The use of social-emotional learning (SEL) and school culture/climate (CC) measures is a promising way to understand school performance. SEL and CC measures are reliable, distinguish between schools, and relate to academic and non-academic measures. They can identify areas for improvement within schools, such as subgroup gaps. Incorporating these measures into higher stakes accountability systems requires further research.

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 is implementing four new policy initiatives for education, including the Common Core State Standards and a new accountability system. PACE provides research-based information to help drive continuous improvement in schools. Alternative schools are available for vulnerable students, but the current accountability system does not adequately address their needs. The California Department of Education is considering the development of a new accountability system for alternative schools that aligns with Local Control Accountability Plans.

Recent legislative and judicial activity across the country aims to attract and retain high-quality teachers for every classroom. Research has shown that a high-quality teacher is the most important factor in students' academic success and long-term outcomes, and having a bad teacher for a single year can cost a student an entire year of learning gains. Students assigned to higher-quality teachers are more likely to attend college, attend higher-quality colleges, and earn higher salaries than their peers assigned to lower-quality teachers.

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.

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.

Over the past several years, there has been much attention and advocacy around “PreK-3 Alignment,” both in California and nationwide. The push for alignment comes in the face of a growing body of research documenting the benefits of attending high quality preschool, along with concerns about the fading of the benefits of preschool by third grade that has been found in many studies. Supporters of preK-3 alignment note that child development is a continuous process, and that skills developed in one grade must be built upon and reinforced in later grades.

This policy brief analyzes the implications of using various subgroup sizes for school-level reporting under the ESSA. Data from the CORE Districts shows that a subgroup size of 20+ offers clear advantages in representing historically underserved student populations. The authors also produced a supplementary report comparing subgroup sizes of 20+ and 30+ in response to new ESSA regulations.

To support policymaker discussions on including chronic absenteeism data in California's accountability system, PACE analyzed the CORE Districts' student chronic absenteeism data. It is feasible to include chronic absence as a measurement using the state's approach for rating school achievement based on outcome and improvement or by simply looking at performance in a given school year.

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%.

Policy changes in California create an opportunity to improve education for 1.4 million English learner students. Research suggests improving classification and alignment between services, systematic data collection and improving opportunities in schools. This could benefit large numbers of students without requiring large investments.

The majority of community college students are required to take remedial math courses that can delay their progress through college, disproportionately affecting African American and Latino students. High school grades may be better predictors of success in college math courses than placement tests, and about a quarter of students placed into community college remedial math courses could have succeeded in college-level courses. New assessments and placement practices at the community college level, along with new K-12 Common Core-aligned tests, may change the face of remedial placement in CA.

The traditional algebra-based math curriculum, thought to be necessary for college success, has led to increased enrollment in remedial math classes. Some are promoting alternatives such as statistics and quantitative reasoning for non-algebra intensive fields, with promising early results. However, universities are wary of these alternatives, creating a dilemma for transfer students. California's history of math reform makes it a particularly salient issue in the state.

The traditional U.S. math curriculum, consisting of two years of algebra and one of geometry, is being called into question as new technologies and evolving disciplines highlight the importance of statistics, modeling, computer science, and quantitative reasoning. The emphasis is shifting to differentiated "math pathways" with distinct trajectories based on students' goals, in order to develop the capacity to apply math skills to solve problems in various contexts. These decisions will impact the academic opportunities of millions of students nationally.

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.

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.

The gap between researchers and policy makers is a significant issue. Both sides agree that the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory, but fundamental differences between their orientations and interests inevitably lead to disagreements about which questions merit study and which answers merit attention. The gap finds its origins in intrinsic dilemmas of policy research, making it wide and apparently unbridgeable.

CA is undergoing significant changes in its education system. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has decentralized authority and responsibility, with the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) focusing on local strategies for improvement. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) aim for improved instruction and deeper learning, but require significant changes. A PACE/USC Rossier poll surveyed California voters on their knowledge and opinions on these changes, including the Vergara case, teacher employment policies, and charter schools.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) represents a major shift in the state's education system by empowering school districts to allocate funding based on the needs of their students, with added funds for disadvantaged students. The LCFF eliminates categorical funding streams and promotes local democracy by requiring stakeholder engagement. The implementation of the LCFF is still in its early stages, and this study examines how school districts are using their newfound budget flexibility and engaging stakeholders, as well as identifying opportunities and challenges.

California's policies for beginning teachers assume a uniform path of completing a preparation program, BTSA, earning a Clear Credential and tenure. However, a recent study shows that the policies fail to recognize the reality of a longer, bumpier and more circuitous path faced by the majority of beginning teachers.

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.