Educators face growing pressure to utilize data for informed decision-making, yet the research supporting this movement remains underdeveloped. A recent Educational Administration Quarterly article delves into organizational factors influencing data use, drawing from four California school systems. Across traditional districts and charter management organizations (CMOs), state and federal accountability systems heavily shape data use. These systems prioritize data from state assessments and benchmark exams, crucial for program improvement and attracting families in charter schools. Organizational conditions, like decision-making structures, financial resources, and regulatory environments, impact resource allocation for data use. While financial constraints universally limit efforts, CMOs’ decentralized structures enable investments in human capital and technology. These findings highlight tensions arising from diverse accountability demands and propose revisiting metrics underpinning success. They also suggest avenues for sharing best practices, such as districts aiding teacher support while CMOs demonstrate advanced data management systems. Policymakers can leverage these insights to navigate accountability complexities and foster cross-system learning.

Performance-based accountability (PBA) encourages using achievement data for school improvement, including student assignment decisions. A recent study focuses on Florida elementary schools under PBA to understand their practices. While all schools used performance data (test scores, course grades) for student assignments, there was little variation between high- and low-performing schools. Despite PBA's intent to assist struggling students, researchers found no significant shift in assigning them to more effective teachers. Schools aimed for balanced classrooms, distributing high, middle, and low performers equally across teachers. Principals emphasized fairness and conducive learning environments over targeting struggling students to specific teachers. This study reveals that while PBA influenced using performance data for assignments, it did not prompt schools to allocate struggling students to the most effective teachers. Principals prioritized fairness, maintaining balanced classrooms, and spreading students evenly across teachers rather than concentrating struggling students with particular educators.

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.

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.

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.