Researchers investigate how policy environments influence teacher participation in professional development, focusing on high-stakes (mathematics) and low-stakes (science) subjects. Analyzing a national sample of high school math and science educators, it uses hierarchical linear models to understand these associations. The findings indicate that policy contexts significantly impact teachers' engagement in impactful professional development, particularly in high-stakes subjects. Aligning state standards with assessments emerges as a key policy element driving teachers' involvement in content-focused professional development, especially in mathematics. The research highlights that policy proximity to teachers strengthens these correlations. State and school policies play a crucial role in teachers accessing quality professional development, especially in high-stakes subjects. Policies emphasizing alignment between standards and assessments stand out as influential factors in encouraging teachers to partake in effective professional development.

The "what gets tested, gets taught" adage needs updating to "what gets tested and included in school accountability, gets taught." During No Child Left Behind, science took a backseat to reading and math due to its optional status in accountability measures. Examining states' pre- and post-NCLB performance on NAEP for grades four and eight showed that integrating science into accountability positively impacted fourth-grade scores without affecting math or reading. Eighth-grade results showed no similar link, likely due to dedicated science teachers. Fourth-grade classrooms often burden a single teacher with multiple subjects, leading to a focus on tested areas like reading and math. Research involving fourth-grade teachers in states incorporating science scores confirmed increased science teaching time. California's testing of science from fifth grade misses the earlier integration potential highlighted in this research. While the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reinstated science testing, it still leaves the accountability weight to states. Considering the global need for STEM education, consistently aligning science with reading and math in assessments appears practical. Acknowledging the persistent focus on school accountability, integrating science into assessments is a sensible step to address the current fragmented attention on science education.

The Urban School Leaders (USL) program at California State University Dominguez Hills, backed by a five-year federal grant, embodies a partnership between LAUSD districts and the university. Its goal is to prepare leaders for high-needs schools, enhance staff development, and foster student achievement. Adapting to students' needs and the evolving demands on schools has prompted ongoing reflections and changes within the program. Continual adjustments maintain curriculum rigor while integrating theoretical knowledge with practical experiences. The program's evolution is a collaborative effort involving curriculum review, aligning with standards, and emphasizing research-based practices. Forming and nurturing partnerships with school districts necessitates time, flexibility, and creativity, ensuring meaningful dialogues among stakeholders to address LAUSD's student needs. This ongoing learning process emphasizes the importance of active experiences and reflective learning for educational leaders. The success of the program holds promise for policy implications, establishing a new paradigm in leader development, emphasizing ongoing university-district partnerships, transforming urban communities, and embedding research as a regular practice within educational settings. This model foresees universities becoming hubs for continual development, fostering a transformed educational landscape by nurturing stable communities and promoting ongoing research-driven improvements.

Charter schools have evolved, now aiming to influence traditional districts. Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) are gaining attention as vehicles for reform. In a study of 25 CMOs, factors impacting their growth were analyzed. Positive influences included charter-friendly state policies and local resources like facilities and staff. However, limited funding and strained relations with authorizers restricted growth. State legislation, particularly charter caps and the chartering process, heavily affected CMOs. For California CMOs, the state charter cap and appeal rights enabled scale-up, while funding and facilities posed challenges. Policymakers face questions about facilitating CMO scale-up through state and local policies, treating high-performing CMOs differently during oversight, and supporting CMOs replicating models across state lines. The role of state policies in regulating and aiding high-quality CMOs seeking expansion remains a key consideration.

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.

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 recent Interim Status Report on district financial health isn't surprising, indicating 13 districts can't meet obligations this year or the next. An additional 97 face the same problem in the current or subsequent fiscal years, albeit down from last year. However, this report doesn't reflect potential loss of temporary tax revenues or the proposed multi-billion dollar funding deferral. Notably, federal stimulus funds, especially beneficial for districts with more students in poverty, are diminishing. These funds cushioned reductions in district revenue and program cuts. As these funds dwindle, it disproportionately impacts districts with more economically disadvantaged students, who require additional resources. The loss of stimulus funds intensifies the struggle for these districts, significantly affecting their educational resources. In Los Angeles, a recent educational summit aimed to rekindle support for public education. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stressed the need for a new labor relationship and urged a data-driven approach to evaluate student performance and teacher effectiveness. The loss of these funds could further strain districts already facing financial instability. This impending financial strain is particularly concerning for districts serving economically disadvantaged students, highlighting the challenges they will face in providing adequate educational resources.

Diversity in education has evolved through tolerance, acceptance, and celebration but now integrates into the essence of teaching and learning. Recognizing unique identities, educators embrace differences, transforming education. California's educators incorporate diverse perspectives into teaching methods, curriculum design, and partnerships, honoring varied experiences. This evolution surpasses mere cultural nods, aiming to intertwine diversity into the fabric of education. Teachers navigate sensitivity, heterodoxy, and intersectionality, fostering inclusive learning. The focus remains on promoting pluralism without compromising academic rigor or ethical standards. The handbook "Studying Diversity in Teacher Education" underscores these progressive concepts, advocating their timely implementation across educational landscapes.

The push for pay-for-performance teacher salaries could revolutionize education by valuing teaching as specialized talent. This shift, prompted by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and supporters, aims to reward exceptional teaching through test score-based incentives. However, this transition could significantly raise education expenses and transform the teacher compensation structure. Drawing parallels with Marvin Miller's revolutionizing baseball players' wages, the switch from uniform teacher salaries to valuing exceptional talent may yield unpredictable effects. Recognizing and promoting exceptional teachers could mimic how colleges offer star professors premium wages. Yet, envisioning a system where teacher talent determines compensation might generate brutal competition, creating substantial salary disparities among educators. While this approach celebrates exceptional teachers, it's uncertain how this would impact overall teacher wages and the teaching profession as a whole. Considering the historical rise of wages in specialized fields, proponents of this shift may not have accounted for the potential salary demands that valuing teacher talent could create.

Alan Daly's recent commentary delves into the debate surrounding what qualifies as a "highly qualified" teacher, stemming from recent legislation that broadened this definition, impacting both human and social capital in schools. He highlights the significance of social capital, emphasizing that teachers in supportive environments tend to perform better. The bill allows alternative path teachers to be deemed "highly qualified," recognizing their capability despite lacking state certification, a move not strongly supported by evidence. However, the legislation adversely impacts social capital. It aligns with California's education code favoring seniority in layoffs, disproportionately affecting newer teachers in challenging schools. Layoffs in these schools disrupt stability and equitable teacher distribution, contrary to the lawsuit's aim for fairer teacher allocation. By removing a potential tool for equalizing teacher distribution, Congress risks exacerbating inequalities in schools, especially those serving disadvantaged students, which might not significantly affect individual teaching talent but undoubtedly damages social capital where it's needed most.

The debate on teacher tenure lacks concrete quantitative evidence regarding its impact on teacher labor markets or student achievement. Stories of tenure's effects exist, but research is scarce due to the absence of a control group—every public school operates with some form of tenure. However, variations in tenure policies across states, particularly in probationary period lengths, offer insight. Researchers show that longer probation periods correlate with higher starting teacher salaries, especially in districts with collective bargaining. This is because job security as a benefit leads to teachers demanding higher wages in exchange for increased uncertainty. California, with a two-year probationary period, may face salary pressures, especially in districts bordering states like Nevada with different tenure policies. Extending the probation period might lead to salary hikes in certain districts to attract teachers. However, it's uncertain how this change might influence who enters teaching, district responses in terms of evaluation or training, or its overall impact. Further research on tenure's effects on teacher labor markets is necessary to better inform this significant policy debate.

David Plank’s commentary insights highlight the complexities in teacher evaluation, sparking debates about how to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement and how assessments could affect teachers' careers. The discussion around "value-added" assessment has divided opinions, focusing on testing, measurement, and what defines significant learning. Plank suggests maintaining an open dialogue by exploring alternative evaluation methods and reconsidering the concept of 'value.' The 'value-added' assumption rests on the teacher's individual abilities and student demographics, overlooking the potential influence of social capital within an educational system. Research suggests that social capital, like collaborative teacher communities, profoundly impacts teacher effectiveness. Consider two equally skilled new teachers: one in an environment lacking collaboration and shared practices, the other in a supportive, collaborative community. Despite similar abilities, the latter might demonstrate higher 'value-added' due to better access to resources and shared practices. This perspective underscores the importance of social capital alongside human capital in assessing teacher effectiveness. It encourages rethinking evaluation systems to account for the supportive or constraining impact of social relations on a teacher's ability to enhance student learning. Integrating social capital into evaluation discussions could significantly enhance educational reform efforts.

The release of a teacher ranking based on student test scores by the L.A. Times sparked a national debate on the ethics of evaluating teachers publicly. New York City's decision to follow suit intensifies this trend, raising concerns about the validity of using standardized tests to assess educators. Key questions arise regarding the accuracy of tying student achievement solely to teacher performance, considering the limitations of standardized tests in capturing all learning influences. There is a critical inquiry into whether the emphasis on standardized tests prioritizes scores over a more comprehensive educational approach. Doubts persist about the effectiveness of public rankings in motivating improvement or accurately identifying underperforming teachers. Researchers advocate for more nuanced evaluation methods beyond test scores, seeking a holistic approach that includes various measures of effective teaching without resorting to public exposure. Amidst these discussions, there's a call for thoughtful consideration, urging stakeholders to weigh the impact on teachers and teaching quality before embracing such ranking systems.

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.