Despite strong policies and major investments, California education faces three systems-level challenges that are preventing progress from reaching all students, according to a new comprehensive analysis of education in the state.

Released earlier this month, Getting Down to Facts III is the third in a series of in-depth reviews of the California education system conducted by independent researchers. Previous reviews were released in 2007 and 2018.

Led by Dr. Susanna Loeb, professor and faculty director of the SCALE Initiative at Stanford University, this new body of research consists of 55 technical reports and 22 research briefs produced by leading education policy researchers from around the country.

According to the summary report, California has made substantial progress over the past two decades, most notably in the Local Control Funding Formula, Transitional Kindergarten, and investments in community schools and early literacy reform. Loeb writes that California has the assets to create an even stronger system for learning, improvement, and innovation.

However, researchers point to three systems-level challenges that continue to stymie progress for all students:

Accountability and alignment: California has many accountability tools and data systems, but they are not well connected to one another or to clear guidance and support. The system produces information without consistently turning that information into action. Balance between state guidance and local control: Districts carry substantial responsibility while facing ambiguity and compliance burdens. Education administrators spend roughly 20 hours per week, nearly half their working time, on compliance activities. In areas such as math instruction, tutoring, and curriculum, local leaders make consequential decisions with limited guidance, even where the research base is strong.

Capacity: Teacher shortages, uneven preparation, fragmented support for district staff, and leadership instability make it difficult to deliver high-quality, coherent learning experiences at scale. Nearly 30 percent of California’s math teachers are not fully certified in their subject area. The supply of newly credentialed teachers remains only about half of what it was two decades ago. These gaps fall hardest on the schools serving students with the greatest needs.

“California has always been willing to make bold bets on its students, on early childhood education, community schools, and literacy, and the research shows those bets are paying off. GDTF III offers California’s policymakers something rare: a clear diagnosis grounded in evidence,” Loeb said, in a news release. “Our challenge is no longer one of vision. The goals are right. The investments are real. The evidence identifies coherence as the missing piece: the degree to which the state’s standards, funding, accountability tools, and support for teachers and districts actually connect to one another so that good policy reaches classrooms.”

The research points to the following five priorities to create more coherence in California’s education system:

Maintain and build on LCFF while strengthening fiscal stability: LCFF remains one of California’s most important reforms. Preserve its equity logic while addressing the instability created by volatile revenues, attendance-based funding, pension pressures, and facilities inequities that weaken what LCFF is designed to do.

Consolidate and align governance and accountability systems: California’s current structures are too fragmented to support coherent improvement. The evidence points to the value of goals, planning, oversight, support, and intervention operating as parts of a connected system, rather than as separate compliance exercises.

Build stronger state capacity: California needs a stronger state role in workforce development, instructional guidance, and system learning, particularly in areas where districts face high ambiguity, including literacy, mathematics, multilingual learner support, and tutoring. Early literacy shows what is possible when the state commits to this role. Math shows the cost when it does not.

Reduce administrative burden: Overlapping plans, repeated reporting, and procedural duplication consume the time districts have for instructional leadership and community engagement. The research identifies an opportunity to streamline requirements that generate compliance more reliably than improvement.

Support disciplined innovation: The research points to significant opportunities in developing, studying, and extending promising models in high school redesign, tutoring, educator career pathways, and the thoughtful use of technology and artificial intelligence, grounded in clear goals, strong evaluation, and systematic learning from early implementation.

These findings were unpacked during a one-day conference held May 11 in Sacramento, where state leaders, educators, researchers, and advocates engaged in discussions on the new research.

Reducing administrative burden The voices of ACSA members were critical and informed several GDTF reports. ACSA engaged with WestEd and other researchers for this third study. Opportunities for ACSA members to participate were promoted during ACSA council meetings, presentations, and through direct emails.

A big part of the push was because this year, for the first time, the survey included requests regarding the state’s numerous accountability reports and engagement regarding the funding impacts on educational leaders. Streamlining accountability is a top legislative priority for ACSA this year, so it was important to have as many perspectives reflected as possible in the findings.

One report in particular highlights the burden of reporting requirements. “The Hidden, Guiding Hand of Compliance in California Public Schools” documents the roughly 20 hours a week administrators said they spend on compliance documentation.

Based on a survey of 909 California administrators, the report finds that administrators rate most compliance activities as being more burdensome than valuable. The biggest “pain-monsters” were found to be:

The time spent on compliance comes at a great cost, with researchers estimating between $2.7 billion and $3.6 billion is spent annually on administrator and support-staff time to complete reporting-related tasks.

The report also contains administrators’ ideas for how to reduce the compliance burden, with calls to consolidate duplicative requirements into one plan/report and restore true local control with flexible, ongoing base funding.

“We have returned to the days of so many restricted funds with specific allowable uses,” as one administrator told the researchers. “Add to that the reporting requirements, which are often distributed AFTER the funds have been allocated/received/expended.”

The technical reports and research briefs represent a rich collection of data pertinent to school leaders. The 55 technical reports cover topics including responses to shrinking enrollment, school facilities, AI literacy, paraeducators, LGBTQ+ students and college, math pathways, reenvisioning county offices of education, and more. The reports include policy recommendations and case studies highlighting schools that have implemented positive changes. Information from the technical reports is distilled into 22 research briefs for general audiences.

Find the summary report and links to the briefs at www.gettingdowntofacts.com.