstand then aligned the priority areas to those goalsdue to the template design. The template first askeda district to set goals and then asked what priorityarea each goal covered.Eight State Priority AreasStatute Appears To Emphasize Eight StatePriority Areas Equally, Districts Are PrioritizingAmong Them. Both current law and the originaland revised LCAP template enumerate the eightstate priority areas without any indication thatone priority area should receive greater attentionthan another. As a result, the state is indicating todistricts that all priority areas are of equal value.Despite the apparent equal weighting among thepriority areas in statute, districts do not appearto be emphasizing them equally. In most cases,districts are setting goals that span multiplepriority areas, with some priority areas appearingmore frequently than others. For example, thestudent achievement priority area commonly isaligned with districts’ goals whereas the parentalinvolvement priority a

known as rubrics. The plans—the LCAPs—require districts annually to develop and adopt three-year plans to improve student achievement. The evaluation rubrics allow districts, county offices of education (COEs), and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to assess districts' progress towards improving student outcomes. Under the