Understanding school finance in California can feel complex. One major factor is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Enacted over a decade ago, this system changed how the state allocates funds to school districts and charter schools. It provides a base amount for every student, plus additional resources for those with greater needs while giving local communities more authority over spending. By focusing on equity and local control, LCFF encourages districts to prioritize programs that directly support student success.
For administrators and staff, LCFF shapes decisions about budgets, services, and compliance with state requirements. It is designed to address the needs of low-income students, English learners, and foster youth. Through its emphasis on local decision-making and accountability, LCFF aims to help California’s public schools improve student academic achievement and overall educational outcomes.
The Story Behind the Local Control Funding Formula
Before 2013, California’s school funding model relied on historical revenue limits and a long list of categorical programs, each with restrictive rules for spending funds. Districts serving similar student populations often received vastly different allocations, and those with many low-income students or English learners sometimes struggled with limited resources. This approach was seen as too complex and uneven.
Governor Jerry Brown advocated for a simpler and more equitable system. He believed local districts best understood their own priorities. In 2013, he signed LCFF into law to steer more funding toward districts with greater populations of high-need students while reducing rigid state oversight. Along with Common Core standards and new assessments, LCFF became a defining shift in how California handles education policy. By giving local education agencies more flexibility, the state sought to direct resources toward historically underserved groups in a straightforward way.
Learn more about the history of LCFF here.
What are Local Control Funding Formula Entitlement Components?
Under LCFF, most funding is tied to Average Daily Attendance and specific student characteristics. The formula includes several core components:
Base Grants
- This is the foundational funding amount districts receive for every student. The amount differs by grade span, so a high school student generates a slightly higher base grant than a student in the early grades. Students in kindergarten through grade three also receive an additional amount meant to support smaller class sizes.
Supplemental Grants
- Districts get extra funding for each low-income, English learner, or foster youth student. The formula provides an additional 20 percent of the base grant for these unduplicated students, helping districts offer more targeted support to address extra needs.
Concentration Grants
- If a district’s percentage of high-need students exceeds 55 percent of total enrollment, it receives even more funds. This amount is 65 percent of the base grant for each student above that threshold. The goal is to help schools in communities with concentrated poverty or large numbers of English learners and foster youth.
A few older funding streams continue under LCFF, such as transportation and certain block grants. These represent a small fraction of the total. The state phased in LCFF between 2013 and 2018, ensuring no district received less money than it did under the prior system.
Read more about LCFF entitlement components here.
Understanding Local Control Funding Formula Impact
Since its implementation, LCFF has transformed California’s education funding landscape. Research indicates that districts receiving larger increases under LCFF often saw stronger outcomes in areas such as test scores and graduation rates. Although achievement gaps continue in many schools, studies have noted measurable improvements where high-need students gain access to better support.
LCFF also shifted how districts plan their budgets. Each creates a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) that outlines specific goals for student achievement, school climate, community engagement, and other state priorities. The LCAP details how funds will support these objectives, emphasizing transparency and local input. This approach leads many administrators to rethink their strategies by investing in programs such as smaller classes, targeted academic support, or afterschool initiatives that reach the most vulnerable student populations.
While administrators often appreciate the flexibility built into LCFF, some still feel the base grant remains too low to cover essential needs. Others point out that wealthier areas can use local funds to boost spending further, which continues to create funding gaps between certain communities. Despite these concerns, LCFF has generally made the state’s overall distribution of school funding more equitable than before.
Read more about LCFF impact here.
Local Control Funding Formula Pros and Cons
Many school leaders see LCFF as a more equitable approach than the old revenue limit and categorical systems. They note the formula’s increased emphasis on local control, the significant attention to high-need students, and simpler allocations. By focusing on outcomes, LCFF encourages teachers, administrators, and parents to collaborate on meaningful goals.
On the plus side:
- It directs resources to students with the highest needs, creating a more equitable funding system
- It provides local districts with more flexibility to invest in their own priorities
- It promotes community engagement through the LCAP process
- It moves the focus away from compliance and toward student outcomes
- It consolidates many categorical programs into a single framework
On the downside:
- Base funding may not be enough to cover essential costs in high-cost regions
- The LCAP requirements can be time-consuming and administratively complex
- Meaningful community engagement can be difficult to achieve in larger districts
- Ensuring that supplemental funds more accurately target high-need students can be challenging
- Districts with strong local fundraising efforts can still outspend lower-income areas
Read more about LCFF pros and cons here.
Local Control Funding Formula Class Size Reduction
LCFF includes an incentive to keep kindergarten through grade three classes smaller. Districts receive additional money if they keep an average class size near 24 or fewer students in these early grades. This feature called the K through 3 Grade Span Adjustment, replaced the Class Size Reduction program that once aimed for a 20 to 1 ratio. It recognizes that younger learners benefit from closer teacher attention, although this goal sometimes bumps against staffing or facility limits.
To retain the extra funds, districts must meet the 24 to 1 average or negotiate a different agreement with their local union. Many see smaller classes as an important strategy to strengthen foundational reading, math, and social skills. At the same time, administrators must balance these staffing needs against overall budgets and the availability of qualified teachers. Whether or not a district meets this threshold can have significant financial consequences, so class size planning often remains a high priority under LCFF.
Read more about LCFF class size reduction here.
How LAUSD Manages Local Control Funding Formula
Los Angeles Unified School District provides a clear example of LCFF in practice. With over 80 percent of its students qualifying as low-income, English learners, or foster youth, LAUSD receives over one billion dollars in supplemental and concentration grants. These funds are then allocated to individual campuses using a Student Equity Need Index (SENI), which measures academic performance and community conditions to determine which schools need the most resources.
The district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan relies on parent committees, regional meetings, and online surveys to gather input. Many initiatives focus on boosting graduation rates, enhancing college readiness, and providing mental health support. LAUSD has faced questions about whether some of its spending truly targeted high-need students, but there have been gains in graduation rates and test scores that officials credit in part to LCFF’s added resources. A state review of LCFF data in large urban districts indicates similar successes in other districts that used these funds to expand intervention programs.
Read more about how LAUSD manages LCFF here.
Understanding, Finding, and Using Supplemental LCFF Funds
Afterschool coordinators and administrators who manage ELOP, ASES, and 21st CCLC programs can benefit significantly from supplemental and concentration grants. These funds must be used to expand or improve services for unduplicated students, which include low-income students, English learners, and foster youth. Leaders generally begin by determining how much of this funding their district receives. The Local Control and Accountability Plan and the LCFF Budget Overview for Parents can reveal detailed allocations.
It is often helpful to align afterschool or summer initiatives with district goals since LCFF prioritizes programs that address local challenges. Administrators might propose afterschool tutoring to improve test scores, additional staff for family outreach, or mentorship activities for foster youth. The district may also assign supplemental funds to targeted services such as mental health counseling, intervention classes, or bilingual family coordinators. When these expenditures align with the district’s priorities, they tend to receive stronger support.
Clear documentation is essential for tracking how these funds address the needs of specific student groups. Administrators can coordinate supplemental grants with other funding sources, such as Title I or ASES, to avoid duplication and spread the impact more widely. Many districts have found that careful planning and data collection help them demonstrate progress to county offices and the broader community.
Here are a few ideas for making the most of supplemental LCFF dollars:
- Boost extended learning by adding academic tutoring or enrichment activities
- Provide targeted professional development in language development and cultural competence
- Add counselors or bilingual family liaisons to meet specific student needs
- Expand mental health services by hiring psychologists or social workers
- Strengthen community engagement with local partnerships and family outreach programs
Learn more about LCFF’s supplemental funding here.
Moving Forward with Local Control Funding Formula
LCFF has altered how California’s schools approach budgeting and accountability. It established a more direct way to allocate funds for high need students, along with the freedom for districts to pursue local strategies. Through the LCAP process, administrators, teachers, and parents can identify pressing challenges and design solutions that fit their students. This framework encourages strong partnerships and data-driven decision making.
Some people view LCFF as a clear success in equalizing funding across communities that used to have far fewer resources. Others want to see higher base grant amounts so that all students benefit, regardless of local fundraising capabilities. In practice, administrators often face the challenge of balancing broader programs with the added support that high-needs students require. Without a sufficient foundation for all, supplemental funds may end up covering basic costs instead of expanding unique services.
Even so, the principles behind LCFF have pushed districts toward more transparent spending decisions and community participation. Many schools now have robust afterschool or intervention programs that might not have existed under the old system. By continuing to refine how they invest these dollars, administrators can optimize opportunities for every student. LCFF serves as a reminder that targeted funding, backed by inclusive planning and transparent oversight, can spark positive change for public schools.
