James Bridgeforth, Jacob Alonso, Andre Anderson-Thompson, Nallely Beulah Aceves-Romero, Xander Beberman, Desiree Carver-Thomas, Miguel Casar, Linda Darling-Hammond, Jeimee Estrada, Antero Garcia, Laura E. Hernández, Jacob Hibel, Tara Kini, Melanie Leung-Gagné, Susanna Loeb, Alvin Makori, Anna Maier, Julie Marsh, Laura Mulfinger, Misbah Naseer, Pedro Noguera, Susan K. Patrick, Amanda Pickett, Jeremy Prim, Vandeka Rodgers, Estefania Rodriguez Sanchez, Beth Schueler, Lucy Sorensen, Mariana De Franca Steil, Walker Swain, Tiffany S. Tan, Akunna Uka, Jason Willis, Maisha Winn, Lawrence Winn
California’s education system creates many formal opportunities for families and communities to engage with schools and districts. School site councils, composed of educators, families, students, and other stakeholders, are a hallmark component of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), enacted in 2013. Schools with more than 21 English learners are required to form English Learner Advisory Committees (ELACs) at the district and site levels. California’s recent $4.1 billion investment in the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) continues the state’s commitment to engagement by requiring students, families, and community partners to participate in the development and implementation of community schools.
Formal engagement structures alone do not ensure meaningful family and community engagement (FCE). Prior research on community engagement through LCFF found that many districts relied on shallow forms of democratic engagement, characterized by one-way communication from districts to families and communities rather than deliberative decision-making (Marsh et al., 2018). Broader FCE research also points to the potential of families’ and communities’ insights, experiences, and wisdom, while documenting persistent barriers related to capacity, awareness, trust, language access, and resources.
This brief draws on Getting Down to Facts III technical reports to examine the current state of family and community engagement in California. The studies reviewed here echo concerns raised in Getting Down to Facts II (Marsh et al., 2018): California has maintained a strong policy commitment to FCE, but implementation often remains fragmented, capacity-constrained, and limited in its ability to support meaningful participation, especially when FCE is not an integral dimension of a whole school transformation strategy.
Across the technical reports, three patterns stand out: limited organizational capacity for democratic engagement, misalignment between school and district approaches to engagement and families’ priorities and experiences, and evidence that authentic partnerships with families and communities can strengthen student success, school climate, and trust.
Key Findings
1. California has many formal family and community engagement requirements, but limited capacity can make implementation fragmented, duplicative, and procedural rather than meaningful. Across California education policies (e.g., LCFF), there are substantial opportunities for family and community engagement at the school and district level. Yet, educators’ ability to conduct meaningful engagement with school and district stakeholders is heavily dependent on the extent to which LEAs have the organizational capacity for robust FCE, including interpretation services, amid a growing number of policies that require community input (i.e., developing LCAPs, approving site-level budgets, developing school plans for student achievement). Given this reality, FCE in many schools can be limited and performative rather than deliberative and informative for community-driven educational decision making.
2. Families and communities are engaged in students’ education, but school and district engagement structures often do not reflect families’ priorities and experiences. The ways families and communities engage with schools are shaped by the realities facing racially minoritized and marginalized communities, including concerns about safety, language access, work schedules, immigration enforcement, displacement, school closures, and inequitable educational structures. Despite these challenges, California families maintain key connections with their school communities, creating opportunities for deeper engagement and collaboration.
3. Authentic partnerships with families and communities may support stronger student outcomes, school climate, and trust. Evidence from culturally rooted community partnerships and community schools shows that engagement can move beyond one-way communication when families and community partners help identify needs, shape decisions, and build relationships with schools.
