October 13, 2018 | EdSource

This week, Louis and John interview Marshall Tuck, candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Tuck, a former school administrator, lays out his vision for the job and explains what he would do to strengthen the state’s limited education data...

October 5, 2018 | CISION

Child360, a nonprofit organization committed to supporting early learning from every angle, today announced the appointment of William (Bill) Sperling as Chief Executive Officer. He will lead as CEO effective immediately and will be the force behind Child360's vision to...

September 28, 2018 | Chapman University

Dr. Michelle Hall, Attallah College of Educational Studies’ Director of Program Assessment and Improvement, was one of the contributors to a major update to a key research project, Getting Down to Facts II (GDTF II), that examines the many facets...

September 25, 2018 | Education Week

Despite investing in education data systems, California produces little information on how to provide an effective education for its students, according to a 36-study analysis by the Policy Analysis for California Education Center at Stanford University. The study finds that...

September 24, 2018 | Cal Watchdog

In 2007, researchers associated with Stanford University released “Getting Down to Facts”–a massive compilation of studies of the California K-12 public school system. The hundreds of pages of voluminous research allowed both the state education establishment and its critics to...

September 21, 2018 | KQED News

A troubling new research project finds that the achievement gap among California’s 6 million school children begins as early as kindergarten. What contributes to this startling inequity and what can be done to narrow the gap?

September 19, 2018 | Capital Public Radio

Researchers from Stanford University and Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) released a new study on K-12 education in California this week. Dr. Susanna Loeb, Principal Investigator, and Dr. Heather Hough, Executive Director of PACE will join us to discuss...

September 18, 2018 | EdSource

EdSource interviews with Sean Reardon and Deborah Stipek, professors at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, about their contributions to the research project on California public education, Getting Down to Facts II. Reardon’s research found that California’s low-income children entered...

September 17, 2018 | CalMatters

A decade ago, an academic research team produced a massive report on the shortcomings in how California’s K-12 schools educate about 6 million children and adolescents. The “Getting Down to Facts” report was issued just as a very severe recession...

Commentary author
Summary

Year-round school calendars, widely adopted in California due to school crowding, aim to evenly distribute school days. Multi-track calendars, seen as cost-saving, accommodate larger student bodies. There is a belief that redistributing summer breaks could counteract summer learning loss, particularly for disadvantaged students. Research highlights caution regarding year-round schooling. While cost savings are clear, academic gains haven't materialized, impacting high-risk student groups negatively. California showed notably negative effects compared to neutral outcomes in Wake County, North Carolina, where multi-track calendars were used widely. This disparity emphasizes considering demographics; schools with substantial minority or low-income populations may face different challenges. The findings caution policymakers against risking student achievement solely for minor savings. Tailored approaches for schools based on their demographics are suggested. The academic benefits of year-round schooling remain scarce, except for addressing severe overcrowding. Yet, amid tightening budgets, year-round schools are cautiously endorsed as a financial reform, urging further examination and context-specific considerations in policymaking.

Commentary author
Summary

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.