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.

This brief summarizes findings from three surveys on county offices of education's (COEs) response to Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Statewide System of Support (SSS) implementation. Most county superintendents are supportive of the state's policy direction, recognize the scale of change needed to implement LCFF and SSS, and acknowledge that full implementation is still in progress. They are also aware of the need for changes in their COEs' organization and operation, as well as in their relationships with other agencies.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides base funding and grants for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth, and allows local school systems to allocate resources as they see fit. The LCFFRC conducted a survey of 350 California superintendents to understand their experiences with and views of the law. Results inform policymakers and indicate areas where changes may be needed. The survey sample included districts of varying sizes and proportions of unduplicated students.

This report analyzes the predictive value of the Smarter Balanced Assessment, high school GPA, and SAT scores on early college outcomes for California State University and University of California, Davis students. The study examines differences among student subgroups, including race/ethnicity and socioeconomic disadvantage, and provides insights into how well the Smarter Balanced Assessment measures up to other commonly used assessments for predicting college success.

California's LCFF is a significant change in education finance and governance that sends funds to districts based on student need and eliminates most categorical funding. The LCFF requires districts to engage with stakeholders and develop a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCFF Research Collaborative identified districts with innovative implementation efforts in stakeholder engagement, implementation of California State Standards, and resource allocation decision-making. These positive examples can serve as models for others to learn and improve from.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) aims to improve educational equity by providing additional funds to districts with disadvantaged students. Districts are required to engage with their communities and develop Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to identify priorities and allocate funds. However, there are concerns about the quality of LCAPs, lack of stakeholder involvement, and limited transparency. To improve the effectiveness of LCFF, districts must ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement and use data to guide decision-making.

The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in CA has demanded significant changes in teaching and learning, but has also faced challenges due to contextual factors and the simultaneous implementation of other major policy initiatives. Many educators report a lack of high-quality instructional materials and professional development, and rely on peer support for curriculum development. The successful implementation of CCSS requires a shared understanding and uniform practices across districts, which is a complex and demanding skill set for educational agencies and practitioners.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) gives districts funding authority and requires input from stakeholders to create Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for equitable resource allocation and improved student outcomes. This report explores stakeholder engagement, implementation challenges, resource allocation, and equity using eight case studies. Despite limitations, this study offers valuable insights into California's K-12 education system's finance and governance.

The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) in California and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) encourage local control in school accountability. The CORE waiver districts have implemented an innovative measurement system and supports for school and district improvement, providing an opportunity to learn from the enactment of a system supported by accountability policy in this new era. This report examines the early implementation and effects of the CORE reform and seeks to inform the ongoing efforts within CORE and future accountability policy in other states and districts.

California and the US are undergoing a cultural shift in school accountability policies towards locally-determined measures of school performance. Lessons can be learned from the CORE districts, which developed an innovative accountability system, emphasizing support over sanctions, and utilizing multiple measures of school quality. The CORE districts' measurement system and collaboration hold promise for improving local systems, but efforts to build capacity remain a work in progress.

California has adopted new Common Core State Standards (CCSS), English Language Development (ELD) standards, and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The state has provided funding to support CCSS implementation, and new curriculum frameworks are nearing completion. The report focuses on early implementers of CCSS to identify lessons learned and potential pitfalls, aiming to inform practitioners and policymakers about the variety of CCSS implementation strategies California school districts are choosing.

The LAUSD invested over $19B to build 130 new facilities to relieve overcrowded schools. A PACE policy brief analyzed its effects on student achievement and found robust gains for many elementary-school pupils who switched from old to new facilities. However, significant gains were limited to elementary school students and new high school facilities produced weak and inconsistent achievement gains. The report also tracked thousands of students who moved from overcrowded to new facilities over the 2002-2008 period.

This paper examines the impact of pupil mobility in urban districts like Los Angeles, where families are encouraged to switch schools due to the growth of mixed-markets of charter, magnet, and pilot schools. African American and White students are more likely to exit their schools, while overcrowding in low-income Latino neighborhoods leads to higher exit rates. Charter and magnet school students exit less. The district's commitment to relieve overcrowding leads to Latino students moving to newly built schools. The opening of new high schools reduced pupil mobility.

This working paper examines the use of Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) funds, which allocated $2.6B over seven years to California's lowest-performing schools. The authors conducted a study of four Los Angeles high schools to investigate how QEIA dollars were spent in the first year, who made the decisions, and how funds were used to improve teaching and the instructional program. The study found that district officials and principals had discretion in allocating funds, consistent with recent efforts to deregulate categorical-aid programs and give local educators fiscal discretion.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has undergone decades of reform, resulting in an unstable atmosphere rather than institutional stability. A recent book, "Learning from L.A.: Institutional Change in Public Education," identifies five policy levers that can create a more effective educational system and a new institutional structure for public education, both in LA and beyond.

This report on San Francisco County’s CARES program (SF CARES) provides guidance for policymakers, program administrators, and childcare advocates planning similar initiatives. PACE collected feedback from program planners, stipend recipients, and other childcare community members on aspects of the planning and implementation process. SF CARES successfully distributed over 400 stipends in the program’s first year, but challenges remain in reaching a broader array of childcare providers and communicating program goals.