About Our Members

What Local Education Funds Do
Local education funds aim to change the status quo. LEFs work in eight outcome areas. These eight areas articulate the implicit outcomes of PEN’s seven strategic interventions and are clustered in relationship to the two arenas in which LEFs’ work contributes: the civic capacity and the school/district capacity.

Civic capacity is the extent to which different sectors of the community – business, parents, educators, state and local officeholders, nonprofits, and others – act together around matters of community-wide importance. This involves mobilization -- that is, bringing different sectors together - but also development of a shared plan of action. To be lasting, civic capacity needs an institutional foundation for interaction among elites, and a “grassroots” base through which ordinary citizens are engaged.

School district capacity involves the ability to set an overall direction that is well understood by staff at all levels of the district. It includes the ability to use data to make decisions about allocating resources and program directions, and leadership that supports ongoing innovation and learning. It translates into coherence across levels of the district, supporting program implementation and communication of clear expectations for student learning. And it involves coordination with relevant services in the community and a responsiveness to public and community concerns.
 

	Outcome of LEF Involvement 1. Wide public commitment to and shared agenda for public school improvement Many LEFs undertake strategies that contribute to building a community-wide agenda and commitment to school reform. • LEFs engage community members in public conversations to build consensus and a common sense of purpose. • LEFs build constituencies for advocacy and action.   2. Public confidence in the schools Among the functions LEFs were created to perform was to restore and build public confidence in the schools. Many LEF strategies build public confidence in the public schools by bringing expertise that builds legitimacy, attracts national attention, and links the district with national projects such as the Annenberg Challenge or important foundation initiatives. Characteristic strategies include: • LEFs monitor or assess the effectiveness of school districts. • LEFs bring groups with expertise in particular areas to lead or implement reform programs.   3. Infrastructure Civic mobilization for school reform is most likely to occur when there is long-standing organizational infrastructure to institutionalize the participation of civic actors. Where civic involvement is ad hoc, civic mobilization is weaker. LEFs use infrastructure in the following ways: • LEFs institutionalize business participation in school improvement efforts. • LEFs serve as a conduit for funds to the district for national initiatives.   4. Knowledge for school improvement Different actors in the community need knowledge in order to participate fully in efforts to improve schools and to hold the schools accountable for delivering on promises. Strategies that LEFs have used to provide information about school performance to a wide range of stakeholders include the following: • LEFs carry out or sponsor evaluations and assessments of school districts. • LEFs write and disseminate reports that address the need for policy changes.   5. Coordinated services for children & families In the education arena, comprehensive community initiatives have taken the form of schools that serve as community centers and offer multiple services to adults and youth, after-school programs, and programs to forge closer ties between schools and parents. LEFs have been involved in these initiatives in the following ways: • LEFs coordinate services for children and families. • LEFs build pathways to college for high school students.   6. Leadership development School reform research points to the importance of developing strong leadership for reform across the civic and school/district arenas. Leadership development empowers parents and community members to participate in efforts to improve neighborhood schools. LEFs have contributed to developing leaders in both the civic and school realms. Their strategies have included: • LEFs have supported the development of teacher networks. • LEFs support citizen participation in the political arena.   7. Authentic ideas for school improvement promoted and pursued through policy and programs As organizations with a long-term commitment to local districts, LEFs grapple with how to assure reform is actually implemented and sustained. LEFs strategies for authentic school improvement include the following: • LEFs promote, design, and implement whole-school change efforts. • LEFs promote policy change to support high quality curriculum.   8. Adequate resources equitably distributed In a climate where public spending on social services is shrinking as demands for accountability grow, schools need both more efficient systems and more resources. LEFs can provide external pressure and assistance in garnering new resources from national foundations and corporations as well as management assistance that may free up money spent on administration for use closer to the classroom. LEF strategies may also include mobilizing citizens through the power of the vote to support bond referenda or candidates favoring equitable distribution of resources. Strategies for providing new resources have included the following: • LEFs bring funding and resources from national foundations. • LEFs energize constituents to gain funding for public schools through participation in the political arena.