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 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.

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.

The California Teachers Association's preliminary assessment of the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) showed positive outcomes, yet it is a disappointing occasion for two key reasons. Firstly, QEIA's implementation coincided with severe budget cuts in California, limiting its intended significant boost for struggling schools to merely shielding them from the fiscal crisis rather than driving transformative change. Secondly, QEIA's evaluation, designed as a quasi-experiment, lacks the essential randomized assignment of funds, hindering any conclusive understanding of the impact of these resources. The evaluation's ongoing focus on case studies won't offer substantial insight into QEIA's effectiveness, portraying it as a missed chance for impactful educational improvement.

In education polling, people often rate their local schools highly but give lower scores to the overall public school system. This gap in trust between citizens and the broader system poses a significant issue in California due to its vastness and reliance on state resources. Rebuilding trust in the public school system is crucial for garnering necessary political and financial support. PACE’s recent seminar showcased Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR), a project in districts like Twin Rivers, Pasadena, and Los Angeles Unified. It aims to grant more autonomy over budgets to individual schools while increasing accountability for resource use and student performance. This shift might enhance transparency in fund allocation but doesn’t solve the broader issue. While boosting confidence in local leadership, concerns about resource usage elsewhere in the system persist. California’s real challenge lies in reconnecting schools with their communities beyond merely enhancing resource efficiency.

Approximately 25% of California K–12 students are English Language Learners. Despite our best efforts, less than 60% of ELLs are English proficient after 6 years. In addition, their achievement levels are well below their English proficient counterparts. One of California Governor Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial goals is to reduce the messy number of categorical funding formulas and thus increase funding for English Language Learners and low income families.He would also like the State Board of Education to adopt instructional materials that provide intensive intervention and support for English Learners and to use existing federal funds to expand after-school and summer school programs to supplement English Learning programs.

Smart Money examines how successful school districts allocate resources linked to higher student achievement. It suggests integrating student achievement goals into labor negotiations between school management and unions. Currently, talks primarily revolve around wages and employment conditions, overshadowing student success. Advocating a transformative shift in labor law, the book proposes making student achievement a mandatory negotiation topic. This change aims to align budgeting with educational goals, prompting discussions on resource impact. It resists prescribing specific goals but encourages discussions, prompting both sides to consider how funds affect achievement. This approach broadens goals beyond test scores to encompass graduation rates, language proficiency, and authentic assessments. Incorporating student achievement goals in labor contracts could gradually reshape practices without disrupting established structures. The change aims to enhance educational outcomes in bargaining discussions while maintaining negotiation processes.

Research findings indicate that the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) exit exam has not yielded the expected benefits and, instead, has negatively affected many students. Criticism revolves around the exam's low proficiency levels in math (7th-8th grade) and English (10th grade). The debate focuses on the necessity of the exam and the appropriate performance standard. Increasing the bar to a college-ready level might significantly raise graduation failure rates, while eliminating the exam could diminish a student's incentive for engagement. With the emergence of new assessment systems aligned to Common Core Standards, the conflict between graduation requirements and college readiness will likely intensify, potentially leading to the abandonment of the exit exam.

For nearly three decades, PACE has facilitated discussions on California's education policies by integrating academic research into key policy challenges. Traditionally, this involved publishing policy briefs, organizing seminars, and producing the annual 'Conditions of Education in California' report, offering comprehensive data and analysis on the state's education system. The launch of "Conditions of Education in California" as a blog marks a shift to engage a wider audience and enable ongoing updates. This platform, authored by PACE-affiliated researchers across California, aims to share new data, compelling research findings, and insights on current legislation and policies. The objective remains fostering informed discussions on education policy challenges in California, now extending the conversation to policymakers, educators, and citizens. This inclusive dialogue is crucial to drive the necessary policy understanding and momentum for improving the state's education system.

"Getting Down to Facts" is a new research initiative commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger's Committee on Education Excellence, state Democratic leaders, and Superintendent Jack O'Connell. Led by Susanna Loeb, a Stanford Graduate School of Education Professor and PACE codirector, this project seeks to explore California's school finance and governance systems. Its objective is to provide comprehensive insights essential for assessing the effectiveness of potential reforms. The initiative addresses three key questions: the current state of school finance and governance, optimizing existing resources for improved student outcomes, and evaluating the need for additional resources to meet educational goals. The studies from this project are expected to be available by January 2007.