The districts that have been in receivership in the State of California have a student population categorized as socioeconomically disadvantaged. While state receivership is triggered by fiscal insolvency, the school district in receivership is not performing to state standards according to the indicators on the California Dashboard (California Department of Education, 2021a). In order to return to local control and governance by a locally elected Board of Trustees, the district must meet its financial obligations and meet and maintain the Financial Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) review criteria. California Assembly Bill No. 1840 (Cal. 2018) shifted the power from the state level to the local county office. This shift infers that there is a difference in leadership at the state level and leadership at the local level, and suggests that more decentralized leadership, at the local level, will more effectively support the improvements necessary to move a district out of state receivership. By studying the leadership of a district governed by A.B. No. 1840 (Cal. 2018) and the impact of the decentralization of leadership of chronically failing or struggling districts, I learned the policy levers available to policymakers when this happens. The district must spend significant amounts of money to pay back loans and for costly reviews. This is money that is not going toward improving learning and school experience.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:lmu.edu/oai:digitalcommons.lmu.edu:etd-2155 |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| Creators | Atkins, Megan Marie |
| Publisher | Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School |
| Source Sets | Loyola Marymount University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | LMU/LLS Theses and Dissertations |
Page generated in 0.0485 seconds