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.

Debate over the design of state and federal accountability systems is an important ongoing issue for policy makers. As we move toward next-generation accountability through No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) waivers and reauthorization drafts, it is important to understand the implementation and effects of key elements of prior accountability systems. In this policy brief, we investigate an under-researched feature of NCLB accountability—the use of safe harbor to meet proficiency rate objectives. We use school-level data on California schools between 2005 and 2011 to investigate the prevalence of safe harbor over time. We find dramatic increases in recent years, primarily for the objectives for historically disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, we find no evidence that schools using safe harbor meaningfully outperform schools failing Adequate Yearly Progress in the short or long run, casting doubt on the utility of the measure. We conclude with recommendations to policy makers, including state assessment and accountability coordinators, regarding accountability policy design in future laws.