The 2018 Getting Down to Facts II research project drew attention to California’s continued need to focus on the achievement gap, strengthen the capacity of educators in support of continuous improvement, and attend to both the adequacy and stability of funding for schools. Based on the nature of the issues and the progress made in 2019, some clear next steps deserve attention as 2020 unfolds.

Community engagement remains one of the most challenging expectations of California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), so much so that state leaders have funded an initiative to support regional networks focused on engagement. This brief shares insights from a session where a lead administrator from the San Bernardino County Office provided an update on that initiative. Other speakers shared their on-the-ground experiences working with educators, parents, and students to create the relationships needed for community stakeholder engagement to be consistent, meaningful, and productive.

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.

Governor Newsom’s first Budget Proposal increases funding for education in California. There are areas of substantive overlap in the Budget Proposal and research findings from the Getting Down to Facts II (GDTFII) research project, released in September 2018, which built an evidence base on the current status of California education and implications for paths forward. As the Budget moves from proposal to reality, it is critical that the evidence from GDTFII continues to inform the policy process.

With a new governor, state superintendent and legislators in Sacramento and a diminished federal role in education, there is an opportunity for California’s leaders to take stock of recent educational reforms and make necessary improvements. There are also a host of new and looming issues in K-12 and higher education. As California’s leaders confront these and other issues, where do California voters, including parents, stand on education and education policy? The newest edition of the USC Rossier/PACE Poll shares voter perspectives on a wide range of education issues.

California's Local Control Funding Formula highlights low performance of special education students. Many districts allocate more base funding for all students into special education. A study found state funding growth has not kept pace with district costs, and the current formula inadequately funds preschool programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The study suggests better alignment between special education and the LCFF, and improved governance and accountability structures.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has increased per-pupil revenues, especially for low-income districts, and provided more flexibility in expenditures, leading to improvements in student outcomes. The funding was distributed based on the proportion of disadvantaged students, and expenditure increases were primarily allocated to teachers, pensions, and special education. The policy was implemented during a time of increased K-12 funding after the Great Recession and existing revenue distribution patterns.

California has implemented new academic standards for English, math, and science, and changed how school districts are funded and held accountable. Educators face challenges implementing these standards, requiring changes in teaching, learning, and instructional materials. Teachers need professional development, improved instructional support, and collaborative learning opportunities. School principals play a key role in implementation and depend on district support. Despite positive perceptions, progress requires staying the course to let the standards take root.

California's implementation of Common Core State Standards and Local Control Funding Formula requires new support systems for districts, including professional networks and the California Department of Education. Successful implementation requires multiagency cooperation and strategic management of relations with Washington.

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.

Charter schools serve 620,000 students in California, but their impact on traditional public schools is unknown. Charter schools have significantly better academic growth in urban areas and lower-performing groups. California's charter school authorization is decentralized with limited accountability and oversight capacity. Renewal processes are unclear, and the standards for renewal are low.

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.

Getting Down to Facts is an extensive investigation of CA's public education system commissioned by a bipartisan group of CA leaders. The project aimed to describe California's school finance and governance systems, identify obstacles hindering resource utilization, and estimate costs to achieve student outcome goals. The project resulted in 23 reports by scholars, which highlight that the current school finance and governance systems fail to help students achieve state performance goals, particularly those from low-income families. The reports provide a framework for assessing reform options.

This article highlights the lack of systematic evaluations of the relationship between educational governance and student outcomes. The authors provide a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of governance systems, drawing from previous research and interviews with stakeholders in California's educational system. The aim is to guide potential policy changes and inform future studies of educational governance.

This report examines the fiscal and labor resources of California principals and how they acquire and utilize them to improve student performance. The authors seek to understand the background characteristics and educational goals of California principals, as well as the types of monetary, human, and informational resources they acquire and how they allocate these resources within their schools. The report also explores the support and constraints that principals experience from various actors as they attempt to acquire and deploy resources to raise student performance.

The report explores the impact of teacher sorting, or the tendency for high-achieving students to be assigned to more effective teachers, on student achievement. It finds that teacher sorting has a significant positive effect on student achievement in both math and English language arts. The effects are particularly strong for students who start out low-achieving. The report argues that policies aimed at reducing teacher sorting, such as random assignment of students to teachers, may be counterproductive for student achievement.