Top Takeaways
- Getting Down to Facts, organized by SCALE Initiative at Stanford, involved 112 researchers who wrote 55 technical reports.
- The reports cover multilingual earners, facilities funding, early childhood education, high school course-taking, data needs, and other subjects.
- Researchers concluded that the intended balance of local control, in which the state provides clear guidance for districts to make wise decisions, has gone awry.
Stanford University on Thursday released a sweeping research project that takes a 360-degree, immersive look at all aspects and operations of public education in California, from preschool through high school, from special education to teacher certification, enrollment decline to high school redesign.
What is Getting Down To facts?
A year and a half in the making, Getting Down to Facts consists of 55 technical reports, 22 research briefs and a 40-page summary paper on the state of California education. Its evidence-based findings suggest ways to address shortcomings and inequalities and to better prepare all students for opportunities in a changing world.
The project was organized by Stanford University’s SCALE Initiative, whose director is Stanford education professor Susanna Loeb; 112 researchers, primarily from California universities and research institutions, contributed to the effort.
This is the third and most extensive Getting Down to Facts. The first, in 2007, included a paper co-authored by Stanford Professor Michael Kirst that laid the foundation for Local Control Funding Formula, which the Legislature adopted in 2012. Getting Down to Facts II, in 2018, expanded the scope to include early childhood, and provided the impetus for the adoption of transitional kindergarten.
Eight philanthropies funded the work of Getting Down to Facts III.
Called “Getting Down to Facts,” the research project comes at what Stanford education professor and project director Susanna Loeb calls “an inflection point” for California education. In a 40-page summary of 55 technical reports and 26 research briefs, Loeb writes that the findings arrive amid major shifts: the election of a new governor and state superintendent of instruction, the retreat of the federal government’s oversight and education-funding responsibilities, and the emergence of new technologies and their impact on the classroom and the workplace. Together, she said, these changes require the schools to respond to new conditions.
Getting Down to Facts is “designed to help Californians understand the condition of the state’s education system and the policy choices needed to improve it.
While the project details financial pressures facing districts, Loeb said that “California’s goals for students have grown broader and more ambitious, and the state is better positioned than before to pursue them.”
Overall, state funding is at record levels with billions invested in transitional kindergarten, after-school programs, the establishment of thousands of community schools, and early literacy reforms, as foundations for the future. And as a result of investments in teacher recruitment, like the Golden State Teaching Grant program, the latest data shows that the number of newly credentialed teachers is the highest in a decade.
But an overriding theme of Getting Down to Facts is that school performance remains widely uneven, and the state lacks the ability to bring to scale examples of excellence in districts once they’re identified.
Loeb and the studies repeatedly cite “a lack of coherence” that is draining energy and holding back improvement. That term translates into paperwork burdens for administrators, unclear guidance over curriculum, and insufficient instruction for teachers. It’s been accompanied by inconsistent levels of support from the state Department of Education, county offices, and other agencies over how to improve. Multiple new initiatives by Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators who created the state’s kludgy system over decades sent mixed messages on priorities.
In her summary paper, Loeb breaks down the dilemma as an ABC of challenges:
A for alignment and accountability
“Governance structures are fragmented, and policies have proliferated over time, often creating disconnected, contradictory, and burdensome guidance to schools,” Loeb wrote.
Responsibilities for overseeing and helping school improvement are divided among agencies, with no clear authority over who answers to whom. These include the State Board of Education, the state education department, and the Collaborative for Educational Excellence, a small agency that works to help poorly performing districts. County offices of education are assigned a primary role, yet they vary in ability to provide effective assistance, the report said.
The state established the California School Dashboard and districts’ Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to measure school performance and hold districts accountable for setting and meeting multiple goals. But researchers’ surveys found that principals and superintendents largely ignore the multi-colored dashboards, which many parents find indecipherable, and view LCAPs as burdensome and complicated.
An analysis of 7,000 LCAPs – the first using AI – found that only 7.9% of the districts’ goals for improving test scores, attendance, graduation rates, and other areas included a quantifiable target, and many appeared to be cut-and-paste goals common among districts.
“The Dashboard and LCAP do not, in practice, play the role of helping districts undertake strategic, long-term planning,” researchers concluded.
B for balance between state guidance and local control
In 2012, the Legislature created the Local Control Funding Formula, which, as the name implies, emphasized giving districts more autonomy. “The motivating belief was that more equitable funding, combined with local discretion over spending, would allow districts to respond more effectively to student needs,” Loeb wrote.
Fourteen years later, the balance is skewed, researchers found, with little guidance and lots of burdens that “leave districts to fend for themselves while requiring extensive planning and compliance monitoring.”
Researcher surveys of district administrators found that they spend roughly 19 or 20 hours – more than two days every week – on compliance tasks, from writing LCAPS to filling out reports on state grants and regulations. Other requirements, such as regulating schools’ daily-minute requirements, hinder efforts to redesign schedules and integrate experiential learning.
While complying with regulations is mandatory, districts under local control can ignore guidance, “even where the research base about what works is strong.” Loeb cited tutoring as an example. Recognizing its effectiveness, other states have elevated tutoring as a key element to their instructional strategies; California included it as one of many allowable uses in multi-billion-dollar block grants, but did not spur its adoption or define what constitutes a quality tutoring program.
In surveys, administrators and school board members said they would welcome clearer guidance on matters such as which new math materials to use. Instead, by approving 38 titles, the burden has fallen on teachers and administrators without time or expertise, especially in small districts, to make the decisions.
“The evidence points to the importance of better supporting local control by ensuring districts have the capacity to exercise it effectively,” concluded a research brief on instruction.
Several studies cited California’s recent comprehensive approach to early literacy as a potential model. After years of ignoring evidence that methods of teaching reading – popular in many districts – were ineffective, the state over several years adopted evidence-based instruction that requires phonics in the early grades.
The state funded $500 million for hiring reading coaches in the highest needs schools. The Legislature required teacher credentialing programs to teach the approach. The State Board will adopt curricula that meet the criteria, and, to incentivize participation, the state will fund teacher instruction, but only in districts that adopt the state-approved curricula.
Early evidence from schools with state-funded coaches showed larger gains in test scores than non-participating schools, Sarah Novicoff, a Getting Down to Facts researcher, found.
Todd Collins, a former Palo Alto school board member and early literacy proponent, said it is too soon to predict if most districts will choose to adopt the reading reform, but he liked the use of a financial incentive. Other states like Louisiana and Mississippi that have taken a more direct and “muscular” approach to reading achieved great success in raising statewide test scores, he said.
“I’m a big fan of the funding formula, but I think the pendulum has swung too far in terms of what we call local control, which is actually leaving people to their own devices,” he said.
C for capacity
The term “capacity” refers to staffing districts with fully qualified teachers and administrators, providing them with professional development and retaining them. It also applies to building a stable leadership.
“Teacher shortages, uneven preparation, fragmented support for district staff, and leadership instability make it difficult to deliver high-quality, coherent learning experiences at scale” and turn ambitious goals into classroom practice, Loeb wrote.
Teacher shortages are concentrated in low-income districts where only about 70% of math teachers hold a full credential, compared with 82% in non-low-income districts.
Surveys on instruction found that California teachers, compared with teachers nationally, report less curriculum instruction, less coaching, and less time collaborating with other teachers on curriculum.
One in five California districts offered no consistent math professional development in 2024–25, and most math trainings were voluntary, researchers found. Compounding that problem, teachers lacking confidence in math are less likely to pursue training.
Shortages are especially acute in special education; three-quarters of new special education teachers had not completed teacher certification and then left their positions sooner at higher rates, the report said.
Superintendent turnover is widespread. California trailed the national average in retention over a five-year period. From 2019-20 to 2025-26, more than two-thirds of California districts experienced at least one superintendent transition.
School boards are also experiencing rapid change. In a survey, only about half of school board members said they would definitely consider seeking another term. And fewer people want to replace them; 38% of school board members were elected without an opponent, and 7% were appointed to their positions.
The combination of superintendent and school board turnover creates a leadership vacuum that, the report said, undermines continuity and can set back carrying out multi-year strategic plans.
Moving forward, the summary paper calls for reducing removing regulations that impede innovation. Noting that 80% of high school students report they don’t feel engaged in meaningful learning, it calls for “disciplined innovation” in high school design that integrates career pathways, dual enrollment, and project-based learning while building sustained relationships.
“California is well-positioned to lead in developing and studying models that advance both educational quality and equity,” it concluded.
This story was originally published by EdSource.