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.

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.

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.

Researchers conducted an experiment to determine if incentives could improve low-income students' attendance in tutoring programs provided through Supplemental Education Services (SEdS). Three groups of 5th-8th graders were formed: one offered a $100 reward for regular attendance, another receiving certificates of recognition, and a control group without incentives. Surprisingly, the monetary reward didn't increase attendance, while the certificate group attended 40% more sessions than the control. This contrasts with past studies showing monetary incentives for improved test scores as ineffective, suggesting that mere rewards may not enhance skills without additional support. The certificate approach proved cost-effective, costing $9 per student versus $100 for the monetary incentive. However, wider implementation's effectiveness might diminish due to students' varied perceptions of recognition's value, related to existing academic achievements or repeated rewards. The study's success suggests non-monetary incentives are effective and inexpensive. Policymakers and educators seeking to boost student participation in underutilized programs should consider these findings, emphasizing nuanced research into varying incentives' effectiveness and cost-efficiency to motivate student engagement. Despite these promising results, a comprehensive solution requires a deeper understanding of how different incentives affect diverse student populations and their sustained impact over time.

A meta-analysis of 53 cases from 34 publications aimed to understand the impact of school suspensions on student outcomes. It found a consistent negative link between suspensions, particularly out-of-school ones, and academic achievement. Additionally, though data was limited, out-of-school suspension showed a positive association with dropout rates. Factors like gender, race, and socio-economic status influenced these relationships, indicating varied impacts on different groups. The study refrains from making causal conclusions, but it suggests that suspensions might contribute to lower achievement due to reduced learning opportunities and disengagement from school. Disproportionate suspension rates among low-income, urban, and minority students raise equity concerns. Encouragingly, California's limitations on suspension for minor disruptions might be a progressive step. The study advocates for evidence-based strategies focusing on behavior improvement, alternatives to suspension, better educator training, and consistent review of disciplinary data for informed decision-making to reduce suspension rates and their negative impacts on students.