This suite of publications 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.

In the run-up to 2020 elections, where do California voters stand on key education policy issues? This report examines findings and trends from the 2020 PACE/USC Rossier poll. Key findings include rising pessimism about California education and elected officials, continued concern about gun violence in schools and college affordability, and negative opinions about higher education. However, there is substantial support for increased spending, especially on teacher salaries.

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 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.

This report details where California public high school students attend college and how college attendance and destinations vary by county. The report was created to fill the information gap on the college destinations of high school graduates in California. The data set assembled includes three recent cohorts of public high school students matched with college enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse.

Effective data use is crucial for continuous improvement, but there is confusion about how it differs from data use for other purposes. This report explains what data are most useful for continuous improvement and presents a case study of how the CORE data collaborative uses a multiple-measures approach to support decision-making.

CA is shifting the responsibility for school improvement to local school districts with County Offices of Education playing a supportive role. The focus is on local leaders driving educational improvement and ensuring quality. Strategic data use is central to the implementation of this policy, with questions remaining about what data is needed, by whom, and for what purpose. This paper provides a framework for how data use for improvement is different from data use for accountability and shares lessons from the CORE Data Collaborative on how to use data for improvement in networked structures.

This study explores ten "outlier schools" in California's CORE districts that have strong social-emotional learning outcomes. The brief and infographic summarize the various practices found in these schools and the common implementation challenges faced. The findings offer lessons that can help other schools and districts implement social-emotional learning at scale.

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.