California's education system faces challenges in leadership development, with defunded professional development programs leading to inexperienced and high-turnover principals, particularly in high-poverty schools. Studies show that effective principals improve student learning, but current professional development opportunities are insufficient. Many principals seek more support, with rural areas receiving less coaching and development. Promising results have been seen from stronger state standards for administrator education programs.

California aims to improve the quality of teaching in its classrooms by focusing on teacher preparation and evaluation. The state's teacher preparation system aligns with standards but lacks consistent implementation. Disconnected information systems constrain policy-making, and teachers need better training for English learners. Teacher evaluation and support systems could enhance teaching effectiveness.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

California has over 3 million children ages 5 and under, with a large proportion living in poverty or with non-English-speaking parents. Quality early childhood education is important for future success, but the state system is marked by low wages, inconsistent standards, and insufficient monitoring. Child care is expensive and doesn't meet the needs of nonstandard schedules. California has a large proportion of children in care with no standards, and identifying young children with disabilities is inadequate. There is no centralized data collection system for evaluating improvement efforts.

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.

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.

The California Academic Performance Index (API) is limited by demographics, instability, and narrow focus on test scores. Experts recommend tracking individual students' progress, measuring achievement growth over multiple years, and using alternative performance measures. Improving API could enhance accountability systems and target educational improvements.