教育中的公民参与:来自加州地方控制基金公式的见解

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 ECONOMICS Education Finance and Policy Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1162/edfp_a_00318
Julie A. Marsh, Tasminda K. Dhaliwal, Michelle Hall, Morgan S. Polikoff
{"title":"教育中的公民参与:来自加州地方控制基金公式的见解","authors":"Julie A. Marsh, Tasminda K. Dhaliwal, Michelle Hall, Morgan S. Polikoff","doi":"10.1162/edfp_a_00318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this policy brief, we use the case of California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to provide policy makers and educators guidance on how to involve the public in goal setting and resource distribution decisions. We provide clarity around who is and is not participating, why, and what broader lessons we can draw for implementing federal and state education policies mandating public engagement. Our findings indicate tremendous room for improvement. LCFF's target populations (e.g., low-income, English learners) are not more likely to be aware of or participate in decisions than nontargeted groups, which suggests weak accountability for the use of public funds by the policy's target populations. Although LCFF has defined a broad set of stakeholders, only a narrow segment of the public (i.e., individuals with stronger ties to and positive views of schools) is aware of and engaging with the policy. Finally, we find a substantial gap between actual participation in LCFF and interest in participation, which may relate to a lack of self-efficacy, time, trust, perceived appropriateness, and information. As states and districts respond to mandates for engagement, these results suggest the need for greater investments in: (1) communication, (2) targeting a range of stakeholders, and (3) capacity building.","PeriodicalId":46870,"journal":{"name":"Education Finance and Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":"761-774"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1162/edfp_a_00318","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Civic Engagement in Education: Insights from California's Local Control Funding Formula\",\"authors\":\"Julie A. Marsh, Tasminda K. Dhaliwal, Michelle Hall, Morgan S. Polikoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/edfp_a_00318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this policy brief, we use the case of California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to provide policy makers and educators guidance on how to involve the public in goal setting and resource distribution decisions. We provide clarity around who is and is not participating, why, and what broader lessons we can draw for implementing federal and state education policies mandating public engagement. Our findings indicate tremendous room for improvement. LCFF's target populations (e.g., low-income, English learners) are not more likely to be aware of or participate in decisions than nontargeted groups, which suggests weak accountability for the use of public funds by the policy's target populations. Although LCFF has defined a broad set of stakeholders, only a narrow segment of the public (i.e., individuals with stronger ties to and positive views of schools) is aware of and engaging with the policy. Finally, we find a substantial gap between actual participation in LCFF and interest in participation, which may relate to a lack of self-efficacy, time, trust, perceived appropriateness, and information. As states and districts respond to mandates for engagement, these results suggest the need for greater investments in: (1) communication, (2) targeting a range of stakeholders, and (3) capacity building.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education Finance and Policy\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"761-774\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1162/edfp_a_00318\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education Finance and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00318\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Finance and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00318","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本政策简报中,我们以加州地方控制资金公式(LCFF)为例,为政策制定者和教育工作者提供如何让公众参与目标制定和资源分配决策的指导。我们明确了谁在参与,为什么不参与,以及我们可以为实施要求公众参与的联邦和州教育政策吸取哪些更广泛的教训。我们的发现显示出巨大的改进空间。LCFF的目标人群(如低收入、英语学习者)不太可能比非目标人群更了解或参与决策,这表明该政策的目标人群对公共资金使用的问责制较弱。尽管LCFF定义了广泛的利益相关者,但只有一小部分公众(即与学校关系更密切、对学校持积极看法的个人)了解并参与该政策。最后,我们发现实际参与LCFF和参与兴趣之间存在很大差距,这可能与缺乏自我效能、时间、信任、感知适当性和信息有关。随着各州和地区对参与授权的回应,这些结果表明需要在以下方面加大投资:(1)沟通,(2)针对一系列利益相关者,以及(3)能力建设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Civic Engagement in Education: Insights from California's Local Control Funding Formula
In this policy brief, we use the case of California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to provide policy makers and educators guidance on how to involve the public in goal setting and resource distribution decisions. We provide clarity around who is and is not participating, why, and what broader lessons we can draw for implementing federal and state education policies mandating public engagement. Our findings indicate tremendous room for improvement. LCFF's target populations (e.g., low-income, English learners) are not more likely to be aware of or participate in decisions than nontargeted groups, which suggests weak accountability for the use of public funds by the policy's target populations. Although LCFF has defined a broad set of stakeholders, only a narrow segment of the public (i.e., individuals with stronger ties to and positive views of schools) is aware of and engaging with the policy. Finally, we find a substantial gap between actual participation in LCFF and interest in participation, which may relate to a lack of self-efficacy, time, trust, perceived appropriateness, and information. As states and districts respond to mandates for engagement, these results suggest the need for greater investments in: (1) communication, (2) targeting a range of stakeholders, and (3) capacity building.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Making the (Letter) Grade: The Incentive Effects of Mandatory Pass/Fail Courses How Well Do Professional Reference Ratings Predict Teacher Performance? The Academic and Behavioral Impacts of an Autism Health Insurance Mandate: Evidence from Massachusetts A Bridge to Graduation: Post-Secondary Effects of an Alternative Pathway for Students Who Fail High School Exit Exams At What Cost? Is Technical Education Worth the Investment?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1