California's LCFF is a significant change in education finance and governance that sends funds to districts based on student need and eliminates most categorical funding. The LCFF requires districts to engage with stakeholders and develop a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCFF Research Collaborative identified districts with innovative implementation efforts in stakeholder engagement, implementation of California State Standards, and resource allocation decision-making. These positive examples can serve as models for others to learn and improve from.

The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in CA has demanded significant changes in teaching and learning, but has also faced challenges due to contextual factors and the simultaneous implementation of other major policy initiatives. Many educators report a lack of high-quality instructional materials and professional development, and rely on peer support for curriculum development. The successful implementation of CCSS requires a shared understanding and uniform practices across districts, which is a complex and demanding skill set for educational agencies and practitioners.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) gives districts funding authority and requires input from stakeholders to create Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for equitable resource allocation and improved student outcomes. This report explores stakeholder engagement, implementation challenges, resource allocation, and equity using eight case studies. Despite limitations, this study offers valuable insights into California's K-12 education system's finance and governance.

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.

American schools have long suffered from inequitable distribution of funding, resources, and effective teachers. The LCFF reform in California is a promising solution to address achievement gaps for high-need students, but successful implementation is critical. Research has found that stakeholder engagement, explicit equity frameworks, and evidence-based programs are crucial to ensure positive impact. Studies have also revealed challenges such as underspending funds and insufficient stakeholder engagement, highlighting the need for continuous improvement.

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.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) replaced categorical funding for schools in California in 2013, providing flexibility, targeted student funding, and local accountability. Two years in, research shows optimism and concern. The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) faces challenges, stakeholders need more engagement, and implementation requires capacity and overcoming the emerging teacher shortage. Public awareness of LCFF lags at 65%.

California's new accountability system aims to provide meaningful learning for students, allocate resources to schools and districts based on student needs, and offer professional development for educators. The system holds schools and districts accountable through Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs), professional accountability, and performance accountability across eight priority areas. This system is a departure from the state's previous policy of setting performance targets based on standardized test scores.

California adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010 to provide clear learning standards for math and English from kindergarten to Grade 12. CCSS requires a change in teaching approaches, moving away from memorization and towards problem-solving and evidence-based arguments. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) coincides with CCSS implementation, and local actors must decide on strategies and resource allocation. The state still has key roles to play, but most decisions are made locally in consultation with parents and the community.

California has adopted new Common Core State Standards (CCSS), English Language Development (ELD) standards, and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The state has provided funding to support CCSS implementation, and new curriculum frameworks are nearing completion. The report focuses on early implementers of CCSS to identify lessons learned and potential pitfalls, aiming to inform practitioners and policymakers about the variety of CCSS implementation strategies California school districts are choosing.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) aim to improve public education by increasing expectations, deepening subjects, and providing an active curriculum. These goals include addressing disparities in U.S. student performance, reducing remediation rates, improving workplace readiness, and promoting civic participation. Equitable CCSS implementation can help close opportunity and achievement gaps affecting low-income, minority, and English learner students, with all standards expected of all students. California has a unique chance to improve education by implementing the CCSS effectively.

This report commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Getting Down to Facts project, which sought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis of the critical challenges facing California’s education system as the necessary basis for an informed discussion of policy changes aimed at improving the performance of California schools and students. The report focuses on the four key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, finance, personnel, and data systems.

Education reform efforts in Los Angeles and the US have failed due to the focus on governance and rules. The solution is to invest in capacity building, creating incentives and agency for students and teachers, easing adoption through regulatory relief, and financing those working on new learning models. The goal is to update the century-old model of learning, called Learning 1.0, with a new model, Learning 2.0, that builds an education system around the learning system. This approach is based on research into unconventional learning models.

The Quality Teacher and Education Act (QTEA) was passed in 2008 in San Francisco, authorizing $198 per taxable property to be collected by the SFUSD for 20 years. CEPA and PACE collaborated with the SFUSD to evaluate the implementation and impact of QTEA on teacher compensation, support, and accountability. This report documents the first-year implementation of QTEA and its effects on the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, improvement of the teacher workforce, and removal of less effective teachers using a mixed-methods approach.

This report explores how 10 California school districts responded to the deregulation of $4.5 billion in education funding, which became entirely flexible in 2009. The study investigates how district leaders made budget decisions and what local factors influenced their responses. The research was conducted by a team of scholars from the RAND Corporation, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and San Diego State University.

This report discusses the effects of California's partial release of categorical funds to local school boards in 2009. The increased flexibility has provided an opportunity to observe how districts respond to the policy change, but the impact is difficult to isolate as most districts have been struggling to maintain core services during a severe budget crisis. The report includes preliminary results from an ongoing study of district responses to the increased categorical flexibility.

The James Irvine Foundation sponsors the Linked Learning approach as a strategy for improving California high schools' performance. PACE was asked to gather evidence on the cost of linked learning programs. The report explores how traditional high schools use their resources and how much school districts spend on their high schools to achieve current performance. It proves challenging to judge whether reform strategies like Linked Learning cost more than, less than, or the same as traditional high school programs.

Public education in the US is widely criticized and everyone wants to reform it, but there's no consensus on the best strategy for improvement. This report focuses on school choice, a reform avenue gaining steam in California and the US, to explore policies and institutional changes that can boost children's learning.

Public education receives criticism from various stakeholders. Despite satisfaction with local elementary schools, overall quality concerns prevail. There is no consensus on the best approach to improve schools. PACE report investigates school choice, which is a reform strategy gaining popularity in California and beyond.

This report challenges the belief that public schools are ineffective due to a lack of accountability for producing high academic achievement. Some argue that private management is necessary for improvement, but this report seeks to analyze the range of responses that schools have to accountability and determine whether market forces are necessary for improvement.

Bilingual education implementation varies by district due to discourse and policies. Four issues affecting implementation are teacher recruitment, "ghettoization" of bilingual education, race relations, and community consensus. National debates impact local administrative actions, defining bilingual education practice. The report analyzed four California school districts to show the impact of these four issues on program design.

This report presents the results of a study investigating the impact of charter schools on school districts, how they responded, and whether they experienced systemic change due to charter laws. The study focused on eight US states and the District of Columbia and included case studies of 25 affected school districts. The research was funded by The Saint Paul Foundation and conducted in 1997, six years into the charter school experiment. PACE hosted the study.

In 1996, CA launched a $1 billion class size reduction (CSR) initiative to improve early literacy. The initiative provides $800 per student to schools reducing class size to 20 or fewer in first, second, and/or third grade, and kindergarten. CSR was funded due to a state revenue surplus and the belief that smaller classes would enhance early literacy. CA ranked second to last in national reading tests in 1994, and class sizes averaged around 28.6 students per K-3 classroom. While educators and the public show enthusiasm, the success of CSR in enhancing academic achievement is yet to be seen.

Public education quality has long been debated, worrying parents, activists, and politicians. Recent polls show it is a top concern in California and the US. Politicians and activists propose school reform, and a new election season has begun. PACE and the Field Institute surveyed 1,003 Californians in February to assess their views on education quality, trusted reformers, and evaluating major proposals. The report details key findings.

This volume presents the results of a PACE survey conducted by The Field Institute among 1,003 California adults via random digit dialing. Statistical weights were developed to match the sample of California adults interviewed to known parameters of the adult population. Estimates of sampling error from results based on the overall adult public sample are +/- 3 percentage points. Other possible sources of error include differences in question wording, sequencing, or undetected errors or omissions in sampling, interviewing, or data processing. The study professionals minimized such errors.