This report examines the early implementation of California's Statewide System of Support, which is designed to empower local educators in determining the best approaches to improvement. While COEs and district officials hold positive views of the system's emphasis on support over compliance, they have concerns about under-resourcing and the effectiveness of the Dashboard measurement tool. The report provides five recommendations to make the System of Support a more comprehensive system aligned with the Local Control Funding Formula.

This report summarizes efforts to align California's K-12 and postsecondary education systems to address disparities in educational attainment. Based on district leaders' interviews and quantitative data, the report finds that rigorous academic preparation is crucial to college success, and that participation and performance on college admissions exams are key indicators of college readiness. However, substantial inequality exists across all measures of readiness, and district leaders emphasize the importance of engaging families and the community in supporting postsecondary success.

This report investigates the predictive power of the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC), high school GPA (HSGPA), and SAT scores on first-year college outcomes at California State University and University of California campuses. The assessments' relationships with early college outcomes differ by key student subgroups, and HSGPA is found to be a stronger predictor than SBAC or SAT for first-year college GPA and second-year persistence at CSU.

With a new governor, state superintendent and legislators in Sacramento and a diminished federal role in education, there is an opportunity for California’s leaders to take stock of recent educational reforms and make necessary improvements. There are also a host of new and looming issues in K-12 and higher education. As California’s leaders confront these and other issues, where do California voters, including parents, stand on education and education policy? The newest edition of the USC Rossier/PACE Poll shares voter perspectives on a wide range of education issues.

This report is the companion account of principal survey results from the Local Control Funding Formula Research Collaborative's (LCFFRC) fall 2018 surveys of stratified random samples of California superintendents and principals. The superintendent results were published in June 2018 in Superintendents Speak: Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides base funding and grants for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth, and allows local school systems to allocate resources as they see fit. The LCFFRC conducted a survey of 350 California superintendents to understand their experiences with and views of the law. Results inform policymakers and indicate areas where changes may be needed. The survey sample included districts of varying sizes and proportions of unduplicated students.

This report analyzes the predictive value of the Smarter Balanced Assessment, high school GPA, and SAT scores on early college outcomes for California State University and University of California, Davis students. The study examines differences among student subgroups, including race/ethnicity and socioeconomic disadvantage, and provides insights into how well the Smarter Balanced Assessment measures up to other commonly used assessments for predicting college success.

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.