Purpose. The purpose of the study was to identify the recommendations a Delphi panel of expert practitioners judges to be the most important for improvement of the funding formula for public education in California. This study was also designed to determine the level of importance and degree of feasibility of the recommendations.
Methodology. This study utilized the Delphi technique to collect data in three iterative rounds. Twenty expert practitioners provided responses to a series of three questionnaires. Additionally, a priority matrix was used to analyze the importance and feasibility of the recommendations.
Findings. The expert panelists identified 20 recommendations for improvement of the funding formula. The panel reached consensus on the level of importance for 14 recommendations and on the feasibility of 17 recommendations. Two of the priority recommendations for improving the funding formula were related to the base grant funding amount: Experts recommended increasing the base dollar amount allocated to districts and establishing a method to ensure the base grant grows at a rate greater than cost increases incurred by districts. Additionally, two of the priority recommendations were to include students with special needs in the calculations of the funding formula. The experts also identified the need to protect against the addition of new categorical programs.
Conclusions. The recommendations identified by the expert panel reflect the need to revise the funding formula to adequately cover the basic needs of school districts by providing sufficient funds at the base grant level. Additionally, the recommendations demonstrate a need to revise the eligibility for supplemental and concentration grant funds so districts are able to provide supports for students with disabilities in their accountability plans.
Recommendations. Specific recommendations were made to improve the funding formula for public education in California: Increase base grant amounts by providing additional funds or adjusting the supplemental and/or concentration grants proportionally. Students with disabilities should be considered at risk and included in the calculations for supplemental and concentration grants. Protect the integrity of the LCFF and LCAP by reducing restrictions on the use of supplemental and concentration grants and restricting new categorical programs.
|Advisor:||Harvey, Thomas R.|
|Commitee:||Hansen, David C., Miranda, Frank|
|School:||University of La Verne|
|School Location:||United States -- California|
|Source:||DAI-A 79/12(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Education finance, Education Policy, Public policy|
|Keywords:||California, Delphi, Education budget, Funding formula, Local control, Public education|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be