English language learners (ELLs) surge in K–12 enrollment, especially in regions with historically low numbers of ELLs, intensifying the shortage of qualified bilingual/ESL teachers in states like Arizona. Budget constraints push ELLs into mainstream classrooms, often lacking specialized teachers, with nearly 50% receiving minimal or no special services due to limited teacher certification. A new study debates the necessity of specialists for this population, advocating for their effectiveness in nurturing language, literacy, and content development. Specialized training must embrace ELLs' linguistic and cultural contributions to content learning, encourage multilingual practices, and counter negative narratives. Arizona’s generic training for all teachers shows no positive impact, whereas states like California and Illinois requiring specialist training witness improved classroom outcomes. Specialist training is pivotal for equitable and effective instruction for ELLs.

Approximately one in five U.S. students speaks a non-English language at home, mainly Spanish, yet many are taught by less qualified teachers. Schools must comply with No Child Left Behind, using evidence-backed instruction for English learners (ELs) to show academic progress yearly. State regulations vary: some demand bilingual/ESL-certified teachers, others require training for all. Francesca López's study, analyzing NAEP 4th-grade reading outcomes for Latino ELs, highlighted state requirements' impact on achievement. Results supported California's move for enhanced intern teacher training in EL instruction. States mandating ESL/bilingual certification showed notably higher Latino EL achievement. Conversely, where all teachers received some EL training, achievement was lower, showing context nuances. States without specialist certification often use these broad requirements to meet federal EL guidelines, suggesting a need for more rigorous standards. States with both certification and training mandates demonstrated significantly higher EL achievement. While some EL training for all teachers seems essential, a single course does not suffice. States need more stringent definitions of "highly qualified" to address EL needs adequately. In essence, a balance is needed: while some EL training benefits all teachers, combining it with specialist certification significantly improves EL outcomes. States should aim for comprehensive standards ensuring all teachers are equipped to support ELs across various English proficiency levels, acknowledging the importance of robust qualifications for educators in this domain.

In a recent study of Head Start's impact on early childhood education, a meta-analysis reviewed 28 studies from 1965 to 2007. Head Start yielded a 0.27 effect size, indicating modest improvement in children's short-term cognitive outcomes, aligning with general early childhood education programs. Yet, its effects were smaller compared to more intensive programs like Perry Preschool, but within the range of wider ECE averages. Research design significantly influenced these outcomes, particularly the nature of the control group. Studies with an "active" control group, exposed to other forms of ECE, showed smaller effects than those with a "passive" group, receiving no alternative ECE. As ECE attendance rises, communities with multiple ECE options could produce smaller Head Start effects. This does not question Head Start's efficacy but highlights other effective ECE alternatives, skewing comparative evaluations. Skills closely tied to ECE curricula, like early reading and math, responded better to Head Start than broader cognitive skills, suggesting tempered expectations for effects on measures like vocabulary or IQ. Finally, the study emphasizes considering measurement quality when interpreting program evaluation outcomes.

California's 2011–12 academic year showed a drop in dropouts and a rise in high school graduation rates. Graduates from the ninth grade in 2008–9 reached 78.5%, a 3.8% increase over two years. Federal data also highlight this trend, marking California's highest graduation rate in two decades. However, challenges persist, with significant disparities among racial groups. Factors like national campaigns and local initiatives contribute to these positive shifts, yet broader improvements will require addressing societal issues like unemployment and poverty. These advancements in graduation rates reflect collaborative efforts from various stakeholders, but the trajectory for future progress hinges on deeper community and familial support, especially in tackling socioeconomic challenges.

The state of elementary science education in the U.S. is concerning, with declining instructional time and teachers feeling underprepared to teach the subject. Efforts focus on professional development as a solution. A new longitudinal study on K–2 teacher development in rural California schools unexpectedly revealed significant improvements in science knowledge and practices after one year, sustained into the second. The program enhanced teachers' content knowledge, confidence, and use of student-centered approaches in science. However, school policies, resources, and testing emphasis on math and language arts influenced how science was integrated into teaching. The research underscores the potential of targeted professional development to enhance science education, but also highlights the role of contextual factors in sustaining these improvements. Future work aims to explore the program's long-term impact, shedding light on the durability of professional development effects and the hurdles to lasting change in classroom practices, crucial for advancing science education reform.

The absence of nationwide data on school curriculum usage reveals a crucial gap in education assessment. In Indiana, a study assessed three popular curricula, uncovering significant differences in their effectiveness based on school test scores. Surprisingly, a less effective curriculum retained its market presence, potentially due to a lack of efficacy information for decision-makers. Advocating for improved data collection, the study emphasizes integrating curriculum data into existing state systems, enabling similar research nationwide. This approach could empower education officials with vital insights into curriculum effectiveness, supporting evidence-based decisions in curriculum adoptions.

This commentary, part of a broader PACE series exploring school finance, speaks to challenges faced by California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The two biggest problems with the California financial system are inequitable revenue allocations and inefficiencies caused by categorical restrictions. Governor Brown's proposal addresses these issues, but critics argue that the system still has other problems. One major criticism is that there are winners and losers in the system. Under Brown's proposal, the allocations for some districts will look drastically different, with some receiving less than others. This is because current allocations have little connection to the costs of educating students and the characteristics of students and schools. Another alternative is to raise the base so everybody "wins," which would provide more flexibility and a more correlated revenue with costs. However, this system still creates winners and losers because allocations would not be as tightly connected to costs as under the current system. Governor Brown's proposal nevertheless helps solve the two biggest problems with California's school finance system and offers a better alternative to the current financial system.

Governor Brown’s proposed Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) introduces weightage for student poverty and English Learners (ELs). While some categorical programs persist, the formula consolidates other funding streams into the core. An ongoing debate surrounds the inclusion of additional cost factors. States commonly allocate extra funds for special student needs like disabilities, poverty, and limited English skills. Brown’s plan addresses this by providing a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increments for high concentrations in districts. However, there's uncertainty regarding how costs change with increasing concentrations of disadvantaged students. Variations in funding models across states revolve around student needs, grade levels, and demographic factors. Research indicates the necessity of investing in early grades, though consensus on which levels require more resources is lacking. Moreover, adjustments for school size, district size, and teacher labor costs vary widely. While teacher cost adjustments align with mobility and attrition concerns, their direct impact on retaining teachers is unclear. Finally, separate funding for transportation and sparsity considerations are prevalent, but maintaining existing allocations might perpetuate irrational variations across districts. Brown's plan could rationalize transportation funding but may need adjustments for equitable distribution, especially for programs like gifted education and career training currently under categorical funding.

The adjustment for student needs in school funding formulas commonly incorporates categories like special education, at-risk students (often encompassing low-income or those needing remedial education), and English Learners (ELs). Many states determine additional funds for these students through pupil weights, usually a percentage of the base allocation. California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) assigns a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increased weight for higher concentrations in a district. Research suggests poor and EL students require added resources to match peers' academic levels. Studies vary but estimate pupil weights for poverty between 0.30 to 1.22 and 0.24 to 1.01 for ELs. Few states consider concentration factors in funding, though research on peer effects shows the importance of the school's poverty concentration. Handling students in both categories remains debated; some argue they need only the poverty weight. Concerns about funding incentives for ELs' reclassification or abandoning needy students without categorical restrictions persist, but research shows the shift to unrestricted weights coupled with strong accountability might lead districts to find more effective ways to assist these students. Brown's proposed weights, while high individually, might result in allocations similar to states funding these categories separately due to overlapping populations.

In the realm of education funding reform, the debate revolves around how to fairly distribute financial resources among districts. While base revenue per student usually remains consistent across districts, additional funding aims to offset the varying costs of education. California's approach, through Brown's LCFF, uses student weights to consider poverty, language learning, and grade levels. States explore various methods to include cost factors: categorical programs, block grants, pupil weights, and direct adjustments to the foundation amount. Each method has its merits and downsides, reflecting the challenge policymakers face in deciding the most effective route for equitable allocation. The discussion focuses on shifting from categorical programs to weighted students or adjusted foundation levels, emphasizing that such changes could yield better outcomes. However, concerns persist about removing categorical restrictions, fearing a potential loss of funding for vital programs like adult education or arts. The tension lies between local district autonomy and statewide priorities, raising questions about governance and whether setting educational priorities should be centralized or decentralized. Policymakers aim to strike a balance between offering district flexibility while ensuring effective resource utilization, with growing advocacy for an accountability-driven approach over categorical funding enforcement.

The primary aim of state finance systems across the U.S. is to achieve equalization, especially in states with local school funding under legal scrutiny. California’s current revenue limit and Governor Brown’s proposed formula both follow the traditional foundation state-aid model. In this structure, state aid per pupil is calculated as the foundation amount minus the required tax rate multiplied by assessed property wealth per pupil. Determining the foundation amount involves historical, political, and cost-based considerations. California’s current system heavily relies on historical expenditure levels from the 1970s, adjusted for inflation and equalization. Brown's proposal seems influenced by state average revenue limits after budget-induced cuts. Setting the foundation amount based on the actual cost of education remains a point of contention. California’s approach, compared to other states, tends to lag in per-pupil spending despite achieving equalization post-Serrano. States often adopt foundation formulas, aiming to increase spending in poorer districts ('leveling up'), yet California's spending remains lower on average. The ongoing debate emphasizes balancing actual educational costs, political feasibility, and historical context. Brown’s proposed base amounts, while lower than past estimates for California's educational needs, are not significantly different from those in other states using the foundation formula. However, comparing base amounts across states requires understanding that these figures represent the minimum cost to educate students without additional needs or district-specific characteristics.

In the discourse surrounding Governor Brown’s proposed “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF), the "School Finance" series aims to dissect long-debated issues prevalent in school finance, exploring known and unknown facets. While delving into specifics of the funding formula in future posts, the series initiates with a retrospective perspective on California’s educational funding evolution. It outlines the simplicity but inherent complexity of the current system, rooted in district revenue limits and categorical aids. Historic milestones like Serrano v. Priest and Prop 13 reshaped the state's funding landscape, emphasizing equity but excluding targeted funds from equalization discussions. Notably, the series emphasizes the evolution towards equitable distribution through foundation state-aid formulas, similar to Brown’s proposed model. It highlights the trade-offs between centralized funding, equal distribution, and local control, presenting Brown’s formula as offering enhanced spending flexibility by replacing categorical programs with cost-specific weights. The series underscores that while California’s move aligns with existing models, empirical insights should guide policy decisions for the welfare of its students.

Educational challenges persist for foster care youth, with limited solutions documented. In urban Seattle, a program supporting middle schoolers in foster care significantly enhanced reading skills over a school year through tutoring, mentoring, and advocacy. While replicating the entire program might not be feasible, integrating key aspects into existing systems holds promise. Establishing liaisons between education and child welfare systems, promoting mutual professional awareness, ensuring seamless communication for individualized care, and offering tailored support via community resources and volunteer tutoring are vital steps. Equally crucial is preparing these youths for adulthood, encompassing college planning, vocational training, and life skills. Collaboration among social workers, educators, and caregivers emerges as crucial for fostering academic success and overall well-being for foster care youth. Aligning efforts and resources can create a supportive environment conducive to their educational achievements, addressing their vulnerabilities effectively.

In examining the state of gifted and talented education (GATE), the impact of financial strains on these programs in California becomes apparent. During budget constraints, districts often slash funding for GATE, leading to drastic program reductions. Despite the belief that gifted students can excel without additional resources, international assessments, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), reveal American gifted students underperform globally, notably in math and science. This underperformance might stem from the inequitable funding landscape where the average district receives minimal state support ($3.38 per pupil), leaving only a minority with additional funding. Advocating for increased GATE funding seeks to rectify disparities rather than create inequality. The present funding discrepancies result in a form of horizontal inequity, suggesting that access to resources shouldn't hinge on a district's wealth. Encouraging uniform opportunities for gifted students, regardless of district economic status, aligns more with equitable education principles.

California's famed 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, a triumph in many regards, has faltered in one key aspect: the state ranks at the bottom among states in the percentage of college-age individuals achieving a bachelor's degree. This low attainment stems from restrictions within the Master Plan, limiting access to 4-year baccalaureate institutions to only the top eighth and third of high school graduates for the University of California and state colleges, respectively. Consequently, community colleges have absorbed the majority of enrollment growth, with 40% to 50% of all students seeking a B.A. Now, California ranks last in college students attending 4-year institutions. Researchers advocate for expanded 4-year enrollment capacity, citing the powerful link between 4-year college enrollment and bachelor's degree attainment across states. A new study proposes restructuring through hybrid institutions, like university centers and 2-year university branch campuses, aimed at bridging the gap between 2-year and 4-year institutions to facilitate more direct entries into bachelor's programs. These adjustments, while not altering the Master Plan's core, strive to enhance the collective capacity of UC, CSU, and the community colleges toward supporting baccalaureate education, aligning with the overarching aim they share.

A new study examines combination classes' impact on first-grade academic achievement with data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K). Researchers contrast students in single-grade classes to those in K–1 and 1–2 combination classes. Contrary to prior studies, this analysis found no discernible difference in reading, math, or general knowledge scores between students in combination classes and those in single-grade setups. Schools offering combination classes appeared more disadvantaged, primarily located in the western U.S. and often on a year-round calendar. The study acknowledges potential unobservable biases and the limitation of its scope and size. Nonetheless, it challenges previous findings and emphasizes the need to consider school variations when evaluating combination-class impacts on student achievement.

California faces declining enrollment in public colleges amid budget cuts, while demanding more graduates. For-profit colleges (for-profits) offer a viable solution. Despite past demonization, for-profits were significant in 2009, enrolling around 400,000 and issuing 1 in 5 long-term certificates or degrees in California. Partnering with for-profits could bridge educational gaps. However, California’s fragmented higher education system needs a unified state-level body to set objectives, assess needs, and regulate institutions. Creating such an entity could streamline education goals and methods. Additionally, revising the federal 90/10 financial aid policy for for-profits could foster quality. Implementing a modified 90/10 rule in California would require at least 10% of students to pay tuition from non-federal sources, ensuring market-driven quality standards. While this wouldn't solve larger strategic issues, it offers an initial step to ensure educational standards while protecting student and taxpayer investments.

Teacher preparation in California encounters challenges, prompting reform initiatives. Superintendent Torlakson’s Task Force on Educator Excellence proposed improved accreditation and robust performance assessments. A study comparing three California State University pathways—traditional, internship, and CalStateTEACH online-supported programs—revealed insights. Over seven years, the online pathway stood out, earning the highest ratings in all 17 teacher composites compared to traditional and internship routes. However, supervisor ratings didn't significantly differ between pathways, including overall effectiveness. The study highlighted the online program's strengths: structured curriculum, cohort learning, integrated fieldwork, and additional mentoring. These findings can guide policymakers in teacher training reform. Further research on participant characteristics and evaluation discrepancies could bolster comprehensive reforms.

The Urban School Leaders (USL) program at California State University Dominguez Hills, backed by a five-year federal grant, embodies a partnership between LAUSD districts and the university. Its goal is to prepare leaders for high-needs schools, enhance staff development, and foster student achievement. Adapting to students' needs and the evolving demands on schools has prompted ongoing reflections and changes within the program. Continual adjustments maintain curriculum rigor while integrating theoretical knowledge with practical experiences. The program's evolution is a collaborative effort involving curriculum review, aligning with standards, and emphasizing research-based practices. Forming and nurturing partnerships with school districts necessitates time, flexibility, and creativity, ensuring meaningful dialogues among stakeholders to address LAUSD's student needs. This ongoing learning process emphasizes the importance of active experiences and reflective learning for educational leaders. The success of the program holds promise for policy implications, establishing a new paradigm in leader development, emphasizing ongoing university-district partnerships, transforming urban communities, and embedding research as a regular practice within educational settings. This model foresees universities becoming hubs for continual development, fostering a transformed educational landscape by nurturing stable communities and promoting ongoing research-driven improvements.