The Decisions District Leaders Make that Align to Leadership Ethics when Developing a Local Control Accountability Pla

For over forty years, school districts in California have received state and federal funding in more than 50 categories (e.g., English learners, special education, transportation). These categorical funding programs target specific kinds of student needs within the overall goal of providing equity of educational opportunity regardless of differences in student needs or local resources. The 2013--2014 California Budget Act provides budgetary discretion to districts and requires them to develop a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) that serves all students. The LCAP gives school districts more discretion about how to use funding and how to provide equity for all students. This study investigates how the LCAP implementation decisions of leaders in three school districts align with goals for equity in the legislation.;The state now provides base grant funds on a per-pupil basis for general purposes determined by the district. Supplemental grants are allocated according to numbers of three specific, targeted, high-needs students in each district: English Language Learners, low-income students, and foster children. Concentration grants go to school districts when over 55% of the students are categorized as high-needs, using unduplicated counts (that is, students are not counted in more than one category). Districts can use concentration funds for district-wide services as long as the services are primarily directed toward their high-needs students.;Districts were purposefully selected that had implementation capacity and structures in place before the LCAP policy. The comparative case study data consist of state and district data, the districts' LCAP documents, and interviews with three administrators in each district who are responsible for the LCAP: the superintendent, director of instructional programs or equivalent, and chief financial officer. The theoretical framework for investigating equity is defined by Starratt (1994) and Shapiro and Stefkovich (2011), placing best interests of the student at the center of leaders' decision-making processes.;The data from LCAP materials and interviews provided evidence that LCAP development processes in these districts were aligned with one or more of the four ethical frameworks for leaders: ethics of care, critique, justice, and the profession. Each district and leader started the process placing students' needs at the center of planning with data identifying student needs and engaging the community in addressing the needs. Their subsequent approaches to equity varied somewhat in terms of the specific types and features of ethical framework represented. A two-way case analysis investigated (1) variation across districts with high, low, and medium proportions of high needs students and (2) variation within districts across roles of those interviewed.;The main conclusion is that the local control approach in the selected districts resulted in a strong, sustained, and clear focus on equity. Implications from these districts for state policy makers and local implementation planning are about the importance of district capacity and leadership for equity, specifically defined through ethical frameworks. An issue highlighted in these districts is that the state has not fully restored funding lost in the last decade while costs and student needs continue to increase. The new policy moves the conflict between adequate funding and capacity for equity to local decision makers.