The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) revolutionized school assessment by emphasizing a comprehensive approach over No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) test-focused model. California shifted from NCLB's single-number school ratings to a multi-dimensional dashboard system to better assess school performance. However, ESSA's current draft regulations advocate for a single, summative rating for identifying struggling schools, contradicting the spirit of multiple measures. The approach of condensing diverse measures into one rating would yield misleading outcomes. For instance, PACE found that schools performing poorly on one indicator might fare well on others. Such simplification fails to identify struggling schools accurately, a crucial step for offering necessary support. PACE recommends a tiered approach, considering each indicator separately, rather than amalgamating them into a single score. California's pursuit of a detailed, dashboard-style accountability system aligns with this approach, offering a more nuanced understanding of school performance and supporting tailored improvement strategies. A dashboard not only informs parents better but also enables informed decisions on school choices, focusing on continuous improvement rather than misleading rankings.

This is one of the most exciting, daunting and critically important moments in California's education policy history. We are all in uncharted territory. Policymakers and educators at all levels of the system are wrestling with the virtually simultaneous implementation of four radically new and promising policy initiatives: the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); computer adaptive assessments developed by the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium; the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); and a new accountability system that focuses on Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and an evaluation rubric rather than the traditional Academic Performance Index (API) scores. The implementation of these major reforms has redefined the roles and responsibilities of virtually every education actor—from state policymakers to county superintendents to local school boards, teacher, and parents. States across the country are watching to see whether California will succeed in implementing these reforms and how they can replicate parts of what state superintendent Tom Torlakson calls "the California Way."

Principal turnover in the United States has become a pressing issue, with as many as 18% exiting schools annually, associated with detrimental effects like reduced student achievement and increased teacher turnover. While previous studies have focused on predictive models assuming a single type of exiting principal, this research delved into the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the 2008–09 Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to identify distinct categories among exiting principals: "Satisfied" and "Disaffected." Satisfied principals, comprising around two-thirds of exits, displayed high satisfaction, influence, and minimal school climate issues. In contrast, Disaffected principals, about one-third of exits, reported lower influence, negative attitudes, and more climate problems. Specifically, Disaffected principals felt restricted in setting curriculum and standards, lacked enthusiasm for their role, and often considered transferring out. The study highlights that universal approaches to address turnover might not effectively target the Disaffected minority, suggesting the need for tailored strategies to combat principal turnover.

A new study focuses on the anticipated advantages of charter schools compared to public schools, particularly in terms of teacher autonomy and accountability. While the charter school system was envisioned to provide educators with more freedom and responsibility, this research sought to verify these assumptions. Analyzing teacher survey data, the study found that teachers in charter schools indeed experienced more autonomy than those in public schools. However, there was no significant disparity in how accountable they felt. Interestingly, within the charter school realm, teachers in schools run by Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) reported less autonomy compared to teachers in independent charter schools, with a parallel level of accountability. The research suggests that excessive administrative red tape, especially prevalent in public schools and EMO-run charters, may hinder teacher autonomy. This raises concerns about the accountability aspect of the charter school arrangement and calls for improvements in both sectors. Public schools might benefit from reducing unnecessary administrative burdens to enhance teacher autonomy, while charter schools, especially EMO-run ones, need to address issues hindering teacher independence and accountability fulfillment.

Michael W. Kirst discusses the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the CA overhaul of accountability based on local control of education policy. The federal law requires multiple measures for accountability, including some with state choice. Databases for English learners will change significantly. Federal requirements for teacher evaluation will be deregulated significantly. State assessments are all over the place and will be hard to summarize. California is building an integrated federal/state/local accountability system that includes 23 metrics, primarily for local use in Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) that focus on improving budget strategy. Longitudinal data bases from the past will be difficult to integrate with these policy shifts.

Over the past two decades, charter schools emerged as part of school reform efforts, providing parental choice in education. However, research highlights that despite their intended autonomy and innovation, charter schools have often failed to offer sustainable working conditions for teachers. A new study, focusing on a Los Angeles charter school organization, delves into teachers' experiences leading to unionization in 2005, aiming to understand why choice-based environments pushed educators towards collective action. Teachers described a vibrant yet exhausting professional setting, lacking job security and facing longer working hours compared to district teachers. Despite initial collaboration with school leaders, teachers felt unheard about their working conditions, prompting unionization discussions. Over 60% of teachers voted for a union, desiring sustainable working conditions and a voice in decision-making. However, the governing board resisted, perceiving the union as an impediment to their flexibility. The study emphasizes the struggle of charter school teachers for equitable working conditions and the significance of their collective actions in achieving sustainability. This research remains pertinent in understanding charter school challenges, as highlighted by recent unionization attempts and legal disputes in Los Angeles charter schools.

For more than a decade, LGBTQ students have faced significant challenges in schools, enduring bullying and feeling unsafe, affecting their academic and mental well-being. California's groundbreaking law, AB-537, passed over 15 years ago, marked a pivotal moment, establishing comprehensive protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in education. In response, schools implemented inclusive measures such as teacher training, diverse curriculum, and support groups like gay-straight alliances (GSAs). While earlier studies focused on student perspectives, a recent study analyzes statewide data from over 3,700 teachers and nearly 100 principals in California. The findings reveal that schools emphasizing SOGI-inclusive policies experience reduced bullying, particularly in environments perceived as less safe by teachers, highlighting the significance of these policies in creating safer school climates. This research underscores the importance of combining and accessing varied data sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of school environments, ultimately shifting the focus from individual students to systemic approaches for creating inclusive and safe school environments for all students.

A new study examines charter school closures due to financial struggles and explores funding patterns impacting their viability. Analyzing nine years of finance data from California, it compares spending between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools, receiving 10% less per pupil in revenue, spend 23% less on instruction and 50% less on pupil support services. They allocate less to administrative costs but invest more in consulting services and operations. This suggests cost-saving strategies such as hiring less experienced teachers and employing part-time consultants. While this fiscal flexibility aids financial stability, it raises concerns. Lower spending on essential areas like instruction and support might affect school quality and academic performance. This challenges assumptions about charter schools' autonomy leading to higher spending on instruction. The findings imply a delicate balance between fiscal flexibility and educational quality in charter schools, highlighting potential sustainability concerns if lower spending compromises student outcomes.