This report examines the challenges and limitations of using the Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) to measure high school graduation rates in California. Graduation rates serve different policy goals, and the requirements for a high school diploma vary widely. The ACGR does not account for students' characteristics, those who graduate in five or six years, or those who change schools. The report recommends addressing these issues by developing a more comprehensive graduation rate that accounts for different student populations and their paths to graduation.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) changed California's education policy in 2013 by transferring control of most education dollars to local school districts. It aims to address educational inequities and empower districts to allocate resources to meet students' needs. This brief examines promising practices of three school districts implementing LCFF's equity mission and highlights the new role of county offices of education.

This report details where California public high school students attend college and how college attendance and destinations vary by county. The report was created to fill the information gap on the college destinations of high school graduates in California. The data set assembled includes three recent cohorts of public high school students matched with college enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse.

Effective data use is crucial for continuous improvement, but there is confusion about how it differs from data use for other purposes. This report explains what data are most useful for continuous improvement and presents a case study of how the CORE data collaborative uses a multiple-measures approach to support decision-making.

California's education leaders and policymakers have limited ability to make informed decisions due to weaknesses in the state's education data systems. Although California has improved its data systems, it still falls behind other states in data availability and usefulness. The California Longitudinal Pupil Assessment and Data System (CALPADS) is not integrated with other data systems, and access issues further limit utilization. With additional investment, California could develop a comprehensive statewide data system to better understand what is and isn't working in its education system.

California's 1.3 million English learner (EL) students have diverse needs, and many lack access to grade-level content instruction, with English language development falling short. Bilingual and dual immersion programs benefit ELs' academic, linguistic, social, and life outcomes, but reclassification policies are currently in flux. Early-career teachers may not be adequately prepared to teach ELs, and funding mechanisms are weak. EL outcomes are complex to interpret as students move in and out of the subgroup, and education sectors are not aligned to address ELs' needs.

Public education in California shows progress, yet challenges remain in providing equal opportunities for all students. Poverty rates persist, and schools are highly segregated by race, ethnicity, family income, and language. While student outcomes are improving, significant achievement gaps exist, and California students perform worse than their peers in other states. Career technical education programs provide opportunities for diverse students, but there are gaps in tracking students' educational trajectories.

This study examines the properties of California's CORE Districts' SEL survey, which measures social-emotional learning in students. The survey was given to over 400,000 students in grades 3-12. The study uses both classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to analyze the data and make recommendations for modeling and scaling SEL survey data. Policy implications are discussed for educators, administrators, policy makers, and other stakeholders.

This study explores ten "outlier schools" in California's CORE districts that have strong social-emotional learning outcomes. The brief and infographic summarize the various practices found in these schools and the common implementation challenges faced. The findings offer lessons that can help other schools and districts implement social-emotional learning at scale.

States and school districts across the U.S. are seeking to expand their definition of student success to include social-emotional learning. The CORE Districts, a collaborative of California districts that has developed a system of school accountability and continuous improvement that includes measures of social-emotional skills based on student self-reports, exemplify this trend. In this case study, we provide an overview of CORE's School Quality Improvement System, which was implemented in the 2015–16 school year across six districts serving roughly one million students.

Flexible funding formulas have made high-quality summer learning programs more accessible for school districts seeking to close the achievement gap. Programs that combine engaging summer camp activities with intentional learning goals can help students develop a love of learning and prevent summer learning loss. These programs incorporate lesson plans and evaluations of learning into a fun and engaging environment.

The shift towards multiple-measure dashboard accountability has potential for promoting more meaningful learning, but also comes with challenges. Lessons learned from research on CORE Districts show that a shift to flexibility and capacity building efforts has challenges. Oakland Unified School District's approach suggests that districts have agency to modify mindsets by modeling inquiry, openness, and flexibility, giving stakeholders space and authority to manage accountability and improvement.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) allows states to reshape their school accountability systems. One dominant model is the letter-grade system first adopted by Florida, while California is developing a dashboard-style system that encompasses multiple measures such as student attendance and school climate. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush presents the case for summative ratings, while Heather J. Hough and Michael W. Kirst of PACE stress the importance of multiple measures.

Child poverty in California limits educational success for disadvantaged children, but schools struggle to identify effective solutions. Colombia's Escuela Nueva model has successfully educated marginalized rural children since 1975, raising academic and non-cognitive outcomes in tens of thousands of schools worldwide. This brief describes how Escuela Nueva works and discusses how California's schools might implement core aspects of the model to better serve disadvantaged students.

Achievement gaps in education cannot be solved by looking at the school day alone, as young people also have varied experiences outside of school. Free and affordable learning experiences after school and in the summer are essential strategies for equalizing student outcomes. California districts have greater regulatory and financial flexibility to address achievement gaps under the Local Control Funding Formula. This brief describes how local education leaders are mobilizing expanded learning to close the opportunity gap and recommends key steps for districts.

Many parts of California, particularly rural and desert areas, are often overlooked by policymakers and researchers, despite the growing number of students attending school there. The Antelope Valley region has seen steady increases in student enrollment, particularly of Hispanic/Latino(a) and African American students, English learners, and foster youth. This report highlights the needs of the Antelope Valley Union High School District and its feeder districts, and calls for greater focus on supporting high-needs populations outside of urban centers.

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 use of social-emotional learning (SEL) and school culture/climate (CC) measures is a promising way to understand school performance. SEL and CC measures are reliable, distinguish between schools, and relate to academic and non-academic measures. They can identify areas for improvement within schools, such as subgroup gaps. Incorporating these measures into higher stakes accountability systems requires further research.

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.

California is implementing four new policy initiatives for education, including the Common Core State Standards and a new accountability system. PACE provides research-based information to help drive continuous improvement in schools. Alternative schools are available for vulnerable students, but the current accountability system does not adequately address their needs. The California Department of Education is considering the development of a new accountability system for alternative schools that aligns with Local Control Accountability Plans.

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.

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.

This report examines the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and how schools can be identified for support and improvement using a multiple measures framework. The authors find that different academic indicators measure different aspects of school performance and suggest that states should be allowed to use multiple measures instead of a summative rating. They also find that non-academic indicators are not given enough weight and suggest a clarification in federal policy.

This policy brief analyzes the implications of using various subgroup sizes for school-level reporting under the ESSA. Data from the CORE Districts shows that a subgroup size of 20+ offers clear advantages in representing historically underserved student populations. The authors also produced a supplementary report comparing subgroup sizes of 20+ and 30+ in response to new ESSA regulations.