Within the TeachAI Policy Workgroup, PACE has facilitated the development of AI policy informational briefs aimed at ensuring the effective, safe, and responsible integration of AI in education. These briefs offer guidance to education leaders and policymakers, emphasizing the importance of crafting policies that prioritize teaching and learning. The briefs provide insights derived from current research and landscape analysis of AI use in TK–12 educational settings, addressing common questions and centering around five guiding principles for developing responsible AI policies in education.

Growing inequities and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic together with billions of dollars in new funding present an opportunity to make substantial changes to K–12 education to better serve all students in California. In May 2021, PACE and USC Rossier School of Education fielded our annual poll of California voters, which sought to gain clarity about voters’ priorities on public education issues during this period in which Californians are beginning to look towards a postpandemic future. The following are 10 key findings from the poll.

The brief summarizes the PACE report "Enabling Conditions and Capacities for Continuous Improvement," which provides a framework for supporting teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The framework emphasizes the importance of rapid cycles of improvement and the enabling organizational conditions for continuous improvement, including shared purpose, mutual trust, and resources for collaborative work. Examples of this approach in practice can be found in a related PACE brief "Ayer Elementary School's Resilient Conditions for Improvement: Pivoting Amid COVID-19."

How can schools provide high-quality distance and blended learning during the pandemic? This brief includes a mix of rigorous evidence from extant studies, data from interviews with practitioners who described their learnings from informal experimentation during the spring of 2020, and expert researchers who thought about how to apply research to the current context.

This brief provides questions for parents, educators, and the public to consider when deciding whether to reopen schools or support remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and health policy experts summarize what is known in these areas and provide a set of questions to encourage safe, effective, and equitable teaching and learning during every phase of pandemic schooling.

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.

On July 17th, 2020, Governor Newsom announced that all K–12 schools in California counties with rising COVID-19 infections would be required to teach remotely. Without a strong focus on improving the quality of remote education at scale, students could lose up to a year’s worth of learning, and as many as 1.1 million students could fail to graduate high school. That academic impact would be felt most acutely by low-income, Black, and Latinx students. California’s leaders must act now to prioritize equity and ensure quality across all of the state’s districts. New policies do establish baseline...

Over 725,000 California K-12 students received special education services in 2018-19, but the system is not always equipped to serve them. Early screening, identification, and intervention, as well as better transitions, educator support, and mental/physical health services, need improvement. A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework in schools could address SWDs' needs, but it requires additional resources and policy support to improve educator capacity and collaboration between agencies while systematizing data on SWDs.

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.

The 2018 Getting Down to Facts II research project drew attention to California’s continued need to focus on the achievement gap, strengthen the capacity of educators in support of continuous improvement, and attend to both the adequacy and stability of funding for schools. Based on the nature of the issues and the progress made in 2019, some clear next steps deserve attention as 2020 unfolds.

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.

County offices of education (COEs) must support districts to drive continuous improvement in California's education system while building their own capacity for improvement. This policy brief highlights three major shifts that COE superintendents identified, in partnership with CCSESA and PACE, including developing the necessary mindsets, skills, structures, and processes to build capacity for continuous improvement within their own offices and the districts they serve.

This brief summarizes findings from three surveys on county offices of education's (COEs) response to Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Statewide System of Support (SSS) implementation. Most county superintendents are supportive of the state's policy direction, recognize the scale of change needed to implement LCFF and SSS, and acknowledge that full implementation is still in progress. They are also aware of the need for changes in their COEs' organization and operation, as well as in their relationships with other agencies.

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.

Governor Newsom’s first Budget Proposal increases funding for education in California. There are areas of substantive overlap in the Budget Proposal and research findings from the Getting Down to Facts II (GDTFII) research project, released in September 2018, which built an evidence base on the current status of California education and implications for paths forward. As the Budget moves from proposal to reality, it is critical that the evidence from GDTFII continues to inform the policy process.

California’s shift towards continuous improvement in education makes understanding how districts and schools can learn to improve a more pressing question than ever. The CORE Improvement Community (CIC), a network of California school districts engaged in learning about improvement together, is an important testing ground to learn about what this work entails.

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.

Continuous improvement in education involves engaging stakeholders in problem-solving to discover, implement, and spread evidence-based changes that work locally to improve student success. California sees it as central to enduring education transformation. It requires an initial significant investment in time and money to make it a reality, but can improve education quality. However, California's data systems are inadequate for helping districts monitor progress, and more training and coaching are needed to build expertise for statewide implementation.

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.

California policy shifts gave school districts more control, but many lack expertise and capacity for improvement. The CORE districts applied continuous improvement in a Networked Improvement Community to close the math achievement gap for African American and Hispanic/Latino students. The four lessons learned were: create an improvement team, refine theories through systems analysis, interpret different data, and benefit from expert facilitation. Investment in continuous improvement can lead to powerful insights and reform.

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.