Optimists believe AI will partner with teachers to provide customized learning resources, digital tutors, and innovative experiences tailored to individual students’ needs. Pessimists express concerns about the potential dehumanization of education, arguing that AI could increase students' reliance on digital tools, reduce meaningful human interactions, and perpetuate biases and misinformation. In this article, the authors highlight the need for education leaders and policymakers to navigate the use of AI with care, balancing its transformative potential with its inherent risks.

Within the TeachAI Policy Workgroup, PACE has facilitated the development of AI policy informational briefs aimed at ensuring the effective, safe, and responsible integration of AI in education. These briefs offer guidance to education leaders and policymakers, emphasizing the importance of crafting policies that prioritize teaching and learning. The briefs provide insights derived from current research and landscape analysis of AI use in TK–12 educational settings, addressing common questions and centering around five guiding principles for developing responsible AI policies in education.

TeachAI—in collaboration with Code.org, CoSN, Digital Promise, the European EdTech Alliance, James Larimore, and PACE—has launched an AI Guidance for Schools Toolkit to help school systems worldwide meet the urgent need for guidance on the safe, effective, and responsible use of artificial intelligence.It helps education authorities, school leaders, teachers, and others create thoughtful guidance to help their communities realize the potential benefits of incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) in education while understanding and mitigating the potential risks.

Declining student enrollment is leading to a loss of revenue in many California school districts. To address ongoing budget shortfalls, many districts have consolidated or shuttered schools,and others are contemplating doing so. A new report and working paper, summarized in this brief, explore the racial dimensions of school closures and how to address them.

Enrollment in California public schools has been declining and is projected to fall even more steeply during the next decade. Because funding for school districts is largely based on average daily attendance rates, a decline in enrollment results in a loss of funding. To address budget shortfalls and align services with student counts, many districts have consolidated or closed schools, or they are contemplating doing so.

This study investigates racial disparities in school closures both within California and nationally. Findings highlight an alarming pattern: Schools enrolling higher proportions of Black students are at significantly increased risk of closure relative to those enrolling fewer Black students, a pattern that is more pronounced in California than elsewhere in the United States. The findings underscore that school closures in California and elsewhere reflect racial inequalities that require adequate policymaking to ensure equitable and fair school-closure proceedings.

This chapter in an edited book focuses on the work of two improvement network hubs in California as they tried to support participating districts and schools to improve the proportion of students “on-track” for post-secondary success. California has a particular stake in figuring out how to support districts in consistently using continuous improvement (CI) to achieve measurable gains in student outcomes because state policy (e.g., Local Control Funding Formula, California’s Every Student Succeeds Act Plan) prescribes CI as the approach to improvement in its accountability system.

Collaborative networks using continuous improvement principles can accelerate and spread learning. This brief highlights the importance of understanding the benefits of collaboration, building a culture of trust and vulnerability, and engaging in true collaborative work, not just "show and tell." These lessons can help network members work together effectively to improve outcomes for students in changing conditions.

This report examines the early implementation of California's Statewide System of Support, which is designed to empower local educators in determining the best approaches to improvement. While COEs and district officials hold positive views of the system's emphasis on support over compliance, they have concerns about under-resourcing and the effectiveness of the Dashboard measurement tool. The report provides five recommendations to make the System of Support a more comprehensive system aligned with the Local Control Funding Formula.

California does not use a student-level growth model to measure school performance, which is uncommon among states. This brief refutes common beliefs about growth models and provides evidence that they are inaccurate or unsupported. It suggests that California should adopt a growth model to replace the current "change" metric in the California School Dashboard, with student-growth percentiles and residual-gain growth models as two specific models that would more accurately identify schools that require support.

This brief analyzes the 2018 update of the California School Dashboard, examining improvements and areas for continued enhancement. Using data from the 2019 PACE/USC Rossier poll, the author characterizes use of and support for the Dashboard, finding low use, equity gaps, but high support and preference for the new Dashboard.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) shifts control of education dollars to local districts, enhancing resource allocation practices. However, inadequate base funds may constrain progress. Stakeholder engagement is evolving yet remains challenging, and school board involvement is typically modest. LCFF communication and accountability mechanisms receive mixed reviews. County offices of education have expanded their role but will need to increase their capacity. Public awareness of the LCFF lags, but it enjoys substantial support.

Continuous improvement in education involves engaging stakeholders in problem-solving to discover, implement, and spread evidence-based changes that work locally to improve student success. California sees it as central to enduring education transformation. It requires an initial significant investment in time and money to make it a reality, but can improve education quality. However, California's data systems are inadequate for helping districts monitor progress, and more training and coaching are needed to build expertise for statewide implementation.

CA is shifting the responsibility for school improvement to local school districts with County Offices of Education playing a supportive role. The focus is on local leaders driving educational improvement and ensuring quality. Strategic data use is central to the implementation of this policy, with questions remaining about what data is needed, by whom, and for what purpose. This paper provides a framework for how data use for improvement is different from data use for accountability and shares lessons from the CORE Data Collaborative on how to use data for improvement in networked structures.