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.