In education polling, people often rate their local schools highly but give lower scores to the overall public school system. This gap in trust between citizens and the broader system poses a significant issue in California due to its vastness and reliance on state resources. Rebuilding trust in the public school system is crucial for garnering necessary political and financial support. PACE’s recent seminar showcased Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR), a project in districts like Twin Rivers, Pasadena, and Los Angeles Unified. It aims to grant more autonomy over budgets to individual schools while increasing accountability for resource use and student performance. This shift might enhance transparency in fund allocation but doesn’t solve the broader issue. While boosting confidence in local leadership, concerns about resource usage elsewhere in the system persist. California’s real challenge lies in reconnecting schools with their communities beyond merely enhancing resource efficiency.

In a challenging economic climate, only two of seventeen proposed parcel tax measures for school funding passed this year. Parcel taxes, flat taxes per property parcel, offer districts a means to raise additional revenue for specified purposes. While historically, California districts have had some success with parcel taxes, recent elections have seen varying results. Between 1983 and 2009, voters approved about half of the 486 parcel tax elections, primarily favoring smaller, higher-income communities. However, only a fraction of districts attempted to pass parcel taxes, with success rates skewed toward wealthier areas. The success of these taxes, even under different voting thresholds, remains unpredictable as altering the threshold might impact voter turnout and campaign spending. This year's rejection of most parcel tax proposals underscores the difficulty districts face in garnering local revenue, emphasizing the limited control California districts have over their funding sources.

Approximately 25% of California K–12 students are English Language Learners. Despite our best efforts, less than 60% of ELLs are English proficient after 6 years. In addition, their achievement levels are well below their English proficient counterparts. One of California Governor Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial goals is to reduce the messy number of categorical funding formulas and thus increase funding for English Language Learners and low income families.He would also like the State Board of Education to adopt instructional materials that provide intensive intervention and support for English Learners and to use existing federal funds to expand after-school and summer school programs to supplement English Learning programs.

he recent conference, co-hosted by PACE and Pivot Learning Partners in Southern California, aimed to revamp teacher evaluations. Current evaluations lack substance, often offering superficial, pre-announced assessments that don't aid improvement. This approach doesn't align with enhancing schools or student performance. Challenges abound: effective evaluations require a broader educational strategy involving recruitment, support systems, and professional development, all currently lacking depth in California. Moreover, there's a lack of consensus on fair evaluation systems due to the state's low administrator-to-student ratio and inadequate assessment criteria. Despite these hurdles, the conference showcased a shared acknowledgment of flaws and a collective drive among districts to seek alternative solutions. This unity sparks hope for a more informative evaluation system supporting teachers and school effectiveness. Yet, achieving this demands comprehensive reforms that intertwine evaluation with broader educational enhancement strategies.

A recent LA Times article indicates positive views among Californians on immigrants, with 48% seeing them as beneficial and 59% supporting residency for long-employed undocumented workers. It urges a reevaluation of laws like AB540 and the California DREAM Act, emphasizing their economic advantages. Despite debates about costs, recent reports suggest that the actual enrollment of undocumented students in California's higher education may be as low as 0.23%. This challenges assumptions about financial burdens. Given California's immigration impact, the incoming governor must advocate actively for comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act.

Smart Money examines how successful school districts allocate resources linked to higher student achievement. It suggests integrating student achievement goals into labor negotiations between school management and unions. Currently, talks primarily revolve around wages and employment conditions, overshadowing student success. Advocating a transformative shift in labor law, the book proposes making student achievement a mandatory negotiation topic. This change aims to align budgeting with educational goals, prompting discussions on resource impact. It resists prescribing specific goals but encourages discussions, prompting both sides to consider how funds affect achievement. This approach broadens goals beyond test scores to encompass graduation rates, language proficiency, and authentic assessments. Incorporating student achievement goals in labor contracts could gradually reshape practices without disrupting established structures. The change aims to enhance educational outcomes in bargaining discussions while maintaining negotiation processes.

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.

Research findings indicate that the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) exit exam has not yielded the expected benefits and, instead, has negatively affected many students. Criticism revolves around the exam's low proficiency levels in math (7th-8th grade) and English (10th grade). The debate focuses on the necessity of the exam and the appropriate performance standard. Increasing the bar to a college-ready level might significantly raise graduation failure rates, while eliminating the exam could diminish a student's incentive for engagement. With the emergence of new assessment systems aligned to Common Core Standards, the conflict between graduation requirements and college readiness will likely intensify, potentially leading to the abandonment of the exit exam.

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.

The Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court case in 1982 established that undocumented children have the right to a public education, protecting around 1.5 million children. However, the educational rights of about 65,000 undocumented high school graduates expire annually, posing challenges for their access to higher education. Texas passed HB1403 in 2001, allowing undocumented graduates to pay in-state tuition, citing economic benefits. Following suit, California passed AB540, providing in-state tuition but facing challenges in enrollment. California Senate Bill 1460, the California DREAM Act, aims to grant access to state financial aid for undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition. Despite state investments in their education, Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed the California DREAM Act three times. With federal immigration reform expected, there are questions whether California will seize the opportunity to tap into the potential talent pool of educated undocumented students by passing the California DREAM Act in 2010. The article highlights the resilience, academic achievement, and community contributions of undocumented students, urging recognition of their potential as an asset for the state.

David N. Plank joined PACE as Executive Director after leading the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. With a background in educational finance and policy, he has extensive experience in academia and international consulting for organizations like the World Bank and governments in Africa and Latin America. At Michigan State, he focused on using research to influence state education policy, publishing reports on accountability, school finance, and school choice. Plank aims to leverage his expertise to expand PACE's policy research network, strengthen relationships with California policymakers, and elevate the organization's impact in addressing the state's unique educational challenges.

"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.

We are delighted to announce that Professor David N. Plank, an economist teaching at Michigan State University (MSU), will become PACE's executive director in January 2007. Professor Plank is world renown for his work on school quality and democratic governance both in the U.S. and within developing countries. He currently directs an education policy center at MSU which operates much like PACE. Professor Plank has conducted extensive research in Brazil and is fluent in Portuguese. He will start work from our UC Berkeley office part time, beginning this summer.