In efforts to equalize college access, policymakers pushed for universal algebra in schools. However, recent research suggests unintended consequences. California mandated algebra for graduation, influencing eighth-grade algebra standards and penalizing schools if students didn't take Algebra I exams. Studies revealed problems: more eighth-graders enrolled in algebra, but many struggled and repeated the course. Programs enforcing early algebra showed lowered scores, course failures, and no significant college entrance improvements. These findings raise crucial queries: Are such aggressive algebra policies beneficial for all students? Can they be implemented effectively, considering diverse student needs? Experts propose early preparation, support, emphasizing academic value, diverse pedagogy, and role models as potential solutions. Balancing curricular rigidity against students' diverse skill levels remains a challenge. Decisions on 8th-grade math policies should address these concerns to avoid harming students academically while efficiently utilizing educational resources.

California’s push for universal algebra for 8th graders has led to a rise in students taking algebra but also shows a significant dropout in advanced math courses. Researchers focused on CST results from 2003 to 2011, revealing that while more 8th graders took Algebra I CST, fewer reached higher-level math in grades 9-11. The increase in 8th-grade algebra seemed to double the dropout rate in the pipeline toward higher math courses, especially for students scoring below proficient in 8th-grade algebra. The study found that students who scored proficient in 7th-grade general math had a significantly higher success rate in 9th-grade algebra compared to those below proficient in 8th-grade algebra. It highlighted that preparing students better in Grade 7 Mathematics could be more effective than funneling them into 8th-grade algebra, where more than half struggled to pass. The research calls for a reevaluation of the 8th-grade algebra policy, suggesting the need for alternatives to better support students' future success in math, highlighting the limitations of policy-driven change without effective changes in classroom practices.

The educational landscape in the U.S. features a significant number of English Language Learners (ELLs), yet their funding and educational needs remain understudied. Laws mandate providing resources for ELLs, but research on funding for this group is limited. Costing out studies, used to determine educational costs, lack focus on ELLs, despite their exponential growth. Four primary methodologies assess these costs, but they inconsistently include ELLs. Current research suggests states allocate insufficient funds for K–12 education, and ELLs are not adequately addressed in costing out studies. The literature emphasizes the need for adapted methodologies that account for the complex and diverse needs of ELL students. In California, a hub for ELL education, the discussion around a weighted funding formula prompts consideration of how to incorporate ELL needs. Though there's no definitive funding model for ELLs, existing research offers insights for policymakers, stressing the necessity of considering these students' multifaceted backgrounds and educational requirements. Achieving equity in ELL education necessitates refining costing out methodologies to better understand and cater to their diverse needs. Addressing these complexities is essential to ensure ELLs receive equitable resources for an adequate education.

In Tierney and Hallett's chapter, "Homeless Youth and Educational Policy: A Case Study of Urban Youth in a Metropolitan Area," the authors make a significant contribution to understanding and addressing the educational needs of homeless students. They highlight the broadness of the homeless label, emphasizing the diversity of backgrounds and experiences within this group. The focus on high school-aged homeless youth, a fast-growing yet understudied subgroup, is identified as crucial due to the unique challenges they face, including stigma and detachment from supportive relationships. The authors provide a useful typology for understanding the different subpopulations of homeless students, emphasizing the need for nuanced insights into their situations. The chapter also underscores the critical intersection of policy, student/family conditions, and school design in addressing homelessness. The authors' recommendations for school design, despite potential fiscal and political challenges, are praised for their thoughtfulness and ecological awareness. Notably, Tierney's leadership role in advocating for research and action in support of homeless students, given his influential position, is seen as encouraging and likely to have a positive impact on the broader field of education research.

The upcoming implementation of Common Core instructional standards in California is described as a significant transformation for the state's education system. Michael Kirst, President of the California State Board of Education, testified that the Common Core brings about substantial changes by emphasizing deeper learning and moving away from traditional multiple-choice testing. He outlined the extensive work required for successful implementation, emphasizing the need for new policies to align various educational aspects with Common Core standards. California, one of 45 states adopting Common Core, anticipates better alignment with post-secondary study demands, emphasizing a deeper understanding of complex material, particularly in math and nonfiction text analysis. Despite a tighter focus, the standards aim to use fewer, more impactful benchmarks. The current assessment system, reliant on standardized multiple-choice tests, is considered inadequate for measuring Common Core skills. New assessments for English and math are in development, with the state adopting the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. The Common Core provides more curriculum flexibility, abandoning the traditional seven-year textbook adoption cycle in favor of an expedited endorsement process for local districts. Despite the complexity, Kirst expressed confidence in California's ability to navigate this transformative shift, drawing parallels to past successful educational transformations.

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.

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.

 In Southern California, initial schooling as an English Learner (EL) involved segregated classes and academic challenges. Even in later research, little progress was evident in EL programs, now termed ELD, with students sharing similar discontent. Despite my transition to English Proficient status in sixth grade, which allowed access to college prep, outdated identification policies and inadequate ELD methods persist for many ELs. Current practices, relying on the Home Language Survey (HLS) and the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), oversimplify language assessment, often misidentifying students and limiting their access to mainstream curriculums. Bilingual students face unfair burdens, and lacking English proficiency does not always hinder success in English classrooms. The flawed classification system disproportionately affects certain ethnic groups, perpetuating inequalities for low socio-economic status families and recent immigrant parents. Reforms should prioritize early support for ELs and reevaluate reclassification criteria to prevent prolonged disadvantage. Public schools must offer viable pathways to mainstream education for EL students, safeguarding their right to quality education.

The prevailing educational focus on "college and career readiness" lacks consensus on defining and measuring career readiness, showcasing a deeper divide in assessment policy discussions. During the Bush administration, a stance simplifying tests to a universal concept clashed with the nuanced understanding of varied test types. This underlines a fundamental divide: comprehensive assessments seeking detailed insights into students' strengths versus standardized tests sorting students based on proficiency in specific subjects like math and English. This predominant view oversimplifies readiness, equating college and career readiness and reducing it to performance in math (such as Algebra II in California) and English. Challenging this status quo demands demonstrating how more complex assessments—providing insights into diverse skills and knowledge—justify their costs in determining students' readiness for adult life. Shifting this perspective entails proving the value of intricate assessments against the expenses, aiming to showcase how comprehensive insights into students' abilities outweigh the complexities—a challenging endeavor in assessment policy.

Current policies for English Learners (ELs), despite Lau v. Nichols' mandate for equal educational opportunities, often lead to prolonged enrollment in language programs, hindering academic progress. Reports reveal that a significant majority of secondary ELs remain long-term learners, struggling academically due to limited English proficiency, weak academic language skills, and social isolation within linguistically segregated communities. Studies highlight inflexible reclassification criteria and inadequate interactions with English speakers as factors perpetuating prolonged EL status. Once designated EL, students often remain in English Language Development (ELD) courses for extensive periods, limiting their access to mainstream curriculum and advanced coursework essential for postsecondary education. Rigorous reclassification standards impede progress, affecting students' academic growth, particularly in subjects where language is less critical. This prolonged EL status creates learning gaps, restricting access to critical coursework and potentially impeding future academic prospects. Variations in reclassification policies exacerbate inconsistencies in EL education, lacking empirical foundations and evidence-based practices. The enduring effects of extended EL status on academic achievement and psychological well-being necessitate evidence-backed and nuanced reclassification policies, highlighting the critical need for reforms to ensure ELs' equitable access to quality education.

"A New Culture of Learning" by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown presents a vision of learning in the internet era, emphasizing continuous learning intertwined with daily life. Through the story of Sam, a 9-year-old exploring programming on Scratch, the book illustrates collaborative, imaginative learning within a community setting. The authors echo John Dewey's ideals from 1900, advocating personalized, real-world-connected education. They propose structured yet flexible learning environments, akin to multiuser computer games, challenging the industrial efficiency model dominating 20th-century education. However, implementing these ideas faces resistance from established educational institutions. The book aligns with "Learning 2.0," promoting a shift from batch processing to personalized, experiential learning. Ultimately, while technology transforms learning, societal and legislative changes are crucial to reshape education towards a more adaptable and individualized model.

Two recent conferences shed light on critical challenges facing English Learners (EL) in education. Concerns arose regarding the accuracy of identifying EL students and the low rates of their reclassification as Fluent English Proficient (FEP). Laurie Olsen's report highlighted the issue, revealing a significant percentage of EL students failing to achieve English proficiency, impacting their access to higher education due to ineligibility for advanced coursework. California's EL student population has surged, necessitating precise identification for English language services. However, the Home Language Survey (HLS) lacks depth, relying on parental language reports without accounting for multilingual homes or actual student English proficiency. Studies have revealed inaccuracies due to parental reporting, socioeconomic factors, and complexities in language acquisition. Experts advocate for a more nuanced and rigorous classification system beyond HLS and CELDT assessments. Incorrect categorization leads to inadequate instruction, unfair assessments, and potential academic setbacks for EL students. Addressing these flaws is essential to provide equitable educational opportunities and ensure accurate academic placement for EL students.

For over 50 years, American education has fixated on math as a symbol of global competitiveness. Reforms driven by fears of falling behind—from the space race era to today's STEM emphasis—reflect the nation's obsession with mathematics. Despite its limited direct utility in most professions, math has become the paramount indicator of educational success, a trend bolstered by its easy measurability and ability to stratify students. Math serves as a convenient benchmark, easily comparable across nations, unlike subjects influenced by language and culture. Its complexity and varied student performance sort individuals into academic tracks, influencing educational opportunities and college admissions. Mastery of advanced math becomes pivotal, shaping academic pathways and college admissions criteria for competitive institutions, despite its limited relevance to most professions. This fixation on math mirrors Latin's historical significance in Europe as a marker of education and social status. Latin, due to its complexity and measurability, shaped educational landscapes. Similarly, math has become a modern equivalent—relevant for some professions yet disproportionately emphasized in educational policy debates. This disproportionate emphasis may overshadow its actual significance in most Americans' lives and careers, questioning the intensity of its role in educational discourse.

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 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.

As spring nears, California schools anticipate standardized tests, marking the beginning of efforts to improve education. Many schools, especially those with disadvantaged students, are likely to miss achievement goals, leading to mandatory turnaround plans. The government offers four intervention models, primarily favoring the Transformation model in California. Despite three years of funding for chosen models, their effectiveness lacks robust evidence. The challenge lies in understanding how to effectively overhaul persistently low-performing schools and maintain their progress. Data use is touted as a solution, but merely providing standardized test data without enhancing educators' ability to interpret and use it effectively might not drive meaningful change. Even in turnaround settings, there's a lack of widespread engagement with data literacy. It's crucial to engage in meaningful discussions about school turnaround now, rather than reacting impulsively after test scores release, as education policies undergo revision. To solve the complexities of school turnaround, collaboration involving diverse stakeholders is crucial. Leveraging intellectual, human, and social resources becomes imperative amidst budget constraints, aiming to secure progress for struggling schools and prevent the continued detriment of students' education.

The adoption of Common Core Standards in California's education system presents an opportunity for comprehensive assessment reform. With the implementation of new standards comes the need for aligned assessments to measure student proficiency accurately. California, initially aligning with the PARCC consortium, now has a chance to reassess its decision under the leadership of Governor Jerry Brown and State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson. The state has options between PARCC and SBAC consortia for assessment alignment but lacks clarity on which system will best serve students' needs. To navigate this uncertainty, California should temporize and participate in both consortia until their approaches crystallize. Key elements of a robust assessment system include computer-adaptive testing, early tracking of college readiness, meaningful high school exit exams, measuring college and career readiness, and involving teachers in assessment development. California's leaders need to ensure the chosen assessment system meets these criteria. By delaying a definitive choice, the state can weigh each consortium's evolution to make an informed decision aligning with California's educational goals.

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.