H. Alix Gallagher, Nicole Arshan, Linda Darling-Hammond, Danielle M. Gomez, Pam Grossman, Shira Haderlein, Althea Bustos Ito, Maya Kaul, Kurt Klaus, Susanna Loeb, Beth Meloy, Morgan S. Polikoff, Sean Reardon, Tye Ripma, Lucrecia Santibañez, Deborah Stipek, Lisa Towne, Jose Eos Trinidad, Wesley Wei, Jason Willis, Eleanor Jingzhi Yu
California has improved instruction and student outcomes in recent years, but not at a pace sufficient to meet students’ needs (Reardon, 2026). The evidence shows that districts and educators are already operating near capacity under the current system, leaving them struggling to respond proactively to major shifts like the rise of generative AI and current students’ future needs.
This brief connects studies that focus on improving mathematics and literacy instruction, the teacher pipeline and teacher preparation with studies of educational policy and governance. The studies show that districts generally have insufficient capacity to improve instruction. They also point to California policies that have improved aspects of the teacher workforce and literacy instruction in the early grades, though not at sufficient scale to meet the state’s needs.
The brief then looks across studies of state accountability policy, the Statewide System of Support, and educational governance in large states to understand why California has pockets of excellence instead of consistent strength. These diverse studies provide evidence that: 1) the state has interpreted local control as meaning that the state should play a minimal role instead of supporting effective local implementation, and 2) educational policies lack coherence. Districts face a barrage of well-intentioned policies but lack the capacity to implement them well because their time is spent independently reinventing the proverbial wheel with insufficient supports.
The evidence points to the importance of better supporting local control by ensuring districts have the capacity to exercise it effectively. One implication is that the current cycle of short-term education policies produces diffuse district goals, cycles of change with little improvement, and layers of paperwork. A more fundamental implication is that governance arrangements matter: when funding for district support is disconnected from accountability for improved instruction and student outcomes, local capacity remains uneven. Evidence from California and across the country shows approaches that could be adopted and expanded to realize the potential of local control.
Key Findings
1. California’s districts face diffuse priorities and high compliance burdens that limit focus on instructional improvement.
Under LCFF, authority is largely delegated locally, but additive policies and shifting requirements create a fragmented policy environment. As a result, district leaders spend substantial time on compliance, limiting their ability to prioritize and sustain work on instruction.
2. The state does not consistently provide clear, actionable signals about instructional quality.
In some areas, the state offers limited guidance on which approaches are most effective; in others, it articulates a vision of quality but does not ensure it reaches districts or classrooms. This leaves educators at all levels without clear direction.
3. Districts lack the instructional capacity to implement policies and initiatives effectively.
Challenges in hiring, preparation, and retention lead to uneven access to well-prepared educators, and ongoing professional learning is insufficient, leaving districts unable to create instructional coherence.
4. Fragmented governance and additive policy-making contribute to uneven district capacity and incoherent implementation.
Authority is distributed across multiple entities with limited alignment and basic connections between funding and accountability are broken in multiple places. As a result, districts experience state policy as a collection of loosely connected initiatives rather than a unified strategy.
