The California Way & Community Engagement
For generations, students, families, and community partners have been organizing and advocating to achieve a more active role in local and state priorities for spending, goal-setting, and other crucial decision-making processes. In 2013, the combined efforts of these advocates helped launch the “California Way”, an era that replaces a “test and punish” philosophy with an “assess and improve” philosophy that emphasizes equity, capacity building, and continuous improvement (Furger, Hernández, Darling-Hammond, 2019).
A New Era
The passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) marked significant changes in the way schools and districts across the state operate:
The LCFF set the state’s journey in motion from a traditional culture of top-down decision-making and compliance to a culture of partnering with community members to set priorities and support continuous improvement. For a more in-depth exploration of the LCFF, explore Module 5, Enhancing Engagement for LCAP Design.
Though the funding formula has supported more equitable resource distribution, systems, structures, and policies across the state’s 10,000+ public schools, work remains to build statewide capacity for the new model of community engagement proposed by the LCFF. Here are some data points that demonstrate this need:
Based on results from the most recently available CalSCHLS’ California School Parent Survey of over 250,000 parents:
Only 39% of parents strongly agreed that schools encourage them to serve as active partners in their child’s education.
Only 38% of parents strongly agreed that they felt welcome to participate at their child’s school.
Only 30% of parents strongly agreed that their child’s school sought their input before making important decisions. Among school staff, 34% of respondents strongly agreed with this statement.
These survey results indicate that parents and caregivers are largely underutilized as a resource in school decision-making. These six root causes of ineffective community engagement were identified by a coalition of statewide community organizations:
- Lack of belief that the system’s success is critically dependent on its relationships with students & families
- Lack of belief in students & families as experts
- Lack of committed and consistent district & school leaders
- Lack of understanding what constitutes highly effective student & family engagement
- Lack of inclusivity based on race & culture
- Systems/tools are not made to be community-friendly
(Root Cause Analysis of Student & Family Engagement, Defend & Mend Coalition)
The Path Forward
Authentic, meaningful community partnerships must start with a belief that community participation is fundamental to creating equitable education systems. One model that reframes deficit narratives about communities of color is community cultural wealth, which identifies the knowledge, skills, abilities possessed by socially marginalized groups as assets that can be built upon in improvement efforts (Yosso, 2005). Only when school staff members reframe their understanding of marginalized groups, can they appreciate and leverage the vast cultural wealth present in these communities. In this new era of schooling in California, leaders that recognize community cultural wealth are more likely to yield authentic, trusting partnerships with families in the process of working to transform systems.
Furger, R. C., Hernández, L. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The California Way: The Golden State’s quest to build an equitable and excellent education system. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Statewide CSPS. California School Parent Survey, 2019-2021: Main Report. San Francisco: WestEd for the California Department of Education.
Statewide CSSS. California School Staff Survey, 2019-2021: Main Report. San Francisco: WestEd for the California Department of Education.
Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2012). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006