A new study focuses on the anticipated advantages of charter schools compared to public schools, particularly in terms of teacher autonomy and accountability. While the charter school system was envisioned to provide educators with more freedom and responsibility, this research sought to verify these assumptions. Analyzing teacher survey data, the study found that teachers in charter schools indeed experienced more autonomy than those in public schools. However, there was no significant disparity in how accountable they felt. Interestingly, within the charter school realm, teachers in schools run by Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) reported less autonomy compared to teachers in independent charter schools, with a parallel level of accountability. The research suggests that excessive administrative red tape, especially prevalent in public schools and EMO-run charters, may hinder teacher autonomy. This raises concerns about the accountability aspect of the charter school arrangement and calls for improvements in both sectors. Public schools might benefit from reducing unnecessary administrative burdens to enhance teacher autonomy, while charter schools, especially EMO-run ones, need to address issues hindering teacher independence and accountability fulfillment.

Michael W. Kirst discusses the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the CA overhaul of accountability based on local control of education policy. The federal law requires multiple measures for accountability, including some with state choice. Databases for English learners will change significantly. Federal requirements for teacher evaluation will be deregulated significantly. State assessments are all over the place and will be hard to summarize. California is building an integrated federal/state/local accountability system that includes 23 metrics, primarily for local use in Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) that focus on improving budget strategy. Longitudinal data bases from the past will be difficult to integrate with these policy shifts.

Researchers conducted an experiment to determine if incentives could improve low-income students' attendance in tutoring programs provided through Supplemental Education Services (SEdS). Three groups of 5th-8th graders were formed: one offered a $100 reward for regular attendance, another receiving certificates of recognition, and a control group without incentives. Surprisingly, the monetary reward didn't increase attendance, while the certificate group attended 40% more sessions than the control. This contrasts with past studies showing monetary incentives for improved test scores as ineffective, suggesting that mere rewards may not enhance skills without additional support. The certificate approach proved cost-effective, costing $9 per student versus $100 for the monetary incentive. However, wider implementation's effectiveness might diminish due to students' varied perceptions of recognition's value, related to existing academic achievements or repeated rewards. The study's success suggests non-monetary incentives are effective and inexpensive. Policymakers and educators seeking to boost student participation in underutilized programs should consider these findings, emphasizing nuanced research into varying incentives' effectiveness and cost-efficiency to motivate student engagement. Despite these promising results, a comprehensive solution requires a deeper understanding of how different incentives affect diverse student populations and their sustained impact over time.

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.

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.

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.