California’s push for universal algebra for 8th graders has led to a rise in students taking algebra but also shows a significant dropout in advanced math courses. Researchers focused on CST results from 2003 to 2011, revealing that while more 8th graders took Algebra I CST, fewer reached higher-level math in grades 9–11. The increase in 8th-grade algebra seemed to double the dropout rate in the pipeline toward higher math courses, especially for students scoring below proficient in 8th-grade algebra. The study found that students who scored proficient in 7th-grade general math had a significantly higher success rate in 9th-grade algebra compared to those below proficient in 8th-grade algebra. It highlighted that preparing students better in Grade 7 Mathematics could be more effective than funneling them into 8th-grade algebra, where more than half struggled to pass. The research calls for a reevaluation of the 8th-grade algebra policy, suggesting the need for alternatives to better support students' future success in math, highlighting the limitations of policy-driven change without effective changes in classroom practices.

The challenges faced by California school districts are complex, demanding leaders to navigate diverse educational philosophies and implement explicit equity-oriented policies. A study on an urban California district revealed that, beyond technical issues, ideological differences among leaders, teachers, and principals can compromise the development of ambitious, equity-oriented instructional policies. Embracing political trends, influenced by federal policies like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, may narrow the educational focus to economic goals, emphasizing standardized testing and basic skills. This shift detracts from broader academic objectives, such as fostering community engagement and critical thinking. A new study underscores the significant role of ideology in shaping district instructional policies and highlights the potential consequences of aligning with political trends that perpetuate educational inequities for historically underserved communities. Ultimately, the findings illustrate how societal and institutional trends can intensify existing disparities by promoting policies that prioritize narrow economic purposes of schooling over holistic educational goals.

California voters express widespread concern about the state of their schools, with 42% giving schools a grade of D or F, and 57% believing they have deteriorated in recent years. The inadequacy of school funding is acknowledged, with over 40% rating state efforts poorly on a 10-point scale. Evidence from the PACE/USC Rossier Voter Poll reveals bipartisan skepticism about school funding, with Democrats slightly more optimistic. However, challenges loom for two funding initiatives on the November ballot. Despite recognition of funding issues, voters harbor deep skepticism about the state's ability to use resources efficiently, posing a significant political hurdle. The poll indicates voters' persistent doubt about the state's trustworthiness in spending money wisely, presenting a challenge for advocates of increased educational spending. The divisive debate among supporters of different funding propositions further complicates matters, potentially leading to the failure of both initiatives and significant consequences for the state's education system. Despite concerns about schools and acknowledgment of the need for more funding, voters appear skeptical about the achievability of educational improvement, posing a potential challenge for initiatives in the November elections.

A recent study examines the implementation of standards-based reform, particularly the alignment of state policies with teachers' instructional practices. Drawing on surveys from over 10,000 teachers in mathematics, science, and English language arts, the research identifies key correlations. It finds that teachers exhibit greater instructional alignment in states where standards and assessments align well, where standards cover a broader range of topics, and where there is a higher degree of accountability. The results have implications for California's Common Core implementation, highlighting the importance of improving alignment between assessments and standards. Additionally, the findings suggest that highly focused standards may pose challenges for teachers, necessitating additional support for fundamental changes in instructional content and form. This study underscores the significance of coherent state policies in enhancing instructional alignment and offers insights for improving educational practices in California and beyond.

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.

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.