Education Technology for a 2st Century Learning SystemPACE Policy Brief 13-3

8/22/2019 Education Technology for a 2st Century Learning SystemPACE Policy Brief 13-3

1/16

Charles Taylor Kerchner is Research

Proessor at Claremot Grauate

Uiversity. His iterest i eucatioal

techology is base o stuies o

large-scale istitutioal chage

a a belie that chages i how

stuets lear are likely to rive

a trasormatio i the structure

o public eucatio. More o his

recet work ca be ou at www.

miworkers.com.

Policy Brie 13-3

MAY 2013

Eucatio TechologyPolicy or a 21st

Cetury LearigSystem

Charles Taylor Kercher

Educational technology has

always overpromised and

under delivered. Every tech-

nological innovation, rom

student workbooks in the 1920s to

television in the 1950s, was accompa-

nied by the prediction that it would

revolutionize teaching and learning.

All these predictions proved wrong.1

Te learning production system that

technology tries to alter has proven

remarkably long lasting, and or a

simple reason. For more than a

century, no one has ound a more

ecient system or teaching children

than putting a teacher in ront o 30

students in a classroom, unless it wasto add more students. Te phrase the

grammar o schooling enshrines the

basic teaching technology: students

are divided into grades, each with

its expectations. Tere are standard

subjects that become separate courses

by the high school level. Courses last

or set periods o time, and a students

credit, a teachers pay, and a schools

nances are all tied to the delivery o

these courses.2

Schools usually equate technology

adoption with buying computers and

wiring buildings. Buying technology

makes boards and superintendents

look modern and legitimately progres-

sive. Buying technology responds to

questions about preparing students or

Executive Summary

Iteret-relate techology has

the capacity to chage the learig

prouctio system i three

importat ways. First, it creates

the capacity to move rom the

existig batch processig system

o teachig a learig to a

much more iiviualize learig

system capable o matchig

istructioal style a pace to a

stuets ees.

Seco, techology ca help

make the learig system smart.

Aaptive sotware respos to

stuet activity, proviig optios,

assistace, a challeges. It ca

also provie eeback to teachers,

allowig them to itervee a

ajust.

Thir, Iteret-base techology

has the capacity to switch learig

prouctio rom its traitioal

hierarchy to a much more ope

etwork. Curretly, the ocial

curriculum, alog with associate

lessos a tests, ows rom a

small oligopoly o publishers

whose actios are guie by

a haul o large states a

school istricts. The ecoomies

o scale iheret i curriculum

packagig cocetrate political

a ecoomic avatage a

reiorce the teecy towar oe

Continued on page 2.


2/16

best system a oe-size-fts-all

solutios. The etwork capacity o

the Iteret opes the prouctio o

learig to groups o teachers, small

eterprises, a iiviuals.

I this policy brie Charles Taylor

Kercher argues that Calioria has

a opportuity to take the lea i

haressig igital techologies a

olie resources to ramatically

improve the perormace o the

states schools a stuets. He

ietifes key policy chages that

the state ca aopt to take ull

avatage o the promise o what

he calls Learig 2.0.

Executive Summary (Cont.)

the 21stcentury and global competi-

tion. Yet, technology is almost always

crammed into the existing system.

Because technology has largely beensubject to the existing production

system, it has been, at most, a valuable

adjunct. A student can use a computer

in the back o the classroom to review

or drill. Fresh inormation rom the

web can be brought into a class discus-

sion. But oen, computers are simply

delivered to classrooms, and teachers

are le to integrate them into their

pedagogy, similar to adding a sand

table to a kindergarten. o teachers,

technology is oen a maddening com-

plication, an unwelcome intrusion.

Joel Rose, who had been an elementary

school teacher in Houston beore start-

ing the School o One in New York City,

recalled his teaching days aer some-

one rom the district delivered three

computers to his classroom: Tree

kids are on the computer; Im work-

ing with 24one kid nished early

he wants to come inthe other two

are hitting each otherI got them to

stopone kid said he was absent yes-

terday and he missed his turncan he

go back? It made my job harder. Weve

taken this technology and cascaded it

on the teachers.3

Until now. Tis time it could be di-

erent.

Internet-related technology has the

capacity to change the learning pro-

duction system in three important

ways. First, it creates the capacity to

move rom the existing batch pro-

cessing system to a much more indi-

vidualized learning system capable o

matching learning style and pace to a

students needs. At the School o One

in New York City, each student gets a

playlist every day: a schedule built ontheir previous days work and the stu-

dents learning styles. Depending on

the playlist, a student may spend time

in group lessons, tutorials, or working

alone with one o the 5,000 lesson seg-

ments that the schools developers have

selected rom publishers and soware

developers.

Second, technology can help make

the learning system smart. Adaptive

soware responds to student activity,

providing options, assistance, and chal-

lenges. It can also provide eedback to

teachers, allowing them to intervene

and adjust. It is becoming more sophis-

ticated, and is being developed by rms

such as Dreambox (in which ormer

State School Board president Reed

Hastings has invested), Headsprout

Knewton, Grockit, Carnegie Learning

and others. Adaptive technology is also

being built into the new assessments

being developed by the SMARER Bal

anced Assessment Consortium (SBAC

that Caliornia joined to complemen

the Common Core State Standards.

Tird, Internet-based technology has

the capacity to switch learning produc

tion rom its traditional hierarchy to a

much more open network. Currently

the oicial curriculum, along withassociated lessons and tests, ows rom

a small oligopoly o publishers whose

actions are guided by a handul o large

states and school districts. Te econo

mies o scale inherent in curriculum

packaging concentrate political and

economic advantage and reinorce the

tendency toward one best system

and one-size-ts-all solutions. Te

network capacity o the Internet opensthe production o learning to groups o

teachers, small enterprises, and indi-

viduals, such as Salman Khan, whose

electronic chalkboard lessons or his

niece gave rise to the ree-access Khan

Academy.

Network capacity also enables peer

production collaboratives, such a

those that support the classroom

management system Moodle or thecurriculum development project Cur

riki. In each o these cases the capacity

to create is matched by the capacity o

users to critique and modiy. Socia

sharing and exchange allow groups o

teachers and others to create educa-

tional materialsFlexbooks are a good

examplethat rival the eectiveness o

P O L I C Y B R I E F

E d U C AT I On T E C Hn OLOG Y P OL I C Y F OR A 21S T C E n T U R Y L E AR n I n G S YS T E M2


3/16

those created by conventional publish-

ers. As the capacity or adaptive so-

ware increases, opportunity or peer

production o educational materials

will increase also.

Te network capacity o the Internet

supports student collaboration, allow-

ing youngsters to work and learn

together on projects and in virtual

study groups with access to experts

anywhere in the world. Educators

have known or decades that student

study groups were powerul motiva-tors and achievement boosters. Te

Internet extends this capacity and in so

doing increases the capacity or social

learning.

In Disrupting Class, Clayton Chris-

tensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis

Johnson argue that the Internet is an

inherently disruptive technology, that

education will ollow the path o other

industries, and that schools will ipinto Internet-driven learning all on

their own. But there are signs that the

institutional inertia in public education

may, once again, be stronger than the

orce o technology.4

A Difcult Public Policy Arena

Te potential o technology and the

inertia o existing institutions produce

an exquisite public policy ace-o.echnology will continue to develop

even i the state does nothing at all.

Computers, tablets, smartphones, and

thousands o apps will continue to

appear. Existing vendors will jockey

to incorporate technology into the

products they sell, and o course sew up

proprietary rights as they do so. Ven-

ture capitalists will continue to und

applications that look promising. A

robust industry o inventors and devel-

opers will create new curricula, entire

instructional systems, and sotware

or managing educational talent and

aggregating and analyzing data.

How should public policy respond?

Caliornia has a strong interest in

making public education ecient and

productive, but it has seldom explicitly

used technology to pursue that interest.

It has a strong interest in educationalequity, both in access and in outcomes,

and it has a strong interest in keeping

the system open to innovations created

outside school districts while prevent-

ing vendors rom capturing the cur-

ricular and pedagogical core.

Te state has a considerable interest in

technology policies that make learn-

ing work better in areas o education

that are relatively expensive, wheresuccess has been dicult to achieve,

and where greater eciencies could

be realized i the parts o the system

worked together. With the right tech-

nology policies, these are achievable

goals. Tus, the approach advocated

here combines a big picture view o

capacitybuilding a new learning

systemwith the application o tech-

nology to some o public educations

persistent achievement problems.

I have studied schools where people

think outside the conventions o the

century-old acquisition and storage

model o learning and where learning

is organized in unconventional ways,

providing a glimpse o what a new

learning system might look like. At

High ech High in San Diego, New

ech at Jeerson High School in Los

Angeles, and the Avalon School in

Minnesota, students learn by design-

ing and completing projects. All these

schools make extensive use o tech-

nology in pursuit o their distinctive

learning systems. Parents who enrol

their children in the Caliornia Virtua

Academy link them to a highly struc

tured curriculum and online support

As demonstrated at Los Angeles Uni-

ed School Districts technology air

hands-on learning motivates studentssome o whom have been ganged

up and lost to any orm o schooling

to recreate themselves as designers

and graphic artists. At Rocketship

Claremont High School, and other

schools, blended learningclicks and

bricks brings together technology

and ace-to-ace experiences using

Moodle and other soware. Games

simulations, apps, and the burgeoningworld o open lectures and courses

grow daily. Scotland has invested in

the worlds irst national education

intranet, Glow, which can link every

student, classroom, teacher, and amily

in the country.

I have synthesized the lessons rom

these and other schools into what I

call Learning 2.0, the next ull scale

upgrade o learning production. Likewell-designed soware, it stands on

the shoulders o the century-old mode

courses and classes, Learning 1.0, bu

does not destroy it. Te old system

which is known and comortable

rests underneath and is still accessible

Tinking about deploying technology

in this way makes it possible or stu

E d U C AT I On T E C Hn OL OG Y P OL I C Y FOR A 21S T C E n T U R Y L E AR n I n G S YS T E M3


4/16

dents, teachers, schools, and districts to

move ahead at dierent rates.

Learning 2.0 recognizes that studentsare the real workers in the education

system and that school reorm can-

not proceed under the assumption

that getting adults to work harder

will make students smarter. Instead,

we need to design and build learning

experiences that are accessible directly

by students and which better motivate

them. When given clear standards and

expectations, along with the expand-ing universe o educational options,

students are capable o much more

sel-direction and monitoring than the

current system expects or allows.

Understanding that student motivation

is the key to achievement, Learning

2.0 takes advantage o the capacity or

individualization that education tech-

nology oers. Te ocial curriculum

o most schools leaves large numberso students either bored or bewildered.

Both in the speed at which knowledge

is presented and the style o learning

experiences, the system needs more

variety in type and style o education,

not less. Individualization and special-

ization o learning will allow dierent

mixtures o technical, artistic, and

conventionally academic education to

co-exist and prosper.

At the same time, Learning 2.0 oers

the promise o greater integration

between learning and application. Te

acquisition and storage model o learn-

ing orms the bones o schooling: learn,

store, and recite on test. When the

current education system was designed

early in the 20th century, students le

school early; some by the end o third

grade, and nearly all by the end o high

school. Te world o work and adult-

hood greeted them, however harshly.

But now the lag between acquisition

and use can be long. High school

graduation is no longer the gateway to

economic sel-suciency. Te path-

way to becoming a medical doctor, a

lawyer, or a proessor can take students

well into their third decade beore they

practice what they prepared or.

Modern learning technology increasesthe capacity to mix acquisition and

application. hrough projects and

apprenticeships, integrating experience

and academic standards creates mul-

tiple pathways through school without

the counter-productive eects o track-

ing, oen changing students aspira-

tions. Te capacity to do this comes

partly rom the Internets network

technology but mainly rom changing

how people think about learning.

he Learning 2.0 view o learning

allows schools to integrate deeper

learning into the conventional aca-

demic subjects. Learning to collabo-

rate and to solve ill-dened problems

are to the 21st century what industrial

discipline was to the last 100 years,

according to those who have studied

what employers and society need.

Finally, Learning 2.0 holds the promise

o substantial productivity gains. While

the current practice o semester-long

classes may endure or some time, the

system needs to build the capacity or

students to learn and be tested over

dierent blocks o time. I there are

productivity gains to be made in edu-

cation, they will come about mainly

through shrinking the number o years

and months it takes a student to move

through high school and higher educa-

tion and by reducing the necessity o

remediation or students who simply

needed more time to master a topic.

Others have put orward similar ideas

about educations uture. Te Calior

nia Council on Science and echnology

sees a 21st century learning environ-

ment o anywhere-anytime learning in

which teachers are working alongsideinstead o in ront o their students

using an inrastructure built through

public-private partnerships that grants

access to both students and teachers.

Te technology task orce created by

State Superintendent om orlakson

also calls or more individualization

collaboration, opportunities to learn

outside o classrooms, and suppor

or certication o learning through

e-portolios.6

Policy Opportunities

Tere is no shortage o opinion abou

policy options to best manage educa

tion technology in a new learning envi

ronment. Digital Learning Now!, ha

a list, as does the Caliornia Counci

on Science and echnology, the Pacic

Research Institute, and Education

Week. Each has inormed the writing

o this policy brie, but rather than a

scoreboard or an exhaustive list, I pro

vide a short list o policy opportunitie

that will have substantial leverage:

1. Invest in technological solutions

to real and persistent problems in

public schools.




5/16

2. Create an educational inrastructure

or Caliornias students, teachers,

and schools.

3. Modiy regulations to create better

incentives and ewer barriers to

using technology without losing

the saeguards that regulation is

intended to provide.

Ivest i Solutios to Persistet

Eucatioal Problems

Caliornia should support technology

applications where the benets, chal-lenges, and returns on investment can

be readily and concretely shown. Con-

sider our specic instructional areas:

teaching English Language Learners,

remediation, Special Education, and

the transition rom high school to

higher education. Each o these heav-

ily aects public education budgets

and creates opportunity or developers

and users alike, making each specicproblem area worthy o an investment

in tailored technology.

o understand the opportunity

involved, one need only look at the

structure o public education expenses.

Rather than absolute increase, the

important inancial story in educa-

tion is the shit in how money is

spent. Much o spending growth has

taken place outside o the core unc-tion o classroom instruction. In the

Los Angeles Unied School District,

rom 1967 to 2005, the share o total

spending directed toward regular

classrooms decreased rom 87 percent

to 46 percent, while the share directed

toward Special Education grew rom

2 percent to 19 percent.7 Statewide,

ination-corrected per pupil unding

increased by 15 percent between 1980

and 2000, but the categorical program

share o those dollars increased by 165

percent.8 In 1980 there were 17 state

categorical programs; by 2004-2005

the state accounting handbook listed

233 ederal and state programs. We

have attempted to solve educations

problems by building around the edu-

cational core rather than by increasing

its capacity.

English Language Learners

For example, English Language Learn-

ers make up nearly a quarter o Cali-

ornias students, more than 1.4 million

pupils. I these students dont gain

uency by h grade they are likely to

alter once they reach middle and high

schools. According to a recent report,

90 percent are two or more years

behind in math and English language

arts and have gotten at least two Ds orFs in the past year. By the time they are

juniors in high school, three-quarters

will be testing at the bottombasic or

ar below basicin math and English

on state exams.9

Although estimates vary widely, some

suggesting that an English learner

adds more than 70 percent to the

actual cost o instruction, all unding

ormulas acknowledge the burden.

Te Local Control Funding Formula

that Governor Brown has proposed

would add 35 percent to base unding

or these students. Tus, a conserva-

tive estimate places the added cost o

language learner instruction at more

than $3 billion.10 I technology could

help students gain English uency and

exit ELL status only 10 percent aster

than they do now, the state would save

tens o millions o dollars a year. In

addition, there would be great ongoing

benets or the students and savings

or the state in reduced remediation

costs.

Remedial Instruction

It is dicult to calculate the costs o

remediation because so much o it is

obscured in regular budgets. Every

teacher engages in what educators

inelegantly call reteaching. But i one

looks at only the numbers o students

placed in middle and high schoo

classes that are less advanced than the

norm, those students so ar behind tha

they are retaking courses in order to

retain a chance at graduation, and high

school graduates who are assigned to

remedial classes in community colleges

or state universities, the annual costs

o remediation may reach $274 mil

lion, according to a Pacic Research

Institute Study.11 Another recent study

put the cost at $3 billion or community

colleges nationwide.12

Te state has a compelling interest in

getting remediation right. Already

remediation ranks high on the use

o education technology, but existing

applications are oen inadequate. Teuse o online learning or credit recov

ery has led to questionable practices in

which a student who has ailed a course

enrolls in a dierent school or picks

up a computerized learning packe

and rapidly passes a test. While it is

certainly the case that technology oers

students the opportunity to catch up



6/16

gaming the system and outright raud

threaten to discredit its use.13,14,15

Special Education

More than 680,000 Caliornia students

are enrolled in Special Education, an

inherently labor intensive and expen-

sive orm o individualized attention.

Te states Special Education budget is

more than $9.3 billion, some 17 percent

o the general education budget cover-

ing about 10 percent o students.16

Although in its legal and technicalsense, Special Education serves a pro-

tected category o students with spe-

cially credentialed teachers, it shares

both techniques and problems that

contemporary education designers are

trying to address. Individualization is

Special Educations orte. Its practi-

tioners developed adaptive teaching

techniques long ago, and they could

teach the current generation o so-ware developers a thing or two.

Paperwork, reporting, and due process

requirements requently sideline the

pedagogical breakthroughs developed

by special educators, however. Dis-

tricts requently use soware to create

the required Individual Education

Plans, and more sophisticated soware

is on its way. Goalbook, a tiny startup

that inhabits a ew cubicles in the AOLbuilding on Page Mill Road in Palo

Alto, has applied the logic o social

networks to the management o Special

Education learning programs. In Goal-

book, all the adults concerned with a

particular student orm a group. Tey

share data. Tey communicate with

one another so that a students regular

classroom teacher knows what the

speech therapist encountered, and they

all get the results o a diagnostic test

administered by the district specialist.

Online meetings replace at least some

o the hard-to-schedule team meetings

to create plans and track progress.

As the application is developed, teach-

ers will be able to capture student

work with their smartphones or tablet

computer cameras and share it with the

students team. eachers will be able to

log the time they spend with students,thus creating an ongoing accountability

trail that should obviate the need or

many o the expensive and disruptive

compliance reviews. he sotware

also can work in other individualized

education settings, including project-

based learning and response to inter-

vent ion. Daniel Yoo, who le t the

Special Education classroom to ound

Goalbook, estimates that the soware

could eectively add at least a week o

instructional time a year or Special

Education students, in essence build-

ing back the days that budget cuts have

taken rom the school year.17

College Readiness and Access

In addition to advancing English

Language Learners, enhancing reme-

diation, and making Special Educa-

tion more ecient, an investment in

technology can help light the pathway

to college. he lack o articulation

between high school and college is

a well known problem illustrated in

part by the numbers o students taking

remedial work in college and the atten-

dant costs. Currently well over hal o

the students entering the Caliornia

State University system require reme

diation.18 An even larger opportunity

looms in nding ways to accelerate

student progress through high schoo

and college. O the students who

enter Caliornia community colleges

with the intent o obtaining a degree

only 24 percent succeed in earning an

associate degree or certicate, or in

transerring to a our-year institution

within six years.19

Most students in Caliornia are

unaware that their pathway to college will be determined by a course

placement test and not by their high

school grades, their completion o an

a-g curriculum, how well they perorm

on Caliornia Standards ests, or their

passage o the Caliornia High Schoo

Exit exam. Te Caliornia State Uni

versity System (CSU) requires mos

incoming students to take math and

English placement tests. Each o thestates community colleges is allowed to

create its own placement tests. In the

community colleges, over 83 percent o

students are placed in remedial math

courses and 72 percent in remedia

English. In eect, these students have

been admitted to college but are not

actually going to college. Tey go to

campus, pay tuition, and orego earn

ings rom paid employment, but pass

ing remedial courses does not earn

them graduation credit.

Existing eorts to address the problem

have thus ar not had large eects on

remediation rates. But experience with

the Early Assessment Program (EAP)

which adds questions to the standard

ized tests students already take, illus




7/16

trates how inormation technology can

help. Te EAP was initiated by CSU in

collaboration with the Caliornia State

Board o Education and the Caliornia

Department o Education as a way o

providing rising high school seniors

with an indicator o their college readi-

ness.20 In addition, the CSU will waive

placement tests or students who score

well on the EAP, and at least 49 commu-

nity colleges have agreed to substitute

EAP results or their placement tests.

For the most part, however, the EAPhas ailed to get actionable and salient

inormation to students, teachers, and

parents so that students know how to

and are motivated to better prepare

themselves or college. EAP test results

are sent to students on their state SAR

test report, along with much other

assessment data. Other than reerence

to a website (http://www.calstate.edu/

eap/), no substantive inormation isincluded in the report. A ocus group

o Los Angeles students ound that most

were not amiliar with the test and had

no idea what to do with the inormation

it provided.21

Additionally, students typically do not

receive results until they are registered

or their senior year classes, too late to

alter their schedules to take tutorial or

remedial work, even i their high schooloered it, which many dont. Te CSU

oers online courses in expository writ-

ing, but a student has no way to access

these directly. Likewise, the university

system oers proessional development

or high school teachers, and there is

evidence that it is eective, but given

cutbacks, most school districts dont

have spare proessional development

time to send their teachers to classes

and workshops.

Summary

I Caliornia viewed English Language

Learner programs, Special Education,

remediation, and the transition to

college as the low-hanging ruit that

digital policy might address immedi-

ately, then it would become possible

to have a discussion about the size o

the investment needed and the returns

that might be generated. Just looking

at the problem areas introduced above,

one can see the possibility or huge sav-

ings that could be invested in increased

system capacity. Some o this savings

would remit to public budgets, in the

orm o reduced remediation costs, or

example. Some o it would be ound

in increased capacity, the ability o

the system to educate more students

within existing constraints. I technol-ogy policy did nothing else, targeting

these our areas oers potentially huge

returns. However, the addition o a little

systems thinking raises the possibility

o a undamentally dierent learning

system, one in which Caliornia could

lead the nation.

Create a Learig Irastructure

Caliornia needs to invest in a learninginrastructure or students that uses

modern network production technol-

ogy. By thinking o the student as the

end user rather than designing educa-

tional products that will be attractive

to a textbook adoption committee, the

state can open up learning to new par-

ticipants, approaches, and ideas.

Rather than designing a single statewide

virtual school, the concept o Learning

2.0 invites us to think in terms o a

collection o networked resources tha

adapt with use, continually improving

and redesigning. Rather than a virtua

one best system school, Learning 2.0

invites us to adopt one o the design

principles o exible specialization in

manuacturing: breaking down com

plex processes into modules, lessons

or projects. Tese can be combined

in dierent ways to create customized

products without starting rom scratchwith each one. Tink o the childrens

toy Legos.

Te rst design principle o Learning

2.0 is to get data and learning tools in

the hands o students under the (some

times) watchul eyes o their parents.

Second, build an open source system

based on the experience o the users

one that is expandable, ixable, andtweakable. Tink Linux, the ree open

source operating system, or Moodle

the open-source classroom and lesson

system, rather than relying always on

corporate and proprietary sources

While or-proit venture capital and

product development is necessary, i

is important that public policy preven

corporate capture.

Tird, build systems plural, modular

not monolithic, scalable not singular.

Fourth, experiment! Avoiding a rush to

judgment is dicult or policy makers

but in the case o online educationa

content, it is absolutely necessary

Instead o a standard design, Caliornia

needs many laboratories. Learning



8/16

2.0 is still in the experimental stage.

All the examples are small, still in the

D(evelopment) phase o R&D. It is ar

too early to impose a standard design

or to mandate a single system. We need

trial and error. We need to learn rom

experience, and its inevitable ailures.

Given these design principles, the suc-

cess o Learning 2.0 necessarily relies

on three sub systems: inormation,

learning experiences, and assessment.

Access and Information

hink o access and inormation as

lights on the pathway to college and

career. Currently, the pathway is not

well lit, and its not level, either. Pro-

essional class amilies can illuminate

the way to college or their children

through the lived experience o par-

ents. For poor and working class ami-

lies, though, there are hidden rocks and

potholes. By when should a child beredesignated as English uent to have

a good chance o getting into college?

Why are class placement tests at a com-

munity college important?

At a minimum, students and their

parents ought to have online access to

reliable inormation about where they

are on the pathway, an educational GPS

unction. Tey shouldnt have to go

to school to ask, nd a piece o paperthat was mailed rom the state, or try

to interpret the meaning o archaic

numbers or percentages. Tey should

know what testing hurdles they ace

and how to prepare or them. Tey

should know the options that are

available in dierent schools, such as

tutoring and support.

A Bring Your Own Device Policy

Creating access to devices and band-

width is not sucient to bring abouta new learning system. As teacher

and requent technology commenta-

tor Aran Levasseur writes, We cant

just buy iPads (or any device), add

water, and hope that strategy will

usher schools to the leading edge o

21st century education.22 Access to

technology alone will not solve public

educations problems or invent a new

learning system, but assured access isa necessary rst step.

hus, the slogan o No Child Let

Oine has entered the policy con-

versation, and State Superintendent

om orlaksons technology task orce

recommends assuring that every stu-

dent has a digital learning device that

can be connected to the Internet: 1 to

1 computing with any time, any place,

any pace connections.23

Achieving the goal o 1 to 1 computing

is best accomplished by placing agency

in the hands o students through what

is called a Bring Your Own Device

(BYOD) policy. Increasingly, bringing

ones own device also entails bringing

ones own mobile network connection.

Student access to mobile devices grows

rapidly. According to a Project omor-

row survey, 80 percent o students in

grades 9-12, 65 percent o students in

grades 6-8 and 45 percent in grades 3-5

are smartphone users.24

o support BYOD, the state should

use its considerable purchasing power

and regulatory powers to orge con-

structive partnerships with manuac-

turers and vendors. For example, i

could negotiate substantial discounts

on devicescomputers, tablets, and

smartphonesand connection con

tracts. It could then issue technology

vouchers to students, their amilies and

their teachers redeemable through the

participating partners.

In order to orm successul partner-

ships, the state will need to bring

together interests and advocates both

rom within government and outside

groups and people who do not worktogether oten. hese include the

Caliornia Department o Education

the Caliornia Public Utilities Com

mission, the Federal Communication

Commission, the Caliornia univer

sity and college systems, and various

advocacy organizations. Part o the

reason or a cross-agency and multiple

interest approach rests in the necessity

to orm a political coalition, and parrests in the need to address existing

constraints. For example, there is con

siderable anxiety among school district

personnel about how the BYOD can be

implemented within the requirement

o the Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State

o Caliornia, et al. settlement and

existing state regulations.25 Success

ul implementation o any BYOD plan

will require simplicity o purchase: a

transaction much more like that a

Amazon and much less like a typica

state or school district process.26

Collaboration among these interests

will be required to nance universa

student access. Te Caliornia Educa

tion echnology Fund already exists

and could be enlarged through smal




9/16

surcharges on telephone, cable, and

satellite services. Other states are

already devising creative state-unded

programs that are similar to the ed-

eral E-rate program. In addition,

as the orlakson task orce notes,

Caliornia has an opportunity to

leverage the education lottery unds

to sustain educational technologies

that will be necessary to support 21st

century assessments. Te state gener-

ates approximately $1 billion in lottery

unds with a projected increase o 40

percent or 2012-13.27

A plan or universal access and qual-

ity content should make Caliornia a

strong contender or ederal support.

Increasing School Access To Net-

works

In addition to direct student access

through mobile devices and at home,

the state needs to improve access atschool. Trough CalREN (Caliornia

Research and Education Network)

Caliornia has constructed a high-

speed network, including a ber optic

backbone and associated nodes serving

81 percent o Caliornias schools, 87

percent o school districts and all 58

county oces. Nevertheless, Calior-

nia is still behind other states in con-

nectivity, and schools serving about 20

percent o the students in the state are

not connected. According to the Cor-

poration or Education Networking

Initiatives in Caliornia, which operates

CalREN, the need is particularly great

in the Central Valley.28 Also, there are

still many towns and rural areas with-

out any reliable broadband Internet

service at all. An analysis undertaken

by the Caliornia Public Utilities Com-

mission shows broad swaths o the state

without DSL-speed service. Te lack

is detrimental not only to education,

but also to health care delivery, and

clearly to the local economies: Loca-

tions with broadband services attract

growing enterprises and more highly

paid jobs.

Tere are substantial recent govern-

ment incentives to extend broadband

services. Te 2009 American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus)provided $7.2 billion or broadband

investment and a national broadband

plan. And a 2010 report by the Public

Policy Institute o Caliornia tracks

several hundreds o millions in state

eorts.29

Legislation and contracting also need

to enable schools and districts to access

the rapidly emerging world o cloud

computing. he need or, and theviability o, district-run data centers

may soon be eclipsed.

Building a Useful and Fair Data

System

Educators requently observe that a

great deal o inormation is available

in schools, but teachers and students

seldom use it. o make necessary

inormation useul, it has to be pack-aged and presented in timely and

understandable orms. Now, as Frank

Catalano writes, data are trapped in

incompatible systems, the educational

equivalent o Hotel Caliornia: data can

check in any time it likes, but it can

never leave. Or be eectively used by

teachers.30

Most data policy discussions concen

trate on large aggregations: big state-

wide systems or data standards tha

allow comparisons across the country

Caliornias data system, CALPADS

is beginning to produce reports aer

a long and troubled development, bu

it is limited in scope and utility. It is

designed largely as a better monitor

ing and accountability mechanism

tracking dropouts, course enrollments

and program participation. But direc

and real time eedback to teachers

students, and parents is not part o itsdesign capacity.

Te Michael and Susan Dell Founda

tion is attempting to marry an interes

in data standards (and there are many

competing ones) with systems and so-

ware that make inormation directly

available to students and teachers.

want teachers saying that they want thi

stu, says Lori Fey, director o policy

initiatives or the oundation. he

exas student data system illustrate

such a system, operating statewide, ye

locally adaptable.31

Caliornia is still years away rom the

sophistication o the exas system. In

the short and medium term, thereore

policy needs to support schools and

districts that are developing useu

systems, seeking solutions to both the

technical problems involved and the

human ones.

Several districts, including Riverside

Uniied, have created dashboards

that provide critical inormation to

students. Te Riverside dashboard

or example, presents ve indicators

A student and his or her parents can



10/16

know whether assignments are miss-

ing or classes skipped. Te Caliornia

High School Exit Exam and credits

earned toward graduation show up in

other gauges.

Dashboards exempliy one path toward

making data useul to teachers and

students. Another is to increase the

diagnostic and clinical capacity o

data systems, by making them work at

the student and classroom level. Prac-

tices such as data teams and clinical

coaching have been used or decades.New evaluation systems that balance

ormative eedback with summative

perormance assessment help illustrate

how data can be used, and they develop

support or data use. o be successul,

any data system must direct a substan-

tial portion o its resources to on-the-

ground proessional development and

to rearranging the teacher workday so

that collaboration and working with

data become routine.

Emphasizing data system develop-

ment at the school and district level

addresses the act that big statewide

data solutions are oen at odds with

the lived experience o teachers and

students, who view state-issued student

achievement reports as tardy, irrel-

evant to their teaching, and personally

threatening. Clearly, i we want teach-

ers to support data systems, the systems

must seem air and useul.

Still, the promise o rapid data eedback

or teachers and students is clear. As

Salman Khan writes, When teachers

have real-time data and a clear under-

standing o every childs needs, they

can use their precious classroom time

more eectively and lexibly. When

students are learning at a pace and

level appropriate to their individual

needs, they are less likely to disengage

or act up.32

Learning

Te number o iPhone and iPad apps,

many ree, grows almost hourly. Inter-

esting ones appear requently. Its

possible to dissect a rat electronically

with nearly the same precision as a

knie, and without the ormaldehyde

smell or the ultimate sacrice on the

part o the rat.

In act, there is so much learning mate-

rial on the Internet that it is dicult to

sort through and evaluate it all. Tere

are great lectures and not-so-good

ones. Tere are wonderul applica-

tions and cranky ones that dont work

or are overpriced. Learning 2.0 would

require a system or curating onlinecontent, as several existing organiza-

tions have begun to do. It would also

allow user or expert ratings o learning

programs.

We already have a ree market in educa-

tional applications with sales directed

at students and their amilies. I we

are to make good use o it, we need

to saeguard the public interest with

both consumer and expert reviews

and a ranking system. I ripAdvisor

can warn travelers about bed bugs and

travel industry nonsense, we should

warn students and teachers about so-

ware bugs and pedagogical nonsense.

Learning 2.0 would highlight Calior-

nia standards and eventually those o

the Common Core, as i standard

were scout merit badges and the

learning applications were ways to

achieve them. Tis can help student

to gure out what they need to know

how to get there, and how one skill or

concept is connected to others. Even

young studentsusing material rom

Leaprog, or examplecan obtain an

accurate assessment o what they need

to do and sel-direct.

Learning 2.0 can assist the develop-

ment o particularly sophisticatedapplications, such as social or scientic

simulations. Such material is being

developed by universities, oundations

and advocates or particular learning

modalities. For example, http://pbl

online.org/ provides ully developed

examples o project based learning

as does Connect Ed or projects and

Linked Learning (http://www.con

nectedcaliornia.org/).

By using Internet-enabled collabora

tion, the capacity or creating lessons

experiments, and projects passes to

teachers and arguably to students

While many, maybe most, teachers

wont invest the time to wade through

the massive library o lessons and

resources available on the Internet

increasing numbers o teachers are

doing just that. Organizations suchas Gooru are curating and organizing

online material and creating a com

munity o contributors.33 Wikipedia

projects in education are multiplying

the product o individual and coopera

tive initiative, largely unstructured by

states or schools.34 Minnesota teach

ers (and others in many locations)




11/16

are writing their own textbooks or

radically supplementing the text.35

Te Flat Classroom Project, begun by

two teachersone in Los Angeles, the

other in Chinajoins students and

teachers rom around the world, both

virtually and in person.36 Curriki,

begun by ormer Sun Microsystems

chairman Scott McNealy, claims more

than 5.4 million users or its lesson

and curriculum sharing site.37 Each o

these examples illustrates a potential

change in the division o labor, one in

which teachers become the producerso educational material as well as its

consumers.

Gaining Credit

For a century, the two most important

qualiications or passing a course

have been the date o manuacture o

the student and the number o hours

the students bottom has been in a

classroom chair. Access to learningwas largely a unction o birth date,

and credit or a course was a unction

o class attendance and participation.

Students took lots o tests generated

outside the classroom, but with the

exception o the SA, which is a gate-

way to college, ew o the tests provided

substantive rewards or students.

Learning 2.0 can change that. Students

could take tests when they were ready,

could pass courses when they were

ready, could take tests as ormative

eedback.

Unbundling teaching and testing also

allows the whole education system

to become more productive. I the

nancial rewards or school systems

were correctly managed, it might also

incentivize schools and districts to

accelerate learning. And instead o

drawing students away rom substan-

tive learning, a new generation o tests

would motivate students and place the

teacher in the position o a supportive

tutor and coach to help them reach

their goals.

Policies to Create Learning 2.0

o bring Learning 2.0 into being, the

state needs to cra the right policy

instruments. Most governmental

levers commonly used in education

wont work. Mandates are almost use-

less. A new state agency isnt necessary.

A contract or work and a deliverable

cant be specied.

A government, quasi-government

corporation, or a public interest non-

proit corporation is closer to the

mark. Te College Board, which wascreated in 1900 to expand access to

higher education, may serve as an

organizational model. So, too, might

the ennessee Valley Authority, which

Franklin Roosevelt created as a ederal

corporation with the exibility and

initiative o a private enterprise.38

Scotland, which created the irst

national education intranet system,

used a quasi-governmental organiza-

tion, Learning and eaching Scotland,

now merged into Education Scotland.

Tere are many existing organizations

in Caliornia that might coalesce to

bring Learning 2.0 into being.

Functionally, a Learning 2.0 network

should draw together scholars in key

disciplines including cognitive science,

pedagogy, testing and assessment

and organizational development and

behavior. It should add developers and

teachers, not as representatives o rms

or organizations but as independent

experts.

Second, it ought to adopt a clinica

trials ormat that would allow schoo

districts and teachers to evaluate their

experiences with educational soware

Tis should be simple, unobtrusive and

oered as a plug-in to any pedagogica

system to allow sel-evaluation andreporting. Using newly developed

educational soware should not only

make students smarter, it should make

the system smarter.

hird, the network would need the

capacity to help with the heavy liing

writing or brokering the analytica

engines that make soware powerul

Te diculty is that there is substantia

incentive to monetize developmentTats what venture capital in research

and development does. I the policy

goal is to enlist teachers, students

and scholars who know more about

pedagogy than computer code, then

the underlying engines need to be ree

or easily available. hey should be

part o the tool kits o educators, just

as statistical packages are or academic

researchers.

Fourth, it ought to host and broker

relationships between users and ven

dors. While there is a thirst or high

quality soware, there is also a lack o

understanding about what real teach

ers do and the conditions under which

they work that renders too much exist-

ing soware clunky or less than opti-



12/16

mal. ypically, teachers are involved

only in pilot testing at the end o the

soware design process. Teir input

should begin with idea development

and continue through prototyping, a

process that can take advantage o the

capacities o social networking.

Regulatio

Much policy advocacy concerning edu-

cational technology concentrates on

deregulation, essentially blaming the

ailure to advance on regulatory over-

burden and sel-protection by existingeducational interests. Certainly, no one

has much good to say about Caliornias

regulation o emerging orms o learn-

ing. On the scoring system created by

Digital Learning Now!, the advocacy

organization headed by ormer gover-

nors Jeb Bush and Bob Wise, Caliornia

ranks last among the states.39 County

superintendents examined policies

governing online and blended learning,and declared them the most complex

in the nation, adding Caliornia has

apparently decided that it must lead

in this area, creating the most compli-

cated, conusing, and impenetrable set

o policies in the state.40

Tat said, much o the case that is made

or deregulation is ideological, ignor-

ing the act that the original purpose o

regulation was student protection, andassuming that new modes o teaching

are necessarily superior. Rather than

wholesale deregulation, thereore, we

need an easing o rules that encour-

ages experimentation and integration

o technology in existing school dis-

tricts. echnology travels a path rom

the edges to the center, rom remedial

and ancillary instruction to the ocial

curriculum in core courses. Consider

the ollowing policy changes as ways to

bring the center into play.

Seat Time or Merit Badges

No structure o American education

is more deeply embedded than that

which requires student attendance

and pays school districts on the basis

o how many days, hours, and minutes

students spend in school. And no

structure is more limiting to the overall

productivity o public education.

Part o the promise o Internet-based

learning technologies is to loosen the

link between time and achievement,

allowing students to achieve at their

own pace and, when possible, acceler-

ate their learning. Much as a Boy or

Girl Scout achieves a merit badge or

demonstrating knowledge or skill, a

student could receive a badge ormeeting a standard. Students would

get credit or perormances when they

were ready, rather than waiting or

others or rushing to completion. Tis

alternative has merged with the grow-

ing accountability mentality on the

part o public ocials to pay or results

rather than attendance. Some 36 states

have adopted policies that allow school

districts to provide credits based on

proiciency rather than seat time.41

New Hampshire rquires that all credit

attainment be on the basis o mastery,

and the Florida Virtual Academy is

paid by the state only when its students

achieve mastery.

Te problems o wholesale departure

rom attendance-based inance are

thorny ones: what happens to a schoo

districts duty to provide sae custody

and care o students. Should districts

be penalized inancially when high

achieving students inish in ewer

than our years? Whats to prevent the

improprieties ound in the or-prot

vocational schools rom spilling into

virtual education? Prudence suggest

that the chains that tie attendance to

achievement and inancial lows to

schools should be loosened careully

and gradually.

The Contiguous County Rule

Under the Caliornia Education Code

online or virtual education can only be

provided to students within the home

county or surrounding counties o

the school district, charter school, or

county oce oering a course o study

Tus, an online course oered by the

Kern County Department o Education

could be oered to students in SantaBarbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, and San

Bernardino counties, but not to those

in Riverside or Orange counties.

Te Caliornia Virtual Academy(ies)

a chain o charter schools that use the

proprietary K12 curriculum, works

around this restriction by anchoring its

programs in nine counties throughou

the state, thus allowing it access to

most o the states students. I one othe goals o a statewide network is to

greatly expand access and choice or

individual students, however, then

direct statewide access is necessary

so that students can stay enrolled in

their home districts or charter schools

and access the best online instruction

available anywhere. And i one o




13/16

the goals o a statewide network is to

provide incentives to existing public

school districts and public-private

partnerships, then the same statewide

principle would apply.42

The California Diploma

Advocated by the authors o the Online

K-12 Education, College Preparatory

Courses Initiative (also known as the

Caliornia Student Bill o Rights Initia-

tive, which was proposed in 2012 but

did not qualiy or the ballot), the Cali-

ornia Diploma would authorize theCaliornia Department o Education to

issue a diploma to any student who had

successully completed coursework

that would qualiy or admission to

the University o Caliornia and the

Caliornia State University system.43

Te Caliornia Diploma would allow

students to graduate by taking high

quality, college-qualiying online

courses not oered through the school

district where they were registered.

Te Diploma would provide students

with options or graduation without

requiring them to leave their local

schools. At the same time, it would

provide an incentive to schools and

districts to respond to student demand

or particular courses or modes o

delivery. It would expand blended

learning options or students.

A Chance to Lead the World

Te policy ramework proposed here

will not solve all o the problems in

Caliornias public school system, or

even address all o the challenges to

be aced in adopting Internet-based

technology. But policy changes like

these would begin to move Caliornia

out o the eddies o early 20th century

school design. While there is no reason

to adopt technology or its own sake, it

is both visionary and eminently prac-

tical to connect the state that is at the

headwaters o the digital revolution to

the task o building a learning system

or the current century. Much o the

school reorm debate in Caliornia has

ocused on how the state can catch up

with other states and countries. Te

policies outlined in this brie would

give Caliornia a chance to lead theway toward a new and more eective

learning system.



14/16

Endnotes

1 Cuban, Larry. Oversold and Underused: Comput-

ers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2001.

2 yack, David B., and William obin. Te Gram-

mar o Schooling: Why Has it Been So Hard to

Change?American Educational Research Journal

31, no. 3 (1994): 457-479.

3 aken rom Joel Roses presentation at EdSource

Forum Video 2011: Next Generation Learning

and echnology. http://www.edsource.org/event-

orum11-video3.html.

4 Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and

Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class: How Disrup-

tive echnology Will Change the Way the World

Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

5 Caliornia Council on Science and echnology.

Digitally Enhanced Education in Caliornia: Digital

Education Programs. Vol. 1, May 2012, page 2.

6 State Superintendent o Public Instruction Educa-

tion echnology ask Force. (SSPIF). Educa-

tion echnology ask Force Recommendations.

August 16, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/

documents/efmemo.pd.

7 Alonso, Juan Diego, and Richard Rothstein.

Where Has the Money Been Going: A Preliminary

Update. EPI Brieng Paper 281. Washington, DC:

Economic Policy Institute, 2010, page 27.

8 imar, Tomas. How Caliornia Funds K-12 Educa-

tion. Stanord: Institute or Research in Education

Policy and Practice, 2006, pages 21-22.

9 Fensterwald, John. Hal o English Learners

Le Behind. Silicon Valley Education Founda-

tion. houghts on Public Education (OP-Ed

blog). June 1, 2010. http://toped.sveoundation.

org/2010/06/01/hal-o-english-learners-let-

behind/ (accessed June 29, 2012), reporting Cali-

ornians ogether, Reparable Harm: Fullling the

Unkept Promise o Educational Opportunity or

Caliornias Long erm English Language Learn-

ers.

10 At $7,000/student, an additional 35 percent would

be $2,450; multiply by 1.4 million students=$3.4

billion.

11 Murray, Vicki E. Te High Price o Failure in Cali-

ornia: How Inadequate Education Costs Schools,

Students, and Society. San Francisco: Paciic

Research Institute, 2008.

12 Complete College America. Remediation: Higher

Educations Bridge to Nowhere. April 2012. http://

www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remedia-

tion-summary.pd (accessed July 7, 2012).

13 Gardner, Walt. Credit Recovery Undermines

Standards. Education Week blog, Reality

Check. July 4, 2012. http://blogs.edweek.org/

edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2012/07/

does_credit_recovery_undermine_standards.

html?qs=credit+recovery (accessed September 9,

2012).

14 Ravitch, Diane. Academic Fraud: Does Anyone

Care? Education Week blog, Bridging Dierences.

June 12, 2012. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/

Bridging-Dierences/2012/06/academic_raud_

does_anyone_car.html?qs=credit+recovery

(accessed July 15, 2012).

15 Finn, Chester E., Jr. Te Credit Recovery Scam.

Tomas B. Fordham Institute, Flypaper blog. July

26, 2012. http://www.edexcellence.net/commen-

tary/education-gadly-daily/lypaper/2012/the-

credit-recovery-charade-1.html#body (accessedSeptember 9, 2012).

16 Public Policy Institute o Caliornia. Just Te

Facts: Special Education in Caliornia. March

2009. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jt/

JF_SpecialEdJF.pd (accessed July 2, 2012).

17 Yoo, Daniel, personal interview by Charles Kerch-

ner, August 31, 2012.

18 http://www.calstate.edu/eap/about.shtml (accessed

October 28, 2012).

19 McLean, Hilary. Caliornias Early Assessment

Program: Its Eectiveness and the Obstacles to Suc-

cessul Program Implementation. Stanord: PolicyAnalysis or Caliornia Education (PACE), 2012,

page 2.

20 Kirst, Michael. Caliornia Community Colleges

and the Early Assessment Program: Progress and

Challenges. Final Report to Hewlett Foundation or

Grant Early Assessment Working Group. Stanord

University, 2010.

21 McLean, 18.

22 Levasseur, Aran. Does Our Current Education

System Support Innovation? KQED blog, Mind-

Shif: How we will learn. July 17, 2012. http://blogs.

kqed.org/mindshi/2012/07/does-our-current-

education-system-support-innovation/ (accessed

July 27, 2012).

23 SSPIF, 25.

24 http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/DLD2013_

top10.html (accessed March 8, 2013).

25 Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State o Caliornia, et al.

See SSPIF, 26.

26 Consider the dierence between a typical online

purchase and the instructions issued by a large

school district or using unds rom the settlement

o a lawsuit with Microso: SDUSD, K12 Vouche

Program. http://www.edtech.sandi.net/index

php?option=com_content&task=view&id=364

Itemid=480 (accessed October 19, 2012).

27 SSPIF, 10

28 CENIC. 2010-2011Annual Report. La Mirada: T

Corporation or Education Network Initiatives in

Caliornia, 2011.

29 Kolko, Jed. Does Broadband Boost Local Economi

Development?San Francisco: Public Policy Insti

tute o Caliornia, 2010.

30 Catalano, Frank. How Will Student Data Be

Used? KQED blog, MindShit: How we wil

learn. July 3, 2012. http://blogs.kqed.org/mind

shit/2012/07/how-will-student-data-be-used


31 Fey, Lori, personal communication with Charle

Kerchner, July 2012.

32 Khan, Salman. Te Rise o the ech-Powered

eacher. Education Week, October 3, 2012: 25

28.

33 http://www.goorulearning.org/gooru/index.g#!

home (accessed February 1, 2013).

34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_

and_university_projects (accessed November 28

2011).

35 Associated Press. Minnesota eachers Write Own

Online extbooks. November 06, 2011. http:/

www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2011/11/06/46739

mnonlinetextbooks_ap.html (accessed Novembe

28, 2011).

36 http://www.latclassroomproject.org/Abou

(accessed November 28, 2011).

37 http://www.curriki.org/?bc (accessed Novembe

28, 2011).

38 Roosevelt, Franklin D. Letter to Congress. Apri

10, 1933.

39 Fensterwald, John. Dead Last in Digital Ed.

Silicon Valley Education Foundation. Toughts on

Public Education (OP-Ed blog). October 18, 2011

http://toped.sveoundation.org/2011/10/18/dead-

last-in-digital-ed/ (accessed January 7, 2012).

40 Caliornia Council on Science and echnology

Digitally Enhanced Education in Caliornia: Educa

tion Codes and Administrative Codes o Governing

Regulations. Vol. 2, May 2012, page 4, quoting Cali

ornia eLearning Framework. Caliornia County

Superintendents Educational Services Association

August 2011, page 64.

41 National Governors Association. Issue Brie

State Strategies or Awarding Credit to Suppor




15/16

Student Learning. 2012. http://www.edweek.

org/media/23biz-state-1202educreditbrie.pd


42 Caliornia Council on Science and echnology.Digitally Enhanced Education in Caliornia: Educa-

tion Codes and Administrative Codes o Governing

Regulations. Vol. 2, May 2012, page 10.

43 http://educationorward.org/ (accessed October 1,

2012).



16/16

Recent PACE Publications

We would like to thank the Caliornia Education Policy Fund (a sponsored project o Rockeeller Philanthropy Advisors), theDirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, and the Stuart Foundation or nancial support or the publication o this policybrie. Te views expressed are those o the author, and do not necessarily reect the views o PACE or its unders.

n Te Common Core Meets State Policy: Tis Changes Almost

Everything. Michael Kirst. Policy Memorandum, March 2013.

n Making it Real: How High Schools Can Be Held Accountable

or Developing Students Career Readiness. Policy Brie 13-2,

February 2013.

n Mary Perry. School Finance Reorm Can It Support

Caliornias College- and Career-Ready Goal? Report 2,

February 2013.

n Morgan S. Poliko and Andrew McEachin. Fixing the

Academic Perormance Index. Policy Brie 13-1, January 2013.

n Dominic J. Brewer, David N. Plank, Michelle Hall. How

Caliornians Feel about Public Education: Results rom the

PACE/USC Rossier August 2012 Poll. September 2012.

n William Welsh, Erin Coghlan, Bruce Fuller, Luke Dauter. New

Schools, Overcrowding Relie, and Achievement Gains in Los

Angeles Strong Returns rom a $19.5 Billion Investment.

Policy Brie 12-2, August 2012.

n Robert Linquanti and Kenji Hakuta. How Next-Generation

Standards and Assessments Can Foster Success or Caliornias

English Learners. Policy Brie 12-1, July 2012.

n Mary Perry. School Finance Reorm A Weighted Pupil

Formula or Caliornia. Report 1, May 2012.

n Getting Down to Facts: Five Years Later. May 2012.

n Hilary McLean. Caliornias Early Assessment Program:

Its Eectiveness and the Obstacles to Successul Program

Implementation. March 2012.

n Michal Kurlaender, Eric Grodsky, Samuel J. Agronow,

Catherine L. Horn. State Standards, the SA, and Admission

to the University o Caliornia. Policy Brie 11-3, November

2011.

n Te Road Ahead or State Assessments. Research Report, May

2011. PACE and Rennie Center or Education Research &

Policy.

n William S. Koski and Aaron ang. eacher Employment and

Collective Bargaining Laws in Caliornia: Structuring School

District Discretion over eacher Employment. Policy Brie

11-2, February 2011.

Policy Aalysis or Calioria Eucatio

Staor Grauate School o Eucatio

520 Galvez Mall, CERAS Rm. 401Staor, CA 94305-3001

(650) 724-2832

http://www.epolicyica.org

Documents

Education Technology for a 2st Century Learning SystemPACE Policy Brief 13-3