This paper investigates the effect of student satisficing, the act of providing suboptimal survey responses, on data quality in a large-scale social-emotional learning survey. The study examines the prevalence and impact of satisficing among 409,721 students and finds that its effect on data quality is less significant than expected. The paper offers a practical approach to defining and calculating satisficing, useful for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners working with large-scale datasets.

This paper uses mixture IRT models to evaluate whether students experience confusion due to negative wording of items on a social-emotional learning assessment. It examines the consequences of confusion on student- and school-level scores and correlations with student-level variables, finding that confusion is present and most prevalent in lower grades, and is related to reading proficiency and ELL status. The study recommends the use of positively oriented items in future SEL measures, and suggests bias corrections based on the studied mixture model to maintain measurement continuity.

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.

This paper explores social-emotional learning (SEL) practices in ten middle schools and their impact on students' outcomes. Despite the growing recognition of the importance of SEL, many schools struggle to implement effective strategies. The paper focuses on schools with strong student-reported data on SEL outcomes, particularly for African American and Latinx students.

This paper examines how the growth of charter schools affects traditional public schools' financial health in California. The study finds that higher charter enrollment is associated with lower per-pupil spending and fiscal health in traditional public schools, but the effects are smaller than in other states. However, the proportion of expenditures allocated to different activities, goods, or services does not differ. The paper provides lessons for policymakers and suggests that California's economic and policy context may explain the differences from similar analyses in other states.

This report examines the stability of school effects on social-emotional learning (SEL) over two years in California's CORE districts. The correlations among school effects in the same grades across different years are positive but lower than those for math and ELA. While these effects measure real contributions to SEL, their low stability draws into question whether including them in school performance frameworks and systems would be beneficial.

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.

This article uses case studies to explore how district administrators' conceptions of equity relate to finance reform implementation. The authors identify two conceptions of equity: greater resources for students with greater needs, and equal distribution of resources for all students. These beliefs were reflected in resource allocation decisions and were informed by districts' student demographics, organizational identities, and perceptions of adequacy.

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.

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 study examines how social-emotional skills develop from Grade 4 to Grade 12 and vary by gender, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity. Based on self-report student surveys administered to around 400,000 students in California, the study finds that social-emotional skills do not increase uniformly and vary across subgroups. Females have higher social awareness but lower self-efficacy than males. Economically disadvantaged students show improvement in high school. White students report higher social-emotional skills than African American and Latinx students.

This paper examines the use of social-emotional learning (SEL) measures to evaluate school-level growth in student outcomes. The study finds substantial differences across schools in SEL growth, suggesting that schools may contribute to students' SEL. However, caution is recommended in interpreting measures as the causal impacts of schools on SEL due to potential measurement error and omitted variables bias.

This article examines the democratic participation in the first-year implementation of California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) by analyzing data from 10 districts. It finds that power imbalances, institutional habits, and limited capacity constrain stakeholder involvement, while trust, support, and homogeneity foster deeper democratic engagement. The article concludes with implications for policy, practice, and future research.

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.

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.

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 analysis explores predictors of opposition to Common Core Standards (CCS) using data from a California poll. Opposition was found to be strongly associated with views about President Obama, testing, and negative conceptions about the standards. The study suggests using poll data for future understanding of public opinion on education issues.

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%.

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.