PACE has facilitated the development of AI policy informational briefs within the TeachAI Policy Workgroup, aimed at ensuring the effective, safe, and responsible integration of AI in education. These briefs offer guidance to education leaders and policymakers, emphasizing the importance of crafting policies that prioritize teaching and learning. They provide insights derived from current research and landscape analysis of AI use in TK–12 educational settings, addressing common questions and centered around five guiding principles for developing responsible AI policies in education.

The brief summarizes the PACE report "Enabling Conditions and Capacities for Continuous Improvement," which provides a framework for supporting teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The framework emphasizes the importance of rapid cycles of improvement and the enabling organizational conditions for continuous improvement, including shared purpose, mutual trust, and resources for collaborative work. Examples of this approach in practice can be found in a related PACE brief "Ayer Elementary School's Resilient Conditions for Improvement: Pivoting Amid COVID-19."

How can schools provide high-quality distance and blended learning during the pandemic? This brief includes a mix of rigorous evidence from extant studies, data from interviews with practitioners who described their learnings from informal experimentation during the spring of 2020, and expert researchers who thought about how to apply research to the current context.

This brief provides questions for parents, educators, and the public to consider when deciding whether to reopen schools or support remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and health policy experts summarize what is known in these areas and provide a set of questions to encourage safe, effective, and equitable teaching and learning during every phase of pandemic schooling.

Governor Newsom announced that rising COVID-19 infections would require remote learning for K-12 schools in California counties. However, without quality remote education at scale, up to 1.1 million students could fail to graduate high school, affecting low-income, Black, and Latinx students the most. California's leaders must prioritize equity, strengthen teaching and learning requirements, and ensure adequate monitoring, support, and resources with deep attention to equity to avoid further differences in opportunity and achievement among districts and students.

This article provides 10 recommendations based on the PACE report to help educators and district leaders provide high-quality instruction through distance and blended learning models in the 2020-21 school year. Despite the challenges of COVID-19, research can guide decisions about student learning and engagement. These recommendations can be used as a framework to prioritize quality instruction.

Over 725,000 California K-12 students received special education services in 2018-19, but the system is not always equipped to serve them. Early screening, identification, and intervention, as well as better transitions, educator support, and mental/physical health services, need improvement. A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework in schools could address SWDs' needs, but it requires additional resources and policy support to improve educator capacity and collaboration between agencies while systematizing data on SWDs.

County offices of education (COEs) must support districts to drive continuous improvement in California's education system while building their own capacity for improvement. This policy brief highlights three major shifts that COE superintendents identified, in partnership with CCSESA and PACE, including developing the necessary mindsets, skills, structures, and processes to build capacity for continuous improvement within their own offices and the districts they serve.

This brief summarizes findings from three surveys on county offices of education's (COEs) response to Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Statewide System of Support (SSS) implementation. Most county superintendents are supportive of the state's policy direction, recognize the scale of change needed to implement LCFF and SSS, and acknowledge that full implementation is still in progress. They are also aware of the need for changes in their COEs' organization and operation, as well as in their relationships with other agencies.

This report examines how California's education sector is embracing continuous improvement over standards-based reform. The study presents six lessons learned from PACE and CORE Districts' collaboration on the topic, including the complexity of embedding continuous improvement processes into school norms and the need for deliberate steps to build a culture conducive to continuous improvement. The report provides implications for broader continuous work in California and beyond, with three case studies providing more detail on exemplary practices in two districts and one school.

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.

Continuous improvement in education involves engaging stakeholders in problem-solving to discover, implement, and spread evidence-based changes that work locally to improve student success. California sees it as central to enduring education transformation. It requires an initial significant investment in time and money to make it a reality, but can improve education quality. However, California's data systems are inadequate for helping districts monitor progress, and more training and coaching are needed to build expertise for statewide implementation.

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.