CFE and Public Engagement

In connection with its legal challenge to New York State’s education finance system, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity ("CFE") has launched an innovative process of public dialogue on education and funding reform at the outset of its lengthy litigation. This Public Engagement Process (“PEP”) brought together a diverse coalition of groups and individuals to develop comprehensive reform positions, part of which was presented to the court as remedial proposals in the CFE v. State lawsuit.

Across the nation, public engagement is playing a critical role in fiscal equity reform. In Kentucky, a non-partisan coalition known as the Prichard Committee conducted extensive statewide dialogues that directly influenced the state supreme court’s remedial order. Public engagement campaigns in Ohio, South Carolina, Washington and other states have demonstrated the power of dialogue between diverse groups to promote education and funding reform. In New York, public engagement and community organizing was utilized by groups like the Alliance for Quality Education, Citizen Action, and NYU’s Institute for Education and Social Policy.

After studying these public engagement efforts, CFE designed a process tailored to the unique relationship between the enormous New York City school district and the rest of the state. In addition, CFE also sought to involve the public directly in developing policy positions, some of which were presented to the court at trial.

Why public engagement? and what problem does public engagement seek to address? The intransigence of the educational system and the secrecy in which its funding is arranged cry out for innovative approaches which will foster change and empower the public on the key issue of education finance. The absence of public participation has been a central and long-standing flaw in New York’s education finance system. Reintroducing public participation to this process enables the public to be heard in their call for change. Public engagement represents simultaneously a method by which citizens can reclaim a voice in the educational system and a process for communication in which citizens are engaged in articulating the impact of education funding, particularly on low-income communities, and in developing approaches to overcome that adverse impact.

CFE’s unique melding of litigation, advocacy and public engagement was based on extensive review of the pattern of success or failure in the approximately 25 other states where courts have ordered reform of state education funding formulas. This research indicates that no lasting, broad-based reforms can be enacted without the participation and support of the broad range of stakeholders in the education system – including parents, teachers, administrators, students, advocates, business leaders, and other community representatives.

This perceived need for grassroots input – both in the context of education reform and in other areas – has led to wide interest in new forms of “public dialogue”(1) that would empower large groups of citizens at the local level to participate directly in basic public policy-making. In recent years, a range of “public engagement” techniques reflecting these concepts has been used to resolve environmental disputes, to improve community/police relations, and to reduce tensions in racial disputes. The most extensive application of these techniques, however, has been in educational settings. In recent years, groups like Public Agenda, the Institute for Educational Leadership, Phi Delta Kappa, the National PTA, and Study Circles have conducted hundreds of public engagement encounters in school districts throughout the country, involving thousands of parents, teachers, administrators, and community representatives in public engagement encounters on education issues.

CFE’s advocacy model of public engagement was designed to build on – and improve upon – past experience with public engagement in the educational context. The general consensus of the commentators evaluating public engagement in this setting has been that “[w]hen all kinds of people develop trust and relationships through face-to-face dialogue, new ideas and approaches emerge . . . [and] they uncover common ground and find better solutions.”(2) At the same time, however, there also has been broad agreement that the ultimate outcome of these experiences often has been frustrating both for their organizers and their participants. After studying more than 170 experiences with public engagement in education throughout the country, the Annenberg Institute for School Reform noted in the late 1990’s, “Few public engagement efforts studied for this project have yet achieved an environment in which the schools and their community routinely and intentionally deliberate and decide together on what kind of schooling they want for their children.”(3) An evaluation report for one project concluded that what the organizers failed to do from the outset “was help the community conceive of a long-term strategy grown out of the engagement.”(4)

What is the theory of change here? Over the past decade, CFE developed a model of public engagement – the advocacy model – that is geared precisely toward involving the community in “a long-term strategy growing out of the engagement.” CFE’s approach utilized the insights, experiences and techniques developed by Public Agenda, Study Circles and other such groups, but organized and implemented them as a deliberate “theory of change.” This theory of change, in CFE’s terms, was a conscious attempt to organize all aspects of public engagement – its goals, its techniques, its outcomes – to promote concrete outcomes. Frank, open conversation can indeed inspire people to reach new understandings and find important areas of common ground. But unless these ideas and understandings are tied to real reform efforts and have a positive impact on student achievement, people are going to quickly lose interest in taking part in these meetings.

What has been the impact? The impact of this extensive public engagement process has been profound and far-reaching. First, the public engagement process brought the education finance system to a previously unattainable level of accessibility to the general public. Information about this system was transmitted to all who have attended CFE’s public forums or seen CFE’s reports on education finance or media coverage of CFE’s activities.

Second, in CFE’s citizen engagement forums, a series of important policy positions were articulated by participants – positions that were subsequently presented by CFE to the judge at the trial, and largely adopted by the Court in its decision. These policy positions include: the definition of “sound basic education,” basic guidelines for reforming the current New York State education finance system, the need to specifically determine the actual costs of providing adequate resources to meet the educational needs of students in all communities around the state, and the importance of developing a new statewide accountability process to ensure that additional funds stemming from the litigation result in demonstrable improvement in student achievement in inner city, rural and other low-achieving areas.

Third, by conducting public engagement efforts statewide, CFE helped to dispel the previous perception that school funding reform is only a “New York City issue” and raised public awareness that the reform process will also benefit schools and communities in rural areas, upstate cities, and long-neglected educational enclaves in suburban areas across the state. These citizen engagement and outreach activities helped to substantially overcome the upstate/downstate confrontations that have historically stymied education reform in New York State.

Finally, this public engagement process helped to create in New York State an active statewide mobilization for reform that is supported both by the general public and by CFE’s major public engagement partners, including the League of Women Voters of New York State, the New York State School Boards Association, the Midstate School Finance Consortium, the Alliance for Quality Education, the New York State PTA, and the Urban League.

More on the history of CFE's Public Engagement.

Footnotes:
1. Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart 218 (1985). See also, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Democracy for a New Age (1984); David Mathews, Politics for People (1994); Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000).

Americans today seem cynical and apathetic about participating in politics and policy-making. U.S. Census Bureau reports indicate that the number of citizens voting in Congressional elections has fallen 25% in the past three decades. This pattern of non-involvement stems in large degree from the fact that ordinary citizens have been denied any real opportunities to take part in political decision-making, which in recent years has been monopolized by elite groups of politicians, lobbyists, businessmen and media moguls.

Whatever its cause, widespread awareness of civic apathy has led to a growing interest in new ways to promote active involvement of ordinary citizens in the making of public policy. This renewed interest in public participation stems partially from a continuing commitment to the democratic ideal of citizen participation. It is also related to a realization by those in authority that although they may be able to make decisions without public input, often they cannot carry them out without public support. Similarly, accelerating racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in all of our institutions has also led to a rising awareness of the need for cultural sensitivity in policy-making and policy implementation.

2. Study Circles Resource Center, Dialogue and Action to Help Every Student Succeed 5 (2001).

3. Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Reasons for Hope, Voices for Change 10 (1998).

4. Will Friedman and Aviva Gutnick, with Jackie Danzberger, “Public Engagement in Education: A White Paper Prepared for The Ford Foundation by Public Agenda 49 (1999).