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.

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.

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.

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.