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."

Evidence shows teachers often begin their careers near their hometowns, a phenomenon known as the "draw of home." This preference affects teacher distribution across districts. In Washington State, data indicates that a significant percentage of districts lack graduates from major teacher education programs, placing them at a hiring disadvantage. The draw of home is powerful, with new teachers ten times more likely to start in their hometown districts than 50 miles away. A new study suggests student teaching placements significantly influence initial job locations. In Washington, 15% of first teaching jobs occur where student teaching took place, while 40% are in the hosting district. Encouraging placements in needy districts could aid teacher hiring and performance. Novice teachers perform better in areas resembling their student teaching demographics. Purposeful placement in such districts could benefit both student teachers and these under-resourced areas. This strategy may improve job placement rates and enhance teacher effectiveness in needy districts.

A new study challenges the prevailing belief that improving school climate and reducing violence directly lead to enhanced academic performance. Analyzing data from California schools over time, it suggests a different causal relationship: improved academic performance appears to drive reduced violence and a better school climate, rather than the reverse. These findings underscore the importance of integrating social-emotional, climate, and violence reduction programs into broader academic reforms rather than treating them as separate entities. The study highlights the necessity of further research in diverse settings using both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand this causal process thoroughly. It emphasizes that schools striving for academic improvement should consider addressing issues of climate and victimization as part of their academic reform efforts, highlighting the potential positive impact on teacher-student relationships. Additionally, the study proposes integrating measures of climate, violence, and academics within state accountability systems, aligning with the Every Student Succeeds Act, to support school improvement initiatives. Such an integrated approach, the study argues, will not only enhance academic outcomes but also ensure student safety, support well-being, and foster positive behaviors.

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.

New research into the substantial population of current and former English learners (ELs), making up 40% of California's public-school attendees, emphasizes the vital need for equitable policies promoting both English proficiency and academic success among ELs. The study explores effective strategies concerning EL reclassification, use of native language, core curriculum access, and assessment. The research sheds light on the average duration for reclassification from EL to fluent English proficiency, highlighting the potential benefits of bilingual education programs over English immersion regarding reclassification rates. Researchers advocate for alignment between reclassification criteria and English proficiency constructs, stressing the importance of coordinated services during the EL and Fluent English Proficient (FEP) stages. Additionally, the study underscores the positive impact of bilingual education and dual immersion programs on EL academic outcomes while emphasizing the necessity for fair assessment accommodations, acknowledging potential biases in standardized tests and the significance of tailored accommodations for EL students. This comprehensive approach aims to guide policymakers and educators toward diverse policies and services for enhancing EL academic achievements.

Researchers explore the effectiveness of different preschool pathways for low-income children, specifically comparing Head Start and state pre-kindergarten (pre–k) programs. They assess the impact of funding two years of Head Start versus a combination of one year of Head Start followed by one year of pre–k. Analyzing data from an Oklahoma pre–k study, the team investigates the outcomes of children who experienced Head Start at age 3 transitioning to pre–k at age 4 against those who continued Head Start at age 4. Their findings reveal that children attending Head Start at age 3 and moving to pre-k at age 4 exhibit stronger pre-reading skills than those in Head Start at age 4. Notably, the effect of pre–k on early reading skills exceeds that of Head Start by a significant margin. The difference in program design and curriculum experiences at age 4 seems to influence these variations in skill development. The study emphasizes the importance of exploring these preschool pathways further across diverse program settings to comprehend their distinct impacts and the underlying reasons for their effectiveness.