This chapter in an edited book focuses on the work of two improvement network hubs in California as they tried to support participating districts and schools to improve the proportion of students “on-track” for post-secondary success. California has a particular stake in figuring out how to support districts in consistently using continuous improvement (CI) to achieve measurable gains in student outcomes because state policy (e.g., Local Control Funding Formula, California’s Every Student Succeeds Act Plan) prescribes CI as the approach to improvement in its accountability system.

This study explores the impact of reclassification on social-emotional learning skills (SEL) of English learners (ELs) in grades 4 to 8. Using a regression discontinuity design, the study found that reclassification improved academic self-efficacy by 0.2 standard deviations for students near the cutoff threshold. The results suggest that reclassification can positively influence the academic beliefs of ELs and the authors provide recommendations for districts to create practices that foster such positive beliefs.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant negative effect on the oral reading fluency (ORF) of US students in grades 2-3 in over 100 school districts, with students falling 30% behind expectations. While there was some recovery in the fall, it was insufficient to make up for the spring losses. The impact is particularly inequitable, with lower achieving schools being hit harder, and 10% of students not being assessed. Addressing accumulated learning losses and supporting struggling students is necessary.

California's CORE districts have been collecting data since 2014 on social and emotional learning (SEL) and school climate and culture to improve K-12 schools' holistic approach to student development. Advocates argue that a focus on SEL and school culture will lead to higher academic achievement and better well-being for students. The CORE districts developed survey instruments for SEL competencies and school climate perceptions involving students, staff, and parents. Many states and districts have adopted SEL-specific curricula and disciplinary reforms.

This article explores the use of nonacademic indicators such as social and emotional well-being in educational improvement. The authors suggest that while there is little guidance on using these indicators, understanding the conditions that shape the use of academic data can help develop a framework for using social-emotional learning (SEL) indicators to inform practice. The article draws from sensemaking theory and research from a study of early adopter districts in California to develop this framework.

This article discusses the use of standardized tests as the primary tool for assessing school-level growth in student outcomes, despite the emerging importance of social-emotional learning (SEL). It presents results from large-scale surveys of students on SEL constructs, and finds significant differences across schools in SEL growth, with magnitudes of differences similar to those for academic achievement. However, caution is recommended in interpreting measures as causal impacts of schools on SEL, as the goodness of fit of the value-added model was considerably lower for SEL measures.

In "Absent from School," PACE Executive Director Heather J. Hough analyzes student absenteeism using data from California's CORE districts. She explores the differences in absenteeism rates among students and schools, comparing them to other performance indicators. Dr. Hough also examines how schools' performance on chronic absence metrics corresponds to other accountability measures, highlighting the implications for reporting school-level measures of chronic absenteeism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 article examines the use of student test score data to measure the effects of school principals on student achievement. Multiple models are developed and compared using data from a large urban school district, with results showing the importance of model choice for accurately assessing principal effects. The most conceptually unappealing models that over-attribute school effects to principals align more closely with nontest measures than do approaches that more convincingly separate the effect of the principal from the effects of other school inputs.

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.

This study analyzes the impact of the Early Assessment Program (EAP) on the college-going behavior and remediation needs of California high school juniors. Results show that EAP participation reduces the need for remediation at California State Universities by 6.1 percentage points in English and 4.1 percentage points in mathematics. The program does not discourage poorly prepared students from applying to college but rather encourages them to increase their academic preparation in high school.

The call for improved education persists annually within PACE, emphasizing the perpetual need for progress. Even with strides made, the organization does not consider its mission accomplished. Guided by three core principles—allocating resources to disadvantaged schools, granting autonomy to local districts, and rigorous evaluation of educational efficacy—PACE remains dedicated to fostering lasting policy reform and enhanced educational performance across California's system. Leveraging experience from Michigan State's Education Policy Center, PACE's leadership continues to drive the...

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 report analyzes the effects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on student performance using three barometers: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), state data, and fourth-grade test scores. The authors find that earlier test score growth has largely faded since NCLB's enactment in 2002, and progress made in narrowing achievement gaps in the 1990s has largely disappeared in the post-NCLB era. The report suggests that policymakers need to reconsider the efficacy of NCLB and consider alternative approaches to school reform.

This report focuses on California's school governance system and how it affects schools' ability to provide an adequate and equal education. The author examines who is responsible for ensuring adequate resources, how to assess adequacy, how to determine school performance, and how to address deficiencies. The report argues that California's state-controlled governance system is irrational, incoherent, and limited in efficacy, contributing to substandard school conditions, as seen in the Williams v. California case.

This article presents a summary of a report prepared for the Williams v. State of California lawsuit, highlighting the achievement gap for English learners in California and seven areas where they receive an inequitable education compared to their English-speaking peers. It also documents the state's role in perpetuating these inequities and proposes remedies to reduce them.

This article discusses the inequitable education provided to English language learners in California, arguing that there are seven areas where these students receive an inferior education compared to English speakers. That includes having less qualified teachers, inferior curriculum, and being assessed with invalid instruments. The article provides suggestions for addressing these issues.