What do some of the key findings in the recent PPIC statewide survey, “Californians and Education,” suggest about the status of public education at the state level?

Our latest “Californians and Education” survey, from April, suggests that there is concern about the quality of education in our state. Fifty-one percent of respondents say that California’s education system is heading in the wrong direction, while 84 percent say that the quality of education in our state is a big problem or somewhat of a problem. They are particularly concerned about how the system is addressing lower-income students: 82 percent are very concerned or somewhat concerned that public schools in lower-income areas have a shortage of good teachers compared to schools in wealthier areas, and 81 percent are very concerned or somewhat concerned that students in lower-income areas are less ready for college when they finish high school. Californians are also concerned about teacher shortages and teacher quality.

Were there any survey outcomes that were surprising? Can you explain what they were and why you found them interesting?

Yes, there were a few surprises. While there is concern about the quality of education in our state, most Californians still give their own local schools a passing grade, continuing a long-term trend. Majorities say that their local schools are doing an excellent or good job in preparing students for college, jobs and the workforce, and engaged citizenship. Yet, 50 percent said they would send their child to a religious or private school if money were not an issue, and 50 percent favored providing parents with tax-funded vouchers. I was also struck by the fact that parents know little about the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Also, 64 percent of respondents say their district did not seek input from parents in developing and revising their Local Control and Accountability Plans. There is clearly work to do here, including when it comes to helping parents understand that they can play a role in planning.

As federal officials cut staffing at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), what role do education research organizations like PPIC play in filling the gap in education research and data collection?

PPIC and our peer organizations play a critical role in bridging the gap between data and research. We are watching the cuts at NCES very closely since our work depends on having access to timely data. While PPIC’s focus is California, we have long relied on NCES data to make comparisons to the rest of the U.S. and to similar states. Should NCES data become unavailable, or should data collection be paused, PPIC will continue publishing findings from state and district data as well as data we gather through school district surveys and interviews with district staff. We continue to share with policymakers how access to timely and relevant data is needed to improve student outcomes.

Why is it important that state and local leaders have access to up-to-date education research?

Timely research is a key resource for state and local leaders. It can highlight gaps at the state and district levels in ways that help administrators assess and modify their programs in real time. The California Department of Education (CDE) and many districts lack the capacity to address all the questions they would like to. Researchers can help fill this gap as well as tackle questions that CDE and districts haven’t yet explored. Research provides evidence-based insights into what is working and what isn’t across districts that are facing similar challenges. It also exposes districts to new strategies and best practices.

How can local education leaders use research and data to improve outcomes for students and close achievement gaps?

There are various ways that research and data can help advance these important goals. Successful research not only identifies achievement gaps, but also identifies best practices for addressing them. At PPIC, we are starting to do regional analyses to help districts understand how they and their part of the state are doing. Last year, we released Pathways to College Completion in the San Joaquin Valley. Later this year, we are releasing a similar study on the Inland Empire. It is our hope that understanding the variation in student outcomes within the regions helps identify gaps in achievement but also, more importantly, shows what is possible. PPIC’s research also has examined what LCFF has meant not only for school finance but for student outcomes. We have published a number of analyses in recent years that assess the impact of how LCFF targets school funding and explore various facets of the funding formula’s design.

Do you have any tips on how districts and county offices of education can better collect and utilize their own local data?

Collaboration on this front can be key. At PPIC, we are big proponents of having access to data, but also of understanding this information. Some successful school districts have set up data teams that seek to understand their data. This allows administrators and teachers to work together to develop a shared understanding of the data and identify useful instructional practices.

What are some of the main pressures you’ve observed that are most impacting school district budgets? What role do school closures/mergers play in helping districts balance their tight budgets?

California schools face several kinds of fiscal pressure right now. Over the past five years, nearly three-quarters of school districts in California have reported declining enrollment, leading to fiscal pressures and difficult decisions regarding resource allocation and staffing. Demographic trends, such as declining birth rates and net outward migration of families with school-aged children, suggest that this will be an ongoing issue. Of course, there are some districts that are continuing to grow, particularly in inland California. School closure may have to be on the table for some districts, but it is important that closures are done equitably so that schools serving low-income or English learner students are not disproportionately impacted.

During your time as Chief Justice of California, you launched the Power of Democracy initiative to promote civics literacy in K-12 schools. How has the civic education landscape changed since the initiative was started? How can school boards go about improving civics education in their districts and county offices of education?

Civic education can have a profound and lifelong effect on students. I’m proud to say that Power of Democracy is still going strong under new leadership more than a decade later. I am passionate about civic education. It is an essential tool for helping our young people understand not only how government works, but also their own power and potential in society. Importantly, I believe civic education teaches critical-thinking skills. In these contentious and highly polarized times, when we are awash in information — some of it solid, some of it dubious — we have an urgent need to impart these skills to students of every background, every belief system, and every region of the state.

At PPIC, I’ve been leading efforts to expand our reach and focus to include civic education. We are well positioned to inform these efforts. Our reputation as a trusted and nonpartisan convener, our objective and fact-based research, and our talented pool of experts are critical strengths and resources we hope to share as this work goes forward. We’ve created programs for students, surveyed the public, and partnered with local and state organizations to share information, ideas and strategies for engaging California’s young people. I encourage local leaders to lean into some of the existing tools for civic education, from curriculum provided by the California State Library through the COMPASS program to the State Seal of Civic Engagement. We’d love to hear from local school boards that are interested in working with us to promote civic learning.