Since the release of the Race to the Top criteria, the California education community, news stories, editorial boards, and policymakers have had an intense focus on the fact that the California’s data system restricts the linkage of student data (assessment results) and teachers at the state level. But the problem of the state’s data system is only one indicator of much bigger problems in the golden state. This data issue is nothing but a canary in the coal mine. The President and Secretary Duncan initially called California and New York out for their statutory restriction on linking student assessment data with teachers. Unless these states changed their statutory restrictions, they would be ineligible for Race to the Top funds. Since then two more states were added to the list – Nevada and Wisconsin. Over the summer California education leaders first whined that the federal government misunderstood the meaning of the statutory restriction (not likely given the number of ex-Californians working for Duncan including the director of the Race to the Top, Joanna Weiss). Californians like the state’s Superintendent Jack O’Connell were correct that the law only restricted the state’s ability to link student test scores and teachers for certain purposes, and it did not restrict the use of student and teacher data at the local level. The real issue was that the teacher’s union continually spoke publically that the student and teacher data could not be linked leaving out the qualifier “at the state level.” So the reformers pushed hard to pass a bill to remove the restriction, and the legislature eventually took action to pass a bill. The fate of that bill have been uncertain for the last month, first because the Governor wanted the data issue to be resolved as part of a much broader set of reforms to be addressed in a special session that he called to position California as a competitor in the Race to the Top. Then, the bill got caught up in a power struggle between the Governor and the Legislature over a water deal – The Governor threatened to veto all bills unless the Legislature passed a water deal. Eventually the Governor backed down, and now the student test results can be linked with teachers (here).

Here is the problem. That linkage is largely meaningless. The state test that California administers does not have something called a vertical scale, and as such the scores of a student can not be meaningfully compared from one year to the next. So basically even if a district wanted to use the growth of a teacher’s student over the year as an indicator in a teacher evaluation system, they could not because the state test would not support that type of analysis. 

All of the attention on the technical restriction in the state’s data system has really missing the broader picture. Hopefully the Legislature can get beyond the data discussion in the education special session. There are 19 criteria that determine eligibility for Race to the Top funding beyond the data issue, and California is behind in a lot of those areas. The state has been so focused on its budget problems for most of the decade that it has done almost nothing on the education policy front. Yes, California has charter schools, has high standards, has agreed to engage in the common standards discussion and has provided some alternative pathways into the teaching profession. But that is about it. Here is a quick rundown of the criteria:

Standards and assessments: Standards are high quality; assessments are standard aligned but nothing special. The assessments are not yet approved by the federal department of education because the state can’t agree on whether it should be testing all students in 8^th grade in algebra or not. And the assessment does not have a vertical scale.

Data systems: Behind other states. They only meet 6 of the 10 Data Quality Campaign benchmarks. There is virtually no access to state data, and it is tough to use data to improve instruction when you can’t access it. Some districts in the state have done a great job of developing their own data systems (think Long Beach or Garden Grove), but this is a state grant competition not a district one.

 Teacher quality: Like many states this is an area where the state has a long way to go. They do have some alternative pathways into the profession. They have beginning teacher mentoring. But that is about it. Nothing noteworthy for teacher evaluation, differentiation of compensation, information on the quality of teacher preparation programs, investment in common planning time …. California is the home of the Milken Institute, developers and backers of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) and there is not a single TAP school in the state. That seems problematic.

 Low performing school turnaround: California does have charter schools and lots of them, but they do not have a very good charter school oversight process. They have lots of low performing schools, and not much urgency about fixing them. There are over a thousand schools in program improvement restructuring in California, and most of them are using the infamous “other major restructuring” option.  So this state has not used the turnaround models that Secretary Duncan is backing in the Race to the Top.

 Education reform environment: The state has clearly not made education a funding priority, and has used most of the stimulus funds to backfill for state cuts (and then cut schools some more). The budget makes almost any reform discussion a non-starter. And more cuts are on the horizon, as the state will likely face another $15-20 billion shortfall for the 2010-11 budget. And the thought of the teachers union, school districts, the business community and other key stakeholders getting on the same page about how to reform California is hard to believe without some serious leadership and a lot of hard work. So putting together an application that those parties will sign on???  

 So, California has been able to become eligible for RTT, and everyone can stop talking about it, and get to work on the real problems facing California education.