DEMOCRATIZING SCHOOLS - The Participatory Budgeting Project

DEMOCRATIZING SCHOOLS
W I T H PA RT I C I PATO RY B U D G E T I N G
JUNE 4, 2015
Participatory Budgeting Project
ABOUT PBP
H I S TO R Y
Founded in 2009, incorporated as nonprofit
in 2011
MISSION
To empower people to decide together how
to spend public money.
WHERE WE
WORK
Across the US and Canada, with staff in New
York City, Oakland, and Chicago
Participatory Budgeting Project | participatorybudgeting.org | @PBProject
Webinar Logistics
•  During the presentation, everyone will be muted to reduce
background noise.
•  Please hold questions until after the presentation.
•  During the Q&A, “raise your hand” to ask a question by clicking
the hand button in your control panel. You can also type in
questions and comments in the chat window.
•  If you’re calling through a computer, please turn off your
speakers when you speak to prevent feedback
DEMOCRATIZING SCHOOLS:
Presenters
•  Ginny Browne
Participatory Budgeting Project
•  Rosa De Leon
Californians for Justice
•  Amanda Long
Embarc Chicago
•  Mia Salamone
Mikva Challenge
DEMOCRATIZING SCHOOLS
AGENDA
1)  Welcome & Introductions
2)  Participatory Budgeting 101
3)  Models of PB in K-12 Schools
4)  Case Study: Overfelt High School, San Jose, CA
5)  Case Study: Sullivan High School, Chicago, IL
6)  Questions & Discussion
WHAT IS
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING?
Participatory Budgeting Project | participatorybudgeting.org | @PBProject
WHAT IS
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING?
Making REAL DECISIONS about
REAL MONEY
An ANNUAL CYCLE
Usually for
PART OF A BUDGET
NOT a consultation
NOT a one-off event
NOT the whole budget
Participatory Budgeting Project | participatorybudgeting.org | @PBProject
HOW DOES IT WORK?
STEP 1: Idea Collection
STEP 2: Proposal Development
STEP 3: Public Vote
STEP 4: Implementation & Monitoring
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
IN NORTH AMERICA
PB IN SCHOOLS
Diverse Models…
I.  What pot of money is allocated?
II.  Who participates?
III.  In what institution is the PB process based?
PB IN SCHOOLS
What pot of money is allocated?
School district budget
School budget
PTA budget
Student Government budget
Other city or county funds
Newcastle, UK
PB IN SCHOOLS
Who participates?
Key stakeholders in the
educational community,
including:
•  Students
•  Parents
•  Teachers
•  Staff
New York City
PB IN SCHOOLS
Where is the process based?
Individual School
Icons designed by Paul Souders and Jennifer Wong, from the Noun Project
School District
Model: School District
Example: Poitou-Charentes, France
•  Regional government in western
France (pop: 1.6 million) funds and
maintains 93 public high schools.
•  Used PB since 2005 for 10% of
regional budget for high schools
•  All stakeholders participate: students,
teachers, parents, school staff.
•  1800 projects funded including
facilities improvements, wifi
installation, curricular materials and
sports programs
CASE STUDY: PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING AT OVERFELT
HIGH SCHOOL
SAN JOSE, CA
SPRING 2015
Community Project
Background
•  Californians for Justice leaders and staff conducted
research to identify models of meaningful engagement
for parents and students through the new school funding
system in California (LCFF).
•  State only required parent engagement, we wanted to identify a
way in which parent and student voice would be heard, valued
and reflected in budgeting decisions in their schools.
•  After finding out about Participatory Budgeting, we
conducted a demonstration of the process in March of
2014 with PBP at Overfelt High School with over 200
attendees representing community members and
decision makers in our district.
Advocacy to bring PB to
East San Jose
•  After the demonstrations, CFJ student
leaders made an ask to East Side
Union High School District
Superintendent and and local high
schools’ Principals to pilot
Participatory Budgeting.
•  We received interest from three
principals.
•  Principal Vito Chiala at Overfelt High
School agreed to pilot Participatory
Budgeting at Overfelt High, and
allocated $50,000 from the school’s
discretionary funds to implement
projects generated through the
process.
•  Californians for Justice committed to
lead the pilot process with support
from the Participatory Budgeting
Project.
Overfelt High School
•  High need school in the East Side Union High School
District, with a population of about 1500 students
•  96% of students are low income
•  28% English Learners
•  13% of students with disabilities
•  An opportunity to challenge negative stereotypes of
youth of color in our community and give a live example
of youth leadership and empowerment
•  Strong school leadership committed to student
engagement and empowerment
•  CFJ had a strong relationship with the administration of the
school
Overview of the Process
THINK IT, VOTE IT, DO IT!
Jan-March
Idea collection
Nov- Student-Adult
Steering Committee was
formed
Oct-Nov
Raised Awareness
Jan- Committee
developed rules
March-April
Develop Project
proposals
April Project Expo
& VOTE!
Summer
Evaluate &
Next Steps
Royals Rise Up Steering
Committee
•  Californians for Justice led most of the process with
support from the Participatory Budgeting Project.
•  We reached out to staff and students who represented
a key population of the school to invite them to join
the steering committee.
•  In November we developed a committee made up of 4
staff, 1 parent and 6 youth to drive the process.
•  The committee members represented Teachers, Classified
staff, Californians for Justice Club members, Parents, School
Site Council & Student Senate.
Role of the Steering
Committee
•  All Committee Members:
•  Developed the rules of the process
•  Gathered ideas and developed
ideas into project proposals
•  Planned school events
•  Consulted with the school
administration on projects being
developed
Students: Raised awareness in school about the process
Teachers: Engaged their students in voting process and got other staff
members to participate
Who Was Eligible to Par ticipate?
Any member of the Overfelt
community was eligible to
give ideas & vote.
•  Parents, Students, Teachers,
Classified Staff, Alumni,
Volunteers and Overfelt
Community Members.
•  Only parents, students, teachers
and classified staff were eligible
to be part of the steering
committee.
Project Proposals
Development
CRITERIA:
Ideas needed to address Academic success, Dropout
Prevention, Campus Improvement Projects,
Celebration of the schools’ History and Culture,
student empowerment & it should cost no more
than $50,000 to be implemented.
•  Ideas were narrowed down by
the steering committee.
•  Committee members
developed project proposals
•  In April, we held a project
exposition to share the final
proposals available for vote!
VOTING PROCESS
•  Everyone had two votes
•  Collected votes electronically
•  Cast over 500 votes, which is 1/3 of the school population
• 
83% Students, 5% Parents, 5% Teachers, 3% Staff & 1% Alumni
WINNING PROJECTS
•  Youth Drivers- Drivers
Education for 30
students, cost $10,000
•  Was expanded to 50 student
with the reminding $8,000
•  College Dream- California
college trips for 50
students, cost $20,000
•  New Sports Uniforms –
All students will get new
uniforms, cost $12,000
for 600 youth involved in
sports
Engagement through the
process
•  Throughout the process
we engaged over 700
Overfelt students, almost
half of the school
population.
•  Cast over 500 votes for
the project proposals!
•  Created a stronger
community, students felt
proud of their school and
challenged negative
stereotypes that exist
about them.
CASE STUDY:
SULLIVAN HIGH
SCHOOL
Chicago, IL
Spring 2015
Background
1.  What is Mikva Challenge?
a.  Mission
b.  Role in Sullivan
2.  PB in Ward 49
a.  History
b.  Funds
c.  Voter eligibility
d.  Youth role
i.  Research
ii.  Issue identification
iii.  Collaboration
iv.  Project proposal
development
v.  GOTV
vi.  Voting
vii.  Big win!
3.  Bringing the PB model to Sullivan
a.  Embarc/Mikva Partnership
Parameters of Process
●  Source of Funds
○  Discretionary Funding
○  LSC Involvement
●  Eligibility for Participation:
○  Embarc Students
○  Mikva Students as “Experts”
●  Timeline
○  Introductory Meetings with All Stakeholders
○  Introduction of PB to Students
○  Inquiry Process in Classroom: Identifying
Problem, Gathering Data, Data Analysis,
Planning, Presentations, Final Evaluation of
Work
○  Decision Maker Meetings
○  Campaign
○  Voting Process
○  Final Presentation to School
Who & How
1.  Partner Organizations
a.  Embarc
b.  Mikva
c.  Participatory Budgeting Chicago
d.  Ward 49
2.  Intersection of Roles
a.  2 Embarc classrooms
b.  Peer support from Mikva
Challenge students
c.  Maria Hadden’s classroom visits
d.  Ward 49 staff support
e.  Principal Adams as an advocate
Curriculum
●  Collaboration between Mikva,
Embarc, and the Participatory
Budgeting Project
●  Elements of Curriculum:
o  Calendar of Lesson Topics
and Important Dates
o  Daily Lesson Plans
o  Journals & Exit Slips
o  Resources
Quotes from students and staff
•  “Before PB, Overfelt was like a monarchy, where our principal had all the power
and was able to decide what happened in the school, but now that we have PB
even I as a student have the power to decide what I want to see happen”
Francisco Cortez, Freshman
•  “We have tried for a long time to eliminate the hierarchy in the school, as part of
that we created student senate. [With Participatory Budgeting] it was the first
time students felt as they were in the same level as adults [in the school]” Vito
Chiala, Overfelt High School Principal
•  “In our school we are low income and there is negative stereotypes about our
school and who we are, yet Mr. Chiala is trusting us to make decisions about our
education and never doubted parents and students like me would make the best
decisions, and that is being shown by the project proposals we all have the ability
to vote on” Stephania Perez, Sophomore
QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION
•  Ginny Browne
Participatory Budgeting Project
•  Amanda Long
Embarc Chicago
•  Rosa De Leon
Californians for Justice
•  Mia Salamone
Mikva Challenge
Participatory Budgeting Project | participatorybudgeting.org | @PBProject