"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.

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.