of districts , often approving the LCAP without significant involvement in community meetings or efforts to solicit constituent input . In the end , we have to ask , how meaningful and democratic is a process that omits particular voices ?
How are participants engaged ? For what purpose ?
Second , the framework in Figure 1 asks : How are participants engaged ? For what purpose ? This ranges from deep engagement , where there is a two-way exchange of ideas between community and district , to shallow engagement , where the district is providing a one-way flow of information . In a shallowly engaged district , the focus is on providing information with little opportunity for stakeholders to engage in reasoned discussion and consider the needs of the greater good , instead of just their own children or students .
Moving up the x-axis , a district might provide stakeholders some opportunity to provide feedback – or consult – on how LCAP goals fit their own personal needs .
A district moves closer to the deeper end of the continuum by involving stakeholders in a more complex , ongoing engagement process . This deeper engagement could include multiple meetings to review progress toward goals , identify areas of need for all students and work with district staff to develop strategies to address these needs , representing collaborate or empower .
In our research , we observed a range of models , but few reached the deeper end of the spectrum . Most districts engaged stakeholders in one-way information sharing or soliciting input on district goals and problems through district meetings or surveys .
This shallow approach left decisions around services and resource allocation to district administrators . Only a few districts provided more collaborative opportunities for two-way exchange with stakeholders over both goals and budgets . We also found little evidence of facilitators directing participants to consider the needs of individuals and groups in the broader community and how to prioritize actions for those most in-need .
In theory , this facilitation could have mitigated limitations we observed around who participates because participants would have considered the interests of those not at the table . Instead , much of the interactions were focused on self-interests – what participants believed were problems and needed improvements for their students / children .
Even when there was a more representative group present in meetings , district leaders struggled to ensure all voices were heard . For example , in some cases , the louder voices of higher income parents or parents of gifted children led to increases in funding for gifted and talented programs or AP courses rather than investments to support LCFF target groups . So again , we ask : How meaningful is the engagement ?
2 . Three conditions help explain deeper and broader stakeholder engagement . In several districts that demonstrated inclusive and collaborative engagement , we find the following :
• External organizations : Outside organizations , often nonprofits , helped recruit stakeholders , particularly from under-represented communities , via outreach and grassroots organizing . In some cases , these partners trained participants and helped facilitate meetings in ways assisting quieter voices .
• Trust : Strong climates of trust were built between community members and the district , as well as the teachers ’ union and the district . Individuals entered the LCFF process with a foundation of strong relations that facilitated in-depth conversations around district goals , programs and budgets .
• Homogeneous communities : A more homogenous community may have contributed to a foundation of common interests and fewer competing voices . We suspect that potential for conflict in more heterogeneous districts may have challenged efforts to organize deeper forms of engagement .
3 . Improvements are occurring : After three years of research , we are beginning to see patterns in how engagement processes have changed over time . District and community leaders appear to be learning from the early LCFF experiences and making adjustments to enhance how they engage stakeholders .
In this last year , we found many districts
14 Leadership
of districts, often approving the LCAP
without significant involvement in commu-
nity meetings or efforts to solicit constitu-
ent input. In the end, we have to ask, how
meaningful and democratic is a process that
omits particular voices?
How are participants engaged? For
what purpose?
Second, the framework in Figure 1 asks:
How are participants engaged? For what
purpose? This ranges from deep engage-
ment, where there is a two-way exchange
of ideas between community and district,
to shallow engagement, where the district
is providing a one-way flow of information.
In a shallowly engaged district, the focus
is on providing information with little op-
portunity for stakeholders to engage in rea-
soned discussion and consider the needs of
the greater good, instead of just their own
children or students.
Moving up the x-axis, a district might
provide stakeholders some opportunity
to provide feedback – or consult – on how
LCAP goals fit their own personal needs.
14
Leadership
A district moves closer to the deeper end of
the continuum by involving stakeholders in
a more complex, ongoing engagement pro-
cess. This deeper engagement could include
multiple meetings to review progress toward
goals, identify areas of need for all students
and work with district staff to develop strat-
egies to address these needs, representing
collaborate or empower.
In our research, we observed a range of
models, but few reached the deeper end of
the spectrum. Most districts engaged stake-
holders in one-way information sharing or
soliciting input on district goals and prob-
lems through district meetings or surveys.
This shallow approach left decisions
around services and resource allocation to
district administrators. Only a few districts
provided more collaborative opportunities
for two-way exchange with stakeholders over
both goals and budgets. We also found little
evidence of facilitators directing participants
to consider the needs of individuals and
groups in the broader community and how
to prioritize actions for those most in-need.
In theory, this facilitation could have
mitigated limitations we observed around
who participates because participants would
have considered the interests of those not at
the table. Instead, much of the interactions
were focused on self-interests – what par-
ticipants believed were problems and needed
improvements for their students/children.
Even when there was a more representa-
tive group present in meetings, district lead-
ers struggled to ensure all voices were heard.
For example, in some cases, the louder voices
of higher income parents or parents of gifted
children led to increases in funding for
gifted and talented programs or AP courses
rather than investments to support LCFF
target groups. So again, we ask: How mean-
ingful is the engagement?
2. Three conditions help explain deeper
and broader stakeholder engagement. In
several di � �X� � ][[ۜ� �]Y[�� \�]�B�[���X�ܘ]]�H[��Y�[Y[� �H�[� B�����[���(�^ \��[ܙ�[�^�][ۜΈ�] �YHܙ�KB��^�][ۜ�ٝ[��ۜ �ٚ] �[ Y �XܝZ]��Z�Z�\�� \�X�[\� H���H [�\�\�\ B��\�[�Y��[][�]Y\� �XH�] �XX�[��ܘ\�ܛ�� �ܙ�[�^�[�ˈ[� ��YH�\�\� \�B�\��\�� �Z[�Y \�X�\[� �[�[ Y��X�[]]HYY][���[� �^\�\��\�[�� ]ZY]\����X�\˂��(� �\��� �ۙ��[X]\�و �\� �\�B��Z[ �] �Y[���[][�] HY[X�\��[� B�\� �X� \� �[\� H XX�\���&H [�[ۈ[��H\� �X� �[�]�Y X[ �[�\�Y Hё�� ���\�� �]H��[�][ۈو � �ۙ� �[KB�[ۜ� ]�X�[]]Y[�Y\ ��\��][ۜ\��[�\� �X���[ � ��ܘ[\�[��Y�] ˂��(��[��[�[�\���[][�]Y\ΈH[ܙB��[��[��\���[][�] HX^H]�H� �X�B�]Y �H��[�][ۈو��[[ۈ[�\�\� [��]�\���\][�� ��X�\ˈ�H �\�X� ]��[�X[�܈�ۙ�X�[�[ܙH]\���[�[�\\� �X� �X^H]�H�[[��YY��ܝ � �܋B��[�^�HY\\��ܛ\�و[��Y�[Y[� ��ˈ[\ �ݙ[Y[� �\�H���\��[�ΈY�\�� �YH YX\��و �\�X\�� �H\�H�Y�[��[�� �YH ] \���[���[��Y�[Y[� ���\��\]�H�[��Yݙ\� [YK�\� �X�[���KB�][�] HXY\��\ X\� ��HX\��[�����B�HX\� Hё�^ \�Y[��\�[�XZ�[�Y�\�Y[� � �[�[��H�� ^H[��Y�B��Z�Z�\�˂�[� \�\� YX\� �H��[�X[�H\� �X�