The recent Interim Status Report on district financial health isn't surprising, indicating 13 districts can't meet obligations this year or the next. An additional 97 face the same problem in the current or subsequent fiscal years, albeit down from last year. However, this report doesn't reflect potential loss of temporary tax revenues or the proposed multi-billion dollar funding deferral. Notably, federal stimulus funds, especially beneficial for districts with more students in poverty, are diminishing. These funds cushioned reductions in district revenue and program cuts. As these funds dwindle, it disproportionately impacts districts with more economically disadvantaged students, who require additional resources. The loss of stimulus funds intensifies the struggle for these districts, significantly affecting their educational resources. In Los Angeles, a recent educational summit aimed to rekindle support for public education. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stressed the need for a new labor relationship and urged a data-driven approach to evaluate student performance and teacher effectiveness. The loss of these funds could further strain districts already facing financial instability. This impending financial strain is particularly concerning for districts serving economically disadvantaged students, highlighting the challenges they will face in providing adequate educational resources.

The Long Beach Promise exemplifies a coordinated post-secondary education pathway, a rarity within California's fragmented system. Presently, the state operates three separate systems—UC, CSU, and CCC—each operating independently and often competing for resources. The Long Beach Promise stands out as an exception, showcasing collaboration among CSU, CCC, and K–12 educators to create a clearer path to college. Central to this initiative is the Early Assessment Program (EAP), pivotal in indicating readiness for college-level coursework. It offers students a consistent understanding of college readiness and eases transitions between high school and college. Notably, Long Beach's model is being emulated across California, with initiatives like PACE in the Inland Empire and similar efforts in San Francisco and Sonoma County. These regional collaborations focus on increasing EAP participation and using it for post-secondary placement. These projects symbolize a departure from institutional autonomy toward a cohesive education system aimed at serving local students better. By relinquishing some independence, individual institutions contribute to constructing an integrated educational structure that addresses critical challenges faced by the state's education system. This collective effort promises tangible progress in enhancing college access and success for California's students.

Diversity in education has evolved through tolerance, acceptance, and celebration but now integrates into the essence of teaching and learning. Recognizing unique identities, educators embrace differences, transforming education. California's educators incorporate diverse perspectives into teaching methods, curriculum design, and partnerships, honoring varied experiences. This evolution surpasses mere cultural nods, aiming to intertwine diversity into the fabric of education. Teachers navigate sensitivity, heterodoxy, and intersectionality, fostering inclusive learning. The focus remains on promoting pluralism without compromising academic rigor or ethical standards. The handbook "Studying Diversity in Teacher Education" underscores these progressive concepts, advocating their timely implementation across educational landscapes.

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) adopted Vision 2020, focusing on central office support for schools. This plan aims to guide district work through a Community-Based School Reform Model, allowing flexibility in instructional strategies while providing central office support and maintaining accountability. This emphasizes the district office's role in aiding schools' improvement but lacks specific details. Reforming the central office goes beyond restructuring; it demands a fundamental shift toward direct support for learning. To achieve this, a shared theory of action around learning must guide resource allocation. Additionally, enhancing data literacy in both the central office and schools is crucial for informed decision-making. Moreover, differentiating support and building capacities across schools is necessary, acknowledging that capacity-building isn't just one-way. This requires a targeted approach and access to expertise both within and outside the district office. For genuine reform, collaborative learning partnerships between the central office and schools are pivotal, beyond regulatory relationships. Examining the district's improvement vision through a broader lens that values the role of the district office is essential. The success of SDUSD’s Vision 2020 hinges on understanding the larger frame beyond focusing solely on individual schools.

The contemporary education system lacks Learning 2.0 due to misplaced priorities, fixating on regulations and mandates rather than holistic system design and capacity enhancement. To enable Learning 2.0, three crucial actions are imperative. First, embrace 21st Century tools for continuous learning design, fostering experimentation in institutions such as charters and pilot schools. Second, facilitate deregulation, allowing flexible financing and progress evaluation based on subject mastery rather than seat time. Lastly, invest in a learning infrastructure focused on students as end-users, promoting open-source courseware and a network of learning utilities. This transformative approach aims to establish a peer-to-peer collaborative system, emphasizing the importance of the commons where teachers contribute and adapt. The ongoing political battles around technology regulations overlook the essential question of who constructs Learning 2.0. Teachers should serve as educational artisans, actively involved in crafting learning experiences rather than solely managing external learning technology. To support this, the state should fund computer access, incentivize teacher participation, and establish design standards, aligning with Learning 2.0's vision for an adaptable, collaborative educational landscape.

Brad Olsen's recent PACE commentary examined the upcoming NCTQ/US News ratings for teacher education programs, raising broader concerns about educational accountability. He scrutinizes various evaluation methods like teacher value-added assessments, school performance metrics (AYP, API), and college rankings, highlighting their shortcomings in accuracy, stability, and susceptibility to manipulation. The debate revolves around whether imperfect information is better than none at all, questioning the pursuit of perfect measures in the face of flawed assessment systems. Despite limitations, tools like AYP and teacher value-added scores shed light on critical aspects of education. Olsen advocates for refined assessment methods, proposing enhancements for teacher education evaluations. However, until these improved metrics materialize, the existing flawed measures still provide insights, albeit imperfect ones. The debate centers on the value of utilizing imperfect data, acknowledging their flaws while acknowledging their role in revealing educational challenges. While striving for better assessments is vital, using current flawed data can offer more insights than having no information at all.

Amid budget cuts, schools are adopting unconventional measures for funding. Anaheim Unified School District employs GPS devices for students with unexcused absences, costing $8 daily per student, aiming to retain funding lost at $35 per absent student. Simultaneously, traditional schools switch to charters for increased funding and flexibility, impacting public schools financially. The efficacy of these initiatives on academic outcomes remains uncertain. Budget-driven decisions might harm education quality and overlook underlying issues. A Pepperdine University study exposes disparities in California’s education spending, revealing a decline in direct classroom spending despite overall funding increases. This highlights the urgency for comprehensive school finance reform, sparking discussions among policymakers, scholars, and the public. Optimizing spending efficiency becomes crucial to mitigate adverse effects during economic downturns. Engaging in informed dialogues and research is vital to avoid hasty, ineffective solutions, such as mandating GPS tracking for funding. California’s ongoing budget challenges call for a strategic reassessment of school finance policies. A collaborative effort involving stakeholders can pave the way for impactful reforms, ensuring optimal resource utilization without compromising educational standards amidst financial constraints.

As spring nears, California schools anticipate standardized tests, marking the beginning of efforts to improve education. Many schools, especially those with disadvantaged students, are likely to miss achievement goals, leading to mandatory turnaround plans. The government offers four intervention models, primarily favoring the Transformation model in California. Despite three years of funding for chosen models, their effectiveness lacks robust evidence. The challenge lies in understanding how to effectively overhaul persistently low-performing schools and maintain their progress. Data use is touted as a solution, but merely providing standardized test data without enhancing educators' ability to interpret and use it effectively might not drive meaningful change. Even in turnaround settings, there's a lack of widespread engagement with data literacy. It's crucial to engage in meaningful discussions about school turnaround now, rather than reacting impulsively after test scores release, as education policies undergo revision. To solve the complexities of school turnaround, collaboration involving diverse stakeholders is crucial. Leveraging intellectual, human, and social resources becomes imperative amidst budget constraints, aiming to secure progress for struggling schools and prevent the continued detriment of students' education.

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) critiqued the Los Angeles Times' evaluation of teachers' value-added, citing flaws in their research. Re-analyzed data by University of Colorado professors showed significant discrepancies from the Times' rankings, a common occurrence due to the sensitivity of value-added assessments to various model specifications. This critique challenges the use of imperfect research to guide policy decisions, particularly regarding teacher rankings derived from value-added assessments. While these assessments offer insights, supplementing limited information from other sources like teachers' credentials or administrator evaluations, publishing individual teachers' value-added scores in newspapers, as done by the Los Angeles Times, remains contentious. NEPC's critique prompts reconsideration of using imperfect data in evaluating teacher effectiveness, acknowledging its potential as a supplement to other information sources. The debate shifts from the research's imperfections to its role within a broader context of teacher assessment and policy decisions. However, the critique's focus on research quality doesn't fully address the complexity of using such assessments in policymaking and evaluation.

Educational stakeholders have raised concerns about the collaboration between U.S. News and World Report and the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) to evaluate teacher education programs. The initiative aims to rank these programs akin to colleges and universities. Issues encompass NCTQ's approach to institutions unable to provide all requested materials and methodological concerns regarding their evaluation design. Leaders from the University of California system questioned the evaluation's standards, evidence measures, and methodology's reliability. The debate centers on balancing the need for rigorous assessment with the intricacies of teacher preparation. While recognizing the importance of evaluating teacher education quality, there's contention over the adequacy of NCTQ's approach. Suggestions propose a comprehensive study design encompassing various data analyses, including classroom interactions, program practices, alumni feedback, student teacher evaluations, and selective use of value-added analyses. California is proposed to lead an innovative, mixed-methods evaluation, potentially setting a benchmark for other states. The goal is to strike a balance between rigor and a nuanced understanding of teacher preparation, aiming for an evaluation approach that comprehensively reflects program quality while acknowledging its complex nature.

California's proposed massive cuts to higher education, slashing $500 million from UC and CSU and $400 million from community colleges, will raise fees, reduce courses, and limit enrollment. Chancellor Jack Scott predicts turning away 350,000 community college students, significantly impacting the 45% of first-generation learners. CSU's 35% first-generation population also faces constraints. These cuts affect crucial support programs, services, and class availability, particularly for counseling and childcare. Wealthier UC students shifting to CSUs may intensify competition, disadvantaging vulnerable students. Public dissatisfaction, highlighted by a Public Policy Institute of California study, stresses concerns about affordability and borrowing. Possible solutions, like a sliding-scale tuition system based on family income, supported by 72% of Californians, aim to ease access barriers. Discussions must protect these students and explore strategies ensuring their access and success in higher education, securing California's future.

The push for pay-for-performance teacher salaries could revolutionize education by valuing teaching as specialized talent. This shift, prompted by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and supporters, aims to reward exceptional teaching through test score-based incentives. However, this transition could significantly raise education expenses and transform the teacher compensation structure. Drawing parallels with Marvin Miller's revolutionizing baseball players' wages, the switch from uniform teacher salaries to valuing exceptional talent may yield unpredictable effects. Recognizing and promoting exceptional teachers could mimic how colleges offer star professors premium wages. Yet, envisioning a system where teacher talent determines compensation might generate brutal competition, creating substantial salary disparities among educators. While this approach celebrates exceptional teachers, it's uncertain how this would impact overall teacher wages and the teaching profession as a whole. Considering the historical rise of wages in specialized fields, proponents of this shift may not have accounted for the potential salary demands that valuing teacher talent could create.

The upcoming Economics of Education Review issue presents papers from the “Performance Pay: Will it Work? Is it Politically Viable?" conference at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Three papers stand out: One paper debunks the correlation between education degrees and teacher effectiveness but notes an improvement with experience, which might later decrease; Another paper examines how formal teacher ratings by principals relate to teacher traits like experience, education, and absenteeism, suggesting their usefulness in career decisions; A final paper explores the economic impact of teacher quality on student achievement, revealing the considerable added value a highly effective teacher brings to students' future earnings and proposing significant gains if low-performing teachers are replaced.

Alan Daly's recent commentary delves into the debate surrounding what qualifies as a "highly qualified" teacher, stemming from recent legislation that broadened this definition, impacting both human and social capital in schools. He highlights the significance of social capital, emphasizing that teachers in supportive environments tend to perform better. The bill allows alternative path teachers to be deemed "highly qualified," recognizing their capability despite lacking state certification, a move not strongly supported by evidence. However, the legislation adversely impacts social capital. It aligns with California's education code favoring seniority in layoffs, disproportionately affecting newer teachers in challenging schools. Layoffs in these schools disrupt stability and equitable teacher distribution, contrary to the lawsuit's aim for fairer teacher allocation. By removing a potential tool for equalizing teacher distribution, Congress risks exacerbating inequalities in schools, especially those serving disadvantaged students, which might not significantly affect individual teaching talent but undoubtedly damages social capital where it's needed most.

The focus on John Deasy's role as a "reformer" and political alliances obscures the deep-seated challenges facing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Despite Gov. Jerry Brown's budget showing no severe cuts for education, the district confronts fiscal and demographic pressures that could lead to its collapse. LAUSD grapples with declining enrollment due to shifting demographics, losing over 135,000 students in the past decade, leading to a drastic reduction in revenue. Simultaneously, expenses for special education and healthcare have surged significantly, adding financial strain. Special education demands more costly services, while health care costs have risen by 71% since 2002. While potential state revenue decreases may slightly mitigate the impact, the district's survival hinges on Governor Brown's budget approval and voter support for tax extensions. Historical research shows that past reform efforts in the district faced fiscal challenges, indicating that political maneuvers won't alter this reality. Effective changes in education will rely on hard-working individuals navigating these tough financial constraints, echoing the ongoing struggle amid financial limitations for innovative educational initiatives.

The debate on teacher tenure lacks concrete quantitative evidence regarding its impact on teacher labor markets or student achievement. Stories of tenure's effects exist, but research is scarce due to the absence of a control group—every public school operates with some form of tenure. However, variations in tenure policies across states, particularly in probationary period lengths, offer insight. Researchers show that longer probation periods correlate with higher starting teacher salaries, especially in districts with collective bargaining. This is because job security as a benefit leads to teachers demanding higher wages in exchange for increased uncertainty. California, with a two-year probationary period, may face salary pressures, especially in districts bordering states like Nevada with different tenure policies. Extending the probation period might lead to salary hikes in certain districts to attract teachers. However, it's uncertain how this change might influence who enters teaching, district responses in terms of evaluation or training, or its overall impact. Further research on tenure's effects on teacher labor markets is necessary to better inform this significant policy debate.

A new PPIC report highlights the challenge of directing resources to needy schools in California. It suggests a weighted-student funding formula for fairer resource allocation, emphasizing equal base funding per student with additional support for diverse needs. Yet, the short-term hurdle lies in the political demand to maintain current district funding levels, hindering policy changes. Proposals ensure no district loses funds during reforms, aiming to minimize resistance. However, with statewide financial setbacks, debates arise over defining "hold harmless"—maintaining reduced funding or restoring previous levels. Governor-elect Jerry Brown's backing for this model improves the likelihood of reform, but achieving equitable support for vulnerable students faces political negotiation, making the realization of improved education funding for those in need a distant objective.

Governor Brown’s focus on California’s budget crisis emphasized looming challenges for the education system. Despite years of cuts predominantly affecting schools, further deterioration is expected. Reforming education faces a major hurdle: Californians desire an elite system but resist higher taxes. Current Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveys reveal this gap between citizens wanting quality education without funding sacrifices. Brown’s imminent severe budget aims to highlight the disparity between expected educational standards and the willingness to pay for them. The January 2011 budget will depict the state's education system under strain. The crucial test lies in whether this realization motivates support for increased taxes to fund desired education, determining subsequent policy changes in Brown’s early tenure.

The adoption of Common Core Standards in California's education system presents an opportunity for comprehensive assessment reform. With the implementation of new standards comes the need for aligned assessments to measure student proficiency accurately. California, initially aligning with the PARCC consortium, now has a chance to reassess its decision under the leadership of Governor Jerry Brown and State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson. The state has options between PARCC and SBAC consortia for assessment alignment but lacks clarity on which system will best serve students' needs. To navigate this uncertainty, California should temporize and participate in both consortia until their approaches crystallize. Key elements of a robust assessment system include computer-adaptive testing, early tracking of college readiness, meaningful high school exit exams, measuring college and career readiness, and involving teachers in assessment development. California's leaders need to ensure the chosen assessment system meets these criteria. By delaying a definitive choice, the state can weigh each consortium's evolution to make an informed decision aligning with California's educational goals.

David Plank’s commentary insights highlight the complexities in teacher evaluation, sparking debates about how to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement and how assessments could affect teachers' careers. The discussion around "value-added" assessment has divided opinions, focusing on testing, measurement, and what defines significant learning. Plank suggests maintaining an open dialogue by exploring alternative evaluation methods and reconsidering the concept of 'value.' The 'value-added' assumption rests on the teacher's individual abilities and student demographics, overlooking the potential influence of social capital within an educational system. Research suggests that social capital, like collaborative teacher communities, profoundly impacts teacher effectiveness. Consider two equally skilled new teachers: one in an environment lacking collaboration and shared practices, the other in a supportive, collaborative community. Despite similar abilities, the latter might demonstrate higher 'value-added' due to better access to resources and shared practices. This perspective underscores the importance of social capital alongside human capital in assessing teacher effectiveness. It encourages rethinking evaluation systems to account for the supportive or constraining impact of social relations on a teacher's ability to enhance student learning. Integrating social capital into evaluation discussions could significantly enhance educational reform efforts.

The statewide data system, CALPADS, essential for education policy evaluation, faced funding cuts under Governor Jerry Brown's recent veto, drawing attention to its significance. CALPADS promises to provide comprehensive data for researchers and analysts, addressing critical policy questions. However, the existing data sources like CBEDS and PAIF have been invaluable for assessing statewide education trends, although some crucial details seem to have vanished in the transition to CALPADS. The Professional Assignment Information Form (PAIF) previously held detailed teacher assignment data, vital for understanding staffing changes, course offerings, and district responses to budget cuts. However, the 2009-10 file lacks this essential information, hindering timely assessments. The California Department of Education's (CDE) transition to CALPADS seems to have caused this data gap, raising concerns among researchers. While CALPADS is expected to integrate credential information in CALTIDES by 2012, the current absence of this critical data poses challenges for immediate research needs. Addressing these transitional issues is crucial to maintaining essential information sources amid the uncertainties in California's education landscape.