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.

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) is a consortium of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from USC Rossier, Stanford, and UC Davis Schools of Education working to improve education policy in California. PACE's focus has been the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which changed the state's K-12 budget allocation. The consortium's strength is in its ability to get research into the hands of decision makers, especially in Southern California, where over a quarter of the state's K-12 students reside.

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.

American schools have long suffered from inequitable distribution of funding, resources, and effective teachers. The LCFF reform in California is a promising solution to address achievement gaps for high-need students, but successful implementation is critical. Research has found that stakeholder engagement, explicit equity frameworks, and evidence-based programs are crucial to ensure positive impact. Studies have also revealed challenges such as underspending funds and insufficient stakeholder engagement, highlighting the need for continuous improvement.

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.

ESSA allows states to design accountability systems and measures to meet new college and career readiness goals. With the lack of adequate measures, states will need to develop new measures and structures. The CORE Districts in CA, with its innovative accountability system and waivers from No Child Left Behind, is a model for other states. Reports from CORE-PACE highlight the impact of decisions such as subgroup sizes and test score growth on identifying low-performing schools. States can use the district waiver provision to help develop and refine their accountability systems under ESSA.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) replaced categorical funding for schools in California in 2013, providing flexibility, targeted student funding, and local accountability. Two years in, research shows optimism and concern. The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) faces challenges, stakeholders need more engagement, and implementation requires capacity and overcoming the emerging teacher shortage. Public awareness of LCFF lags at 65%.

Policy changes in California create an opportunity to improve education for 1.4 million English learner students. Research suggests improving classification and alignment between services, systematic data collection and improving opportunities in schools. This could benefit large numbers of students without requiring large investments.

California's new accountability system aims to provide meaningful learning for students, allocate resources to schools and districts based on student needs, and offer professional development for educators. The system holds schools and districts accountable through Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs), professional accountability, and performance accountability across eight priority areas. This system is a departure from the state's previous policy of setting performance targets based on standardized test scores.

The gap between researchers and policy makers is a significant issue. Both sides agree that the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory, but fundamental differences between their orientations and interests inevitably lead to disagreements about which questions merit study and which answers merit attention. The gap finds its origins in intrinsic dilemmas of policy research, making it wide and apparently unbridgeable.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) represents a major shift in the state's education system by empowering school districts to allocate funding based on the needs of their students, with added funds for disadvantaged students. The LCFF eliminates categorical funding streams and promotes local democracy by requiring stakeholder engagement. The implementation of the LCFF is still in its early stages, and this study examines how school districts are using their newfound budget flexibility and engaging stakeholders, as well as identifying opportunities and challenges.

California adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010 to provide clear learning standards for math and English from kindergarten to Grade 12. CCSS requires a change in teaching approaches, moving away from memorization and towards problem-solving and evidence-based arguments. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) coincides with CCSS implementation, and local actors must decide on strategies and resource allocation. The state still has key roles to play, but most decisions are made locally in consultation with parents and the community.

The passage describes the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in California, which is expected to bring new revenues to school districts. The report suggests that strategic decision-making and goal-setting based on research-based strategies are crucial to realizing the potential benefits of the LCFF. Recommendations include an investment in four key areas that can produce real gains in school and student performance.

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 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) aim to improve public education by increasing expectations, deepening subjects, and providing an active curriculum. These goals include addressing disparities in U.S. student performance, reducing remediation rates, improving workplace readiness, and promoting civic participation. Equitable CCSS implementation can help close opportunity and achievement gaps affecting low-income, minority, and English learner students, with all standards expected of all students. California has a unique chance to improve education by implementing the CCSS effectively.

This article analyzes recent education policies to explore trends in intergovernmental relations. The authors argue that federal efforts to exert more control have actually strengthened the influence of local actors, creating a bidirectional relationship between federal, state, and local governments. Local actors have retained and asserted significant control over schooling, despite the expanded federal role in education policy. The article concludes with questions for future research and practice.

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will impact many state education policies in fundamental ways. Before 1990, most states did not have uniform K-12 academic standards, and each state developed its own. To align policies with CCSS, CA must eliminate contradictions, look for gaps where no policy exists, and ensure sufficient breadth and depth of newly aligned policies. Common Core will transform instruction by focusing on fewer, higher, and deeper standards. However, current state assessment and accountability systems in CA are not aligned with the CCSS's specific instructional approach.

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.

California cannot afford to ignore or postpone questions of how to support the academic success of English Learners (ELs) in the state’s K-12 education system. Language-minority students already represent more than 40 percent of the state’s K-12 public education students, and their share of enrollment is growing. How well California serves these students will help determine the vitality of the state’s economy and society in the years ahead.

Effective professional development is essential for achieving ambitious student achievement goals in standards-based education reforms. While research has identified key features of effective programs, many districts still offer unfocused and ineffective professional development that wastes limited resources. To deploy effective strategies, districts must first know how much they cost. This article aims to develop an analytical framework for organizing professional development costs and providing a common language for discussing programs.

This report commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Getting Down to Facts project, which sought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis of the critical challenges facing California’s education system as the necessary basis for an informed discussion of policy changes aimed at improving the performance of California schools and students. The report focuses on the four key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, finance, personnel, and data systems.

Education reform efforts in Los Angeles and the US have failed due to the focus on governance and rules. The solution is to invest in capacity building, creating incentives and agency for students and teachers, easing adoption through regulatory relief, and financing those working on new learning models. The goal is to update the century-old model of learning, called Learning 1.0, with a new model, Learning 2.0, that builds an education system around the learning system. This approach is based on research into unconventional learning models.

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.

The Quality Teacher and Education Act (QTEA) was passed in 2008 in San Francisco, authorizing $198 per taxable property to be collected by the SFUSD for 20 years. CEPA and PACE collaborated with the SFUSD to evaluate the implementation and impact of QTEA on teacher compensation, support, and accountability. This report documents the first-year implementation of QTEA and its effects on the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, improvement of the teacher workforce, and removal of less effective teachers using a mixed-methods approach.