The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) conducted surveys from 2010 to 2012, gathering data on California school districts' response to recent state actions affecting their budgets. Echoing RAND's findings, the LAO observed widespread use of categorical flexibility, with districts shifting Tier 3 funds toward general purposes. Over 90% of 2012 respondents noted that categorical flexibility facilitated budget development, aligning with RAND's conclusion that it helped maintain fiscal solvency, staff retention, and core educational programs. These findings highlight the impact of the state's budget crisis on districts' use of Tier 3 flexibility. While some advocate for increased local discretion over K–12 funds to encourage school-based decision-making, fiscal constraints and Tier 3 limitations suggest a different reality. Despite challenges, district feedback from both surveys indicates a preference for expanded near-term categorical flexibility and the permanent elimination of most existing categorical programs. The surveys imply that recent flexibility provisions, amid significant budget reductions, have reshaped districts' budgeting and program prioritization. The current disconnect between Tier 3 funding allocations and student needs underscores the necessity for fundamental restructuring in California's K–12 funding system, contingent upon the state's ability to monitor student achievement and ensure accountability.

California grapples with crucial decisions on school funding allocation, debating between categorical funding and flexible use of funds. In 2007–08, 40% of state funds for K–12 education were categorical, but a 20% reduction and removal of restrictions from 40 programs (Tier 3) in the following year allowed districts more fiscal flexibility, providing a unique opportunity to observe outcomes. A 2010 study by RAND Corporation, UC Berkeley and Davis, and San Diego State University assessed the impact. The survey involved chief financial officers in 223 districts. The findings indicate that most districts used the newfound flexibility to balance budgets and preserve existing programs rather than initiate new initiatives. The flexibility allowed reallocation of categorical aid money into general funds, affecting specific programs. Teacher professional development and general-purpose school improvement funding were commonly reallocated. Notably, major categorical aid decisions were predominantly made by district office staff and superintendents, not school principals. The fiscal environment, marked by an 18% reduction in state funding since the recession, strongly influenced allocation decisions. Researchers conclude that the hope for widespread innovation through local control proved unrealistic, although flexibility allowed districts to respond adeptly to changing fiscal conditions during a budget crisis.

PACE's "Conditions of Education in California" has been relaunched with a renewed focus on new research addressing critical issues in California education. The blog aims to foster an informed discussion of policy challenges within the state's education system. Jennifer Imazeki, a Professor of Economics at San Diego State University, has taken on the role of Managing Editor. With expertise in the economics of education, Imazeki has contributed to various reports and projects on topics such as school finance reform and teacher labor markets. The blog's initial posts delve into research on the impacts of increased flexibility in categorical program funding. The platform invites readers to engage in the conversation and subscribe to the blog for regular updates through the RSS feed. Researchers are encouraged to reach out to Jennifer if they have work relevant to the policy community. The relaunch aims to contribute to a more informed dialogue to address the challenges facing California's education system.

The upcoming implementation of Common Core instructional standards in California is described as a significant transformation for the state's education system. Michael Kirst, President of the California State Board of Education, testified that the Common Core brings about substantial changes by emphasizing deeper learning and moving away from traditional multiple-choice testing. He outlined the extensive work required for successful implementation, emphasizing the need for new policies to align various educational aspects with Common Core standards. California, one of 45 states adopting Common Core, anticipates better alignment with post-secondary study demands, emphasizing a deeper understanding of complex material, particularly in math and nonfiction text analysis. Despite a tighter focus, the standards aim to use fewer, more impactful benchmarks. The current assessment system, reliant on standardized multiple-choice tests, is considered inadequate for measuring Common Core skills. New assessments for English and math are in development, with the state adopting the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. The Common Core provides more curriculum flexibility, abandoning the traditional seven-year textbook adoption cycle in favor of an expedited endorsement process for local districts. Despite the complexity, Kirst expressed confidence in California's ability to navigate this transformative shift, drawing parallels to past successful educational transformations.

Californians express concern about the state's higher education system, as revealed by the latest Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) survey. Respondents acknowledge the importance of a strong higher education system for the state's future and recognize the negative impact of recent budget cuts on colleges and students. However, a significant majority is unwilling to pay higher taxes to support post-secondary education, and a similar majority rejects the idea of students paying more for their education. These findings align with a persistent trend observed in PPIC surveys since 2007, indicating that Californians are reluctant to cut expenditures on favored services but resist tax increases or additional fees for themselves. The survey results reflect a broader sentiment revealed in a recent Gallup poll, indicating that, on average, Americans believe 51 cents of every federal dollar is wasted. This skepticism about government spending hampers efforts to secure increased funding for essential public services, including higher education, despite the recognition of its importance. The challenge lies in overcoming the belief that a substantial portion of government spending is wasteful, which impedes support for increased funding where it is needed most.

Researchers examined teacher evaluation within Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) programs in Poway and San Juan, challenging the widespread belief that those fostering improvement should never assess teachers. Contrary to this idea, the integration of support and evaluation proved effective. Consulting teachers offered intense, tailored support and conducted detailed evaluations, supported by extensive documentation. A comparison between the thorough evaluations by consulting teachers and principals' assessments revealed significant differences in depth and thoroughness. The PAR governance boards played a pivotal role, ensuring rigorous evaluations, addressing operational issues collaboratively, and overseeing assessments conducted by both consulting teachers and principals. The essential fusion of accountability and support in teacher evaluations is spotlighted here—acknowledging the challenge of implementing frequent and comprehensive appraisals. This also underscores the importance of making meticulous employment decisions and advocating for collaborative structures like PAR governance boards to ensure fair and accountable decision-making. Overall, integrated support and evaluation challenge traditional assumptions in teacher assessment and emphasize the crucial role of collaborative structures in fostering fair, accountable, and comprehensive evaluations.

The shift in educational paradigms—Learning 2.0—reconsiders the traditional notion of education, positioning students as the primary workers within the system. Contrary to prevailing beliefs, this perspective views students not only as recipients but also as producers of education. It emphasizes the need for students to take responsibility for their learning and seeks to motivate them by aligning educational goals with their innate desires for success. The concept of "student as worker," popularized by the late Theodore Sizer, suggests a shift from the teacher-centric model to a student-centered approach, wherein students engage actively with projects and challenges. Integrating this notion into schooling prompts discussions on student motivation, acknowledging that traditional education structures often fail to motivate due to a lack of immediate goals, a mismatch between skills and tasks, and delayed feedback. The incorporation of engaging problems, immediate feedback, and adaptive technology emerges as crucial in fostering student motivation and success within the educational landscape, aiming to transform education into a rewarding and intrinsically motivating experience for students.

Economists distinguish between two equity principles: horizontal equity treats equals equally, advocating for the same opportunities for all students regardless of their background. Vertical equity suggests unequal treatment for unequal circumstances, providing additional support for students facing various challenges, like those from poor backgrounds or with disabilities. Balancing these principles is complex; determining which differences among students justify differential treatment poses a challenge. Recent years have seen a dominance of the idea that all students should be treated alike, overlooking the need for tailored support. This shift has led to a stalemate in discussions about alternative policies. Advocates for underserved children fear differential treatment could revive harmful tracking practices, while proponents of uniform standards worry it may excuse educators' failures. This fear of the "slippery slope" stifles productive policy conversations, limiting consideration of anything beyond uniform standards. Embracing vertical equity and exploring how schools can better address diverse student needs could invigorate policy debates and offer innovative solutions for improving education. Reaffirming the importance of accommodating varied student requirements might inject fresh perspectives into the education system's functioning.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley has persistently advocated for substantial changes in California's school finance system. Previous bills aimed at reform, such as AB 2159 and AB 8, focused on a weighted student formula but faced setbacks due to concerns about effectiveness and the Governor's veto. Her current proposal, AB 18, consolidates school funding into three categories: base, targeted equity, and quality instruction. While considered a step towards a weighted student formula, AB 18 maintains existing funding levels for each district rather than establishing uniform base and weight amounts across districts. The bill lacks provisions for equity adjustments, perpetuating irrational disparities in funding allocation among districts. Brownley acknowledges this flaw but understands the immense challenge in altering the amounts of funds distributed to districts. AB 18 presents improvements in simplicity and flexibility for districts but fails to rectify existing allocation disparities. While proposing a structural overhaul, it overlooks the fundamental issue of irrational variations in funding distribution across districts, which remains unaddressed in the current proposal.

The assessment policy debate centers on the trade-off between the desire for comprehensive, accurate student performance data and the practical constraints of information's cost. A recent PACE report, in collaboration with the Rennie Center, explores innovative assessment methods promising deeper insights into student learning than current tests offer. These approaches, including computer-adaptive assessment, evaluating English learners, and virtual performance assessments, aim to enhance understanding of students' strengths and weaknesses. While improved assessments could significantly enhance educational strategies, the policy landscape presents challenges. Utilizing this richer data would demand substantial educational system changes, such as organizing and presenting vast amounts of information effectively, adapting curricula, and training teachers to interpret and apply detailed student data. These hurdles are surmountable but necessitate considerable effort. The pivotal policy question revolves around whether the benefits of enhanced assessments justify the extensive work required or if current flawed assessments are sufficient for educational goals.

 In Southern California, initial schooling as an English Learner (EL) involved segregated classes and academic challenges. Even in later research, little progress was evident in EL programs, now termed ELD, with students sharing similar discontent. Despite my transition to English Proficient status in sixth grade, which allowed access to college prep, outdated identification policies and inadequate ELD methods persist for many ELs. Current practices, relying on the Home Language Survey (HLS) and the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), oversimplify language assessment, often misidentifying students and limiting their access to mainstream curriculums. Bilingual students face unfair burdens, and lacking English proficiency does not always hinder success in English classrooms. The flawed classification system disproportionately affects certain ethnic groups, perpetuating inequalities for low socio-economic status families and recent immigrant parents. Reforms should prioritize early support for ELs and reevaluate reclassification criteria to prevent prolonged disadvantage. Public schools must offer viable pathways to mainstream education for EL students, safeguarding their right to quality education.

California stands at a critical budget juncture as Governor Brown prepares to reveal his revised budget. Promised tax extensions hinge on Republican approval for a vote, yet their refusal propels an all-cuts budget forward. Harsh education cuts loom, potentially slashing school time, enlarging class sizes, and obstructing college access. Both Democratic and Republican legislators are poised to oppose these cuts. However, the deadlock persists. Republican resistance to tax hikes remains unmoved, and budgetary strategies to balance previous budgets are nearly depleted. Californians resist both tax increases and educational cuts, creating an impasse. Three potential outcomes emerge: public outcry may pressure Republicans to safeguard schools, persuasion might sway enough Republicans to break ranks and approve tax extensions, or the state might face an all-cuts budget. While public discontent could sway Republicans, political maneuvers or an all-cuts scenario seem more plausible. Education faces dire consequences, but change may only come after enduring the Governor's grim forecast for some time.

The prevailing educational focus on "college and career readiness" lacks consensus on defining and measuring career readiness, showcasing a deeper divide in assessment policy discussions. During the Bush administration, a stance simplifying tests to a universal concept clashed with the nuanced understanding of varied test types. This underlines a fundamental divide: comprehensive assessments seeking detailed insights into students' strengths versus standardized tests sorting students based on proficiency in specific subjects like math and English. This predominant view oversimplifies readiness, equating college and career readiness and reducing it to performance in math (such as Algebra II in California) and English. Challenging this status quo demands demonstrating how more complex assessments—providing insights into diverse skills and knowledge—justify their costs in determining students' readiness for adult life. Shifting this perspective entails proving the value of intricate assessments against the expenses, aiming to showcase how comprehensive insights into students' abilities outweigh the complexities—a challenging endeavor in assessment policy.

Current policies for English Learners (ELs), despite Lau v. Nichols' mandate for equal educational opportunities, often lead to prolonged enrollment in language programs, hindering academic progress. Reports reveal that a significant majority of secondary ELs remain long-term learners, struggling academically due to limited English proficiency, weak academic language skills, and social isolation within linguistically segregated communities. Studies highlight inflexible reclassification criteria and inadequate interactions with English speakers as factors perpetuating prolonged EL status. Once designated EL, students often remain in English Language Development (ELD) courses for extensive periods, limiting their access to mainstream curriculum and advanced coursework essential for postsecondary education. Rigorous reclassification standards impede progress, affecting students' academic growth, particularly in subjects where language is less critical. This prolonged EL status creates learning gaps, restricting access to critical coursework and potentially impeding future academic prospects. Variations in reclassification policies exacerbate inconsistencies in EL education, lacking empirical foundations and evidence-based practices. The enduring effects of extended EL status on academic achievement and psychological well-being necessitate evidence-backed and nuanced reclassification policies, highlighting the critical need for reforms to ensure ELs' equitable access to quality education.

In 1985, discussions around teaching debated its nature—art, science, or craft—and whether personal elements like emotions mattered. Today, our understanding has evolved: teaching encompasses art, science, and personal engagement, validated by scholars like Darling-Hammond and Freire. However, the focus on defining high-quality teaching has faded amid external influences—politicians, foundations, and neoliberal ideologies—diminishing teacher advocacy in reforms. '80s/'90s visions of teacher professionalism gave way to centralized reforms like No Child Left Behind, sidelining nuanced discussions. Present discourse lacks depth, overshadowed by a narrative of widespread educational failure. The future rejects deprofessionalizing teachers and testing-focused approaches. Instead, it advocates for valuing teachers, embracing complexity in reform, and collaborative innovation. The hope is not for endless debates but a return to collaborative efforts involving teachers, educational leaders, and thoughtful innovations for gradual school transformations. Interested individuals might explore past movements like school restructuring for insights into collaborative educational change.

"A New Culture of Learning" by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown presents a vision of learning in the internet era, emphasizing continuous learning intertwined with daily life. Through the story of Sam, a 9-year-old exploring programming on Scratch, the book illustrates collaborative, imaginative learning within a community setting. The authors echo John Dewey's ideals from 1900, advocating personalized, real-world-connected education. They propose structured yet flexible learning environments, akin to multiuser computer games, challenging the industrial efficiency model dominating 20th-century education. However, implementing these ideas faces resistance from established educational institutions. The book aligns with "Learning 2.0," promoting a shift from batch processing to personalized, experiential learning. Ultimately, while technology transforms learning, societal and legislative changes are crucial to reshape education towards a more adaptable and individualized model.

Two recent conferences shed light on critical challenges facing English Learners (EL) in education. Concerns arose regarding the accuracy of identifying EL students and the low rates of their reclassification as Fluent English Proficient (FEP). Laurie Olsen's report highlighted the issue, revealing a significant percentage of EL students failing to achieve English proficiency, impacting their access to higher education due to ineligibility for advanced coursework. California's EL student population has surged, necessitating precise identification for English language services. However, the Home Language Survey (HLS) lacks depth, relying on parental language reports without accounting for multilingual homes or actual student English proficiency. Studies have revealed inaccuracies due to parental reporting, socioeconomic factors, and complexities in language acquisition. Experts advocate for a more nuanced and rigorous classification system beyond HLS and CELDT assessments. Incorrect categorization leads to inadequate instruction, unfair assessments, and potential academic setbacks for EL students. Addressing these flaws is essential to provide equitable educational opportunities and ensure accurate academic placement for EL students.

At the American Educational Research Association (AERA) meeting in New Orleans, discussions spanned qualitative analysis complexities. St. Pierre challenged reductionist approaches, advocating for a nuanced, theory-rich inquiry beyond categorization. Ravitch critiqued educational flaws, while Lashaw urged rethinking neoliberalism critiques, rejecting simplistic views. A question arose about theoretical discussions' impact on practical education change, pondering the contrast between academic discourse and grounded approaches. The panel defended diverse engagement, acknowledging the practicality of a Nelson Mandela analogy. Discussions ranged from data analysis practices to societal implications, prompting reflection on theory's role in practical education reform.

For over 50 years, American education has fixated on math as a symbol of global competitiveness. Reforms driven by fears of falling behind—from the space race era to today's STEM emphasis—reflect the nation's obsession with mathematics. Despite its limited direct utility in most professions, math has become the paramount indicator of educational success, a trend bolstered by its easy measurability and ability to stratify students. Math serves as a convenient benchmark, easily comparable across nations, unlike subjects influenced by language and culture. Its complexity and varied student performance sort individuals into academic tracks, influencing educational opportunities and college admissions. Mastery of advanced math becomes pivotal, shaping academic pathways and college admissions criteria for competitive institutions, despite its limited relevance to most professions. This fixation on math mirrors Latin's historical significance in Europe as a marker of education and social status. Latin, due to its complexity and measurability, shaped educational landscapes. Similarly, math has become a modern equivalent—relevant for some professions yet disproportionately emphasized in educational policy debates. This disproportionate emphasis may overshadow its actual significance in most Americans' lives and careers, questioning the intensity of its role in educational discourse.

The Interim Status Report on district finances reveals 13 districts in a dire state, unable to meet financial obligations for the current or upcoming fiscal years. Another 97 districts face similar risks, though down from the previous year. This report doesn't factor in potential revenue loss from the proposed budget, which could exacerbate financial strain. Federal stimulus funds, particularly the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), substantially aided districts. These funds, allocated across various programs like Title I and IDEA, were most impactful between 2008-09 and 2009-10 but were meant to be spent by September 2011. An analysis of funding distribution unveiled that districts with higher poverty rates received more Tier 3 categorical and stimulus funds. While this aligned with the intention to mitigate Tier 3 program cuts, the ongoing cuts combined with the cessation of stimulus funds disproportionately affect poorer districts. As these districts require more resources, the loss of stimulus funding could significantly hinder them, raising concerns about equity in education resources.

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.