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.