The California Department of Education administers the state’s public education system, primarily grades K-thru-12. The department is headed by an elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction and is governed by the State Board of Education, which sets policy for the department. The primary functions of the CDE are to allocate funds to educational agencies, set and manage curriculum, conduct assessment and program review, manage school improvement, oversee regulatory compliance, assist child development agencies and provide nutrition services.

The California Department of Education traces its existence to 1852, when an amendment to California’s first constitution supported a public school system. An elected state officer was already in place to organize and supervise schools, procure teachers and supplies, and have schools built. In 1879, the state adopted a new constitution that de-centralized the Department of Public Instruction, largely because of the fear of corruption. State officials by this time could award large contracts to book publishers, for example, who might offer kickbacks to have their books chosen.

Decentralization did not work out well, and an 1884 amendment created the State Board of Education and gave it increasing authority over the public schools. Board members were appointed by the governor until 1913, when they were elected to their positions. That same year, three commissioners were appointed by the board to report annually on elementary, secondary, and vocational schools and make recommendations.

Because of growing population, shifts from rural to urban life, industrialization, Depression, war, and many other changes affecting the state, California’s educational system was evaluated and reformed many times in the 20^th century. In 1921, state law established the State Department of Education in accordance with the Jones Report, a legislative study. Six years later, the department was reorganized along lines suggested by Superintendent of Public Instruction Will C. Wood. One result was to reform the Board of Education with much the same structure as it has today, with members appointed by the governor. Another reorganization came in 1945, following the Strayer Report, produced by the State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission. A survey of California’s education system was conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc, during the 1960s, and resulted in more changes.

By the end of the 1970s, enrollment in California’s schools was declining. The state legislature passed Senate Bill 813, which made sweeping changes in K-12 education and funding—including longer school days and school years. In 1991, the department helped develop the nation’s first performance–based assessment system of students: the California Learning Assessment System, or CLAS. Since then, to conform with both the Public Schools Accountability Act passed in the 1990s and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the department has developed content standards in all subjects and created tests and assessments to measure success.

In 1990, the board sued Superintendent Bill Honig to retain its power to write educational policy and won the lawsuit. It now develops academic standards and has a hand in student testing. The Little Hoover Commission referred obliquely to this power struggle in a 1991 a report, saying the department was abdicating its role of educational policy maker to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Another criticism of California’s educational program covered funding, which came from dozens of different “pots”, all earmarked for different programs, and had created a complex and inefficient system.

The passage of No Child Left Behind by Congress in 2001, the first year of President George W. Bush’s administration, provided new financial resources for the state, but complicated an education system already in disarray. As it struggled to integrate federal mandates for measuring student success, developing curriculum and preparing teachers, the state fell far behind in reaching the 2014 goals set by Washington.

After decades of decline, the once proud California education system was ravaged by the economic collapse in the first decade of the new millennium. On January 6, 2011, newly-elected Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson declared that schools were in a state of emergency.

“There’s simply no other way to describe it: this is an emergency. Every day, teachers, school employees, and principals are performing miracles, but the $18 billion in cuts over the last three years are taking their toll. We have 174 districts teetering on the financial brink. If this isn’t an emergency, I don’t know what is. The law won’t let me call out the National Guard. So I’m saying to every Californian: ‘Your schools need your help. And they need it now.’”

Historical Documents (CDE website)

K-12 Education in California: A Look at Some Policy Issues (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

School Financial Emergency (CDE website)

The California Department of Education’s stated mission is to ensure a “world-class education for all students, from early childhood to adulthood.” Toward that end, the department generates information and reports on educational demographics and statistics, school performance, student testing and records, and funding opportunities.

Several databases, including at least 12 years of the Standardized Testing and Reporting Results (STAR) for schools, geographic areas, and other classifications, are online. A funding page guides visitors to applications for not only CDE grants and contracts, but to funds administered by outside agencies.

The State Board of Education is the governing body of the department. The board, which has 11 members appointed by the governor, makes policy for K-12 education. It sets standards for instructional content and materials, accountability and assessments. The board selects the textbooks for K-8^th grade classrooms. It can also grant waivers and adopts regulations to implement legislation. Currently, the board maintains advisory commissions, committees, and councils on: charter schools, special education, African American student issues, child nutrition, and English learners. In addition to these, the board has a committee of Title 1 practitioners, a review panel for math and reading professional development curriculum, and a curriculum development commission.

Within the department, different branches are responsible for different aspects of California’s educational system:

The curriculum, learning and accountability branch oversees programs promoting improved student achievement. Teacher, curriculum, district, and school improvement, federal programs, adult learning, English learning, child development, and curriculum standards are all part of this branch.

The finance, technology and administration branch covers budget, accounting, data systems, and personnel.

The government affairs and charter development branch supports the department’s policies and budget concerns in the Legislature, and interfaces with federal offices. This department also supports the development of charter schools.

The legal, audits, and compliance branch advises the entire department, including the superintendent of public instruction, on legal matters and coordinates audits and compliance reviews.

The special services and support branch offers training, guidance, and support to local and community educational groups. Nutritional services and special education administration are in this branch.

California Department of Education

State Board of Education

The California Department of Education’s 2011-12 budget is $53.2 billion and represents 83% of the money budgeted for K-12 education in the state.

More than $32.5 billion comes from the state’s General Fund as dictated by the 1988-89 Proposition 98 that set funding levels for education based on multiple factors like school attendance and per capita personal income. Prop. 98 dictates that K-12 education is guaranteed the same percentage of General Fund revenue as was provided in 1986-87.

The proposition money is “rebenched” when a factor in the calculation changes or a new program is added.

Another $12.1 billion comes from property tax revenue and more than $7 billion from the federal government. Lottery proceeds account for more than $857.7 million.

More than 86% of its budget is spent on instruction. The rest is spent on Instructional support, Special programs, Executive management and special services, the State Board of Education and state-mandated local programs.

Capital outlay projects account for $62.2 million, spent on infrastructure and maintenance of six facilities serving students with special needs, including schools for the blind and deaf.

Triggers are built into the state budget that can dramatically affect CDE if state revenues fall short by more than $2 billion.

K Through 12 Education (pdf)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Lobbyists and Textbooks

Amid a nationwide debate over the use of plastic shopping bags, the California Department of Education has allowed editing of textbooks at the direction of the American Chemistry Council to include positive messages about the toxic product.

A private consultant hired by school officials in 2009 added a section entitled “The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags” to an 11^th grade teacher’s edition textbook focused on environmental curriculum. The title and some of the book’s text came directly from material written by the chemistry council, according to an investigation by California Watch.

A five-point question was also added to an accompanying workbook asking students to list the advantages of plastic bags. Despite the positive messaging, environmentalists say there is no debate on the subject. Plastic bags have been proven to kill marine animals and leave behind toxic chemicals that will take 1,000 years to decompose in landfills.

Although there are efforts to wean Americans off the use of plastic bags, they are very big business. Shoppers use an estimated 100 billion plastic bags a year and stores pay $4 billion a year to purchase them for their customers’ use.

The environmental curriculum has been in development for seven years and a number of other states have expressed interest in adopting it. As of 2011, it was being tested at 140 schools in 19 California school districts. An additional 400 schools signed up to use it.

“Parents should be outraged that their kids are going to be potentially taught bogus facts written by a plastic-industry consultant suggesting advantages of plastic bags,” said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, a recycling and environmental lobbying group.

A spokesman for the lobbying firm hired by the plastics industry disagreed and speaking of the original text it helped edit said, “The ACC [chemical council] takes exception to the overall tone, instructional approach, and the lack of solutions offered—most especially the lack of mention of the overall solution of plastic recycling,” wrote Alyson Thomas, senior account executive with Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide.

A week later, American Chemical Ccouncil Vice President Steven Russell complained about the California Watch story, which he said “painted a deeply distorted and almost nefarious picture of the public process.”

A spokesman for the Department of Education said he was unaware that edits from the trade group and its lobbyists had been inserted in the final text. Kenneth McDonald attributed responsibility for the changes to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), which oversaw development and editing of the section.

CalEPA, which began work on the project in 2004, outsourced the bulk of curriculum development to a nonprofit group called the State Education and Environment Roundtable. Oil giant BP and the American Chemistry Council were asked to participate.

Roundtable director Gerald Lieberman said he had “total control” over what edits to include and he incorporated nearly all of the chemistry council’s suggestions. He changed key statistics to reflect the group’s preferred numbers and removed references to plastic bags as litter.

Schools Superintendent Tom Torlakson minimized the issue in a press release as concerning “one minor section within one of 85 environmental curriculum units developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency.” But Torlakson added that he had asked his staff to “work withCalEPA to identify any material where further review may be warranted.”

The dispute highlights growing concern about public-private partnerships in education that allow special interests to literally rewrite academic texts to suit their own purposes. In August 2011, major textbook publisher Scholastic Inc. said it would limit cooperation with corporations after receiving complaints about a fourth-grade curriculum it used that was paid for by the coal industry.

Plastics Industry Edited Environmental Textbook (by Susanne Rust, California Watch)

Officials Re-Examine Environmental Curriculum Influenced by Plastics Industry (by Susanne Rust, California Watch)

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Comments on Education and the Environment Initiative Curriculum (Department of Education)

Charter Schools

California became the second state in the nation in 1992 to adopt public charter school legislation. The schools are part of the public education system, but are exempt from many of the statutes and regulations that apply to school districts. Students enroll in the schools voluntarily.

Although charter school students must participate in standardized testing, the schools have great flexibility in shaping curriculum and utilizing innovative teaching methods.

There are currently around 919 active charter schools, located in 46 of the state’s 58 counties, educating 286,000 students (8% of the public school student population).

California schools receive their charter status from a local school district, county office of education or the state Board of Education and must renew every five years.

The charter school movement began as a progressive movement but has been championed by political conservatives, who favor a free-market approach to education. They are viewed as a way to avoid educational bureaucracies, one-size-fits-all curricula, union interference and outmoded teaching methods.

Legislative support in California and other states has been largely bipartisan. President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind program encourages charter schools by making conversion to charter one of the available sanctions for failing public schools. President Barack Obama is also a strong supporter. Governor Jerry Brown founded two charter schools in Oakland.

Charter schools generally face opposition from unions because charter schools often lack collective bargaining agreements. Critics argue that for-profit entities and private foundations will eventually undermine public schools by making the profit motive a critical criterion of success. They fear schools will simply be viewed as yet one more market to be exploited and attract unscrupulous characters. Others argue that the concentration of charter schools in low-income areas could promote segregation.

Some of its supporters see it as a way to avoid more extreme market oriented solutions like vouchers that could spell the end to public education systems.

A paper in 2000 written by Carolyn Hoxby maintained that charter schools outperform non-charter schools, although this advantage was only “among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent with at least a high school degree.”

A second study by Hoxby four years later found broader statistical support for the success of charter schools in math and reading that weren’t limited to racial groups.

A 2004 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research said its data indicated that charter schools increase competition within jurisdictions, thus improving the quality of education in general.

In 2005, Hoxby’s studies came under attack by Princeton assistant professor Jesse Rothstein, who criticized her methodology and claimed he was unable to replicate her findings. Hoxby's “assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the students,” Rothstein said. “That’s like knowing the poverty rate but not the average income of a community—useful but incomplete.”

A 2005 study by the American Federation of Teachers, which “strongly supports” charter schools, could not find any statistical advantage one way or the other.

But in 2009, Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) produced one of the most authoritative studies to date. The study found that only 17% of charter schools reported significant academic gains, 37% were significantly worse and 46% showed no difference. The report’s authors called the findings “sobering.”

The think tank Rand studied California charter schools and in a 2006 report found that school performance varied widely between different types of charters but that they generally performed on a par with traditional public schools. However, it found that charters did not narrow the achievement gap for minorities that many of its supporters touted nor did it find the expected positive competitive effects on traditional schools.

Charter schools and the state Board of Education have clashed over myriad issues. The website Charter School Scandals has a lengthy list of controversies emanating from California.

In 2004, the largest charter school operator in California was forced to shut down after an audit by Superintendent Jack O’Connell and the Department of Education alleged major financial irregularities. Closure of California Charter Academy (CCA), which was founded by a former insurance executive and operated 60 schools throughout the state, caused chaos in school districts, left 6,000 students without schools and employees without jobs, while saddling landlords with worthless CCA assets.

In February 2011, the state Board of Education announced it would draw up new rules to clarify how charter schools are granted statewide operating privileges after the Court of Appeals ruled that Aspire Public Schools had been improperly granted charter status. Aspire, which operates six schools, is one of three charters formed under state aegis that allows it to avoid local oversight. It also allowed Aspire to float millions of dollars worth of bonds to build their own buildings.

Aspire Public Schools continues to operate and has appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court.

In July 2011, the board approved new regulations that spell out how parents at a failing school can trigger radical reforms by petitioning the state. Those changes can include replacement of the principal and half the staff, closing the school, expanding the school day or bringing in a charter school operator.

Charter Schools CalEd Facts (CDE website)

Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers? (by Carolyn M. Hoxby, The American Economic Review)

Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public Schools in the United States: Understanding the Differences (by Caroline M. Hoxby, Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research) (pdf)

Does School Choice Increase School Quality? (The National Bureau of Economic Research)

Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers? A Comment on Hoxby (2000) (by Jesse Rothstein, Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs) (pdf)

Schoolhouse Schlock (by Lawrence Mishel, The American Prospect)

Multiple Choice: Charter School Study in 16 States (Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes) (pdf)

As Charter Schools Unionize, Many Debate Effect (by Sam Dillon, New York Times)

Making Sense of Charter Schools: Evidence from California (by Ron Zimmer and Richard Buddin, Rand) (pdf)

State Board Gives Parents More Control Over Schools (by Corey G. Johnson, California Watch)

Collapse of 60 Charter Schools Leaves Californians Scrambling (by Sam Dillon, New York Times)

After Lawsuit, Officials Call for New "Statewide Charter" Rules (by Corey G. Johnson, California Watch)

Misappropriating Federal Funds

In 1999, U.S. prosecutors claimed that CDE mishandled millions of dollars in federal funds meant for English and citizenship classes. The money was funneled to community-based organizations that were grossly abusive or even non-existent. Under Superintendent Delaine Eastin, the CDE “established a virtually meaningless review process for funding compliance,” the U.S. attorney wrote.

James Lindberg was awarded $7.6 million in a lawsuit against CDE because of retaliation against him after he reported the misappropriations of funds meant for English classes. The original judge in the case ordered Superintendent Eastin to personally pay $150,000 to Lindberg, but the state appealed. The eventual judgment in favor of Lindberg was larger, but the payment from Eastin was tossed out. Two other whistle-blowers settled with the department for lesser amounts in 2001.

The Pacific Research Institute claims that not a single on-site audit of any California school district was conducted from 1995 to 2000. Since federal money was involved, the U.S. government investigated and indicted local group leaders who accepted the money knowing they would not use it for classes. No one at CDE was indicted, although the department had to return $3.3 million to the federal government.

Misuse of Education Funds Cited (by Daniel Yi, Los Angeles Times)

Still No Satisfactory End to Eastin Scandal (by Bill Leonard, PRI)

Shame on Eastin: State Superintendent Leaves Under a Cloud (by Steve Wampler, My Voice)

Stimulus Funds

The department received $6.3 billion in 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the form of nine grants with different “must spend by dates.” According to the Office of the Legislative Analyst, six of those grants and their money may be lost because they aren’t being spent on time. They include $2.7 million in school technology stimulus and $2.4 million in Title 1 grants. The auditors worry that not only will the money be lost because of non-spending, but that pressure to spend the money quickly and before the deadline means a risk that the funds will be spent for the wrong things.

In 2010, the department was forced to return $865,000 meant for the Child Nutrition Program because it wasn’t spent. Journalist Corey G. Johnson blames all parties in the state’s budget crisis: governor, legislators, and education, finance, and legislative officials. State law requires legislative approval for some disbursements. Throughout 2009, 2010 and 2011, groups or individuals have tried to hold stimulus money hostage unless certain budget reforms are made.

State at Risk of Forfeiting Millions in Education Stimulus (by Corey G. Johnson, California Watch)

Millions in Delayed Education Stimulus Funds Face Further Stall (by Corey G. Johnson, California Watch)

Textbooks to Include LGBT History

The state budget crisis in 2011 put a controversial issue on the backburner, where it continues to simmer. State senate bill 48, the FAIR Education Act, requires California’s social studies textbooks to include contributions of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Americans—along with those of persons with disabilities. Mark Leno, the senator who sponsored the bill, said, “The historically inaccurate exclusion of LGBT Americans . . . as well as the spreading of negative stereotypes in school activities sustains an environment of discrimination and bias in school throughout California.”

Assemblyman Chris Norby, a former history teacher, raised a practical concern: ascribing sexual orientation to long dead historical figures. “Am I supposed to ‘out’ James Buchanan after the fact, or identify Milton Friedman as a straight economist?” he asked.

Catholic Archbishop Jose Gomez wrote, “This amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics. It is also another example of the government interfering with parents’ rights to be their children’s primary educators.”

A Stop SB 48 movement started a petition drive to put repeal of the bill on the California ballot. “SB 48 undermines the traditional family,” the StopSB48.com website reads. “It forces children to study materials that tell them their families’ values are wrong.

The bill was signed into law but cannot be enforced until the 2015-2016 school year, because all textbook updates are on hold until then due to budget cuts. However, Superintendent Tom Torlakson released a statement applauding the bill and its signing, saying, “The California Department of Education looks forward to curriculum that reflects the diversity of our state.”

Leg Passes LGBT Textbook Mandate Bill (by Katy Grimes, Cal Watchdog)

We Need to Stand Up for Parents and Families (by Archbishop Jose Gomez, The Tidings)

Turf War

“The turf war over accountability needs to end.”

California’s Little Hoover Commission issued a 2008 report titled Educational Governance and Accountability: Taking the Next Step. Their conclusion was that elements of the state Public Schools Accountability Act and federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) should be combined to create a clear, transparent and uniform system of accountability for all schools, less focused on punishing bad schools than on improving them.

The commission found that California spent $1.4 billion on underperforming schools without any significant result. The state’s Department of Education, the commission said, has been marginalized “as a compliance agency, focused on the still-important job of ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent according to statue and regulation, rather than on holding districts and schools accountable for, and helping to improve, student performance.”

The commission said that must change. “The department must take ownership of student performance.”

The report suggested redirecting funds to create incentives, school district by school district, that would reward improvement. Simple ratings based on the performance of individual students and other measures would give a better picture of each school than the current programs in use by the department. The department could then target schools for interventions and rewards.

The state legislature should combine programs like school safety and parental involvement—programs proven to improve student achievement. The legislature should also be involved in redistributing funds through grants to schools, and should monitor the progress of new accountability and improvement programs.

To achieve an effective, comprehensive accountability system, the report suggested that the Board of Education tie the state and federal metrics to a high common denominator that would create specific goals for grade-level proficiency. Timelines and metrics would measure progress. The report suggested that the governor use appointments to the board to create an entity that will enforce accountability and check the Department of Education.

Governance reform is suggested by SB 204, passed in summer 2011 by the state senate. SB 204 would give the Superintendent of Public Instruction authority over the department. The bill places the board of education in ad advisory role to the Legislature, the governor, and the Superintendent. Proponents say this would eliminate overlap of some work and lines of authority, clarify duties, and eliminate competition.

Educational Governance and Accountability: Taking the Next Step (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

Senate OKs Power Shift from Board of Education to Superintendent (by Allen Young, Capitol Week)

Blueprint for Great Schools

Upon taking office in January 2011, Superintendent Tom Torlakson convened at 59-member panel to provide recommendations to improve K-12 education. Its report was called A Blueprint for Great Schools and recommendations included:

Invest in developing teacher quality. “U.S. federal investments in teacher quality are, by contrast, quite paltry—having declined substantially since the 1970s—and state investments are highly unequal.”

Facilitate access to health care for all eligible children and encourage better nutrition and increased physical activity.

Revise curricula to reflect the demands of a knowledge-based society.

Improve collaboration between unions and management.

State Schools Chief Lays Out “Blueprint” for K-12 (by Corey G. Johnson, California Watch)

A Blueprint for Great Schools (CDE website)

No Child Left Behind

Californians elect a Superintendent of Public Instruction every four years to head the enormous Department of Education.

The governor picks members of the powerful state Board of Education and until early in 2011 selected his own Secretary of Education that has a quasi-Cabinet advisory role.

Both the Assembly and state Senate operate major and minor education committees and school districts statewide have their input into the education system.

The state is not lacking in influential educational forces. Yet, the tail that wags the educational dog in California, as well as nationally, is George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind.

As the Little Hoover Commission points out, California has spent a decade since the law passed in 2001 fighting to reconcile its own school-by-school system for judging and attaining K-12 educational success with the very different individual student approach of No Child.

In the process, the Department of Education has been supplanted as the institution “holding districts and schools accountable for, and helping to improve, student performance.”

No Child Left Behind sets a 2014 deadline for a state’s schools to get its students “proficient” in reading and math. It leaves it to the state’s to determine what “proficient” is, and in the case of California, it is failing miserably partially because it set the bar high.

Is this a law that should be left behind?

Get Rid of It

No Child Left Behind was passed as a five-year program. But the program was so controversial that Congress couldn’t agree on an update and it has languished in limbo since 2007. It quickly became apparent, that standards which were supposed to increase accountability more often just unfairly penalized underperforming schools.

Critics, including U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, say states dumbed down standards to meet the law’s goals. “It was dishonest,” Duncan said. “It demoralized teachers and principals who were working hard and was confusing to parents.”

With the 2014 deadline for compliance looming, and most states failing badly in a confused educational climate complicated by economic woes, the law has become a lightening rod for criticism.

President Obama, facing the reality that its core goal of “proficiency” is not going to be met, announced in August 2011 that states should apply for waivers. But the waivers are expected to come with taut strings attached. New reforms could include teacher testing, standardized student testing, curricula dictates and faculty cleansing in low-performing schools.

Critics, many of whom praise the law for focusing attention on schools and highlighting problems in low-income districts, nevertheless say the proposed reforms are merely leveraging the federal government’s control of what should be essentially a state and local function.

The proposed reforms exacerbate the one-size-fits-all approach that frustrates teachers and school administrators: teaching to the test’ a poorly defined definition of “proficiency” that neutered to measure; and using test scores as criterion while ignoring dropout rates, college attendance and more sophisticated testing than multiple-choice.

What kind of message does it send when California, a state with a high standard for “proficiency,” is punished for falling short.

Studies over the years have indicated that the law disproportionately penalizes schools with diverse populations. And within two years of its passage, nearly half of school principals and superintendents viewed the federal legislation as either politically motivated or aimed at undermining public schools.

The latter is an allegation that No Child was just a Bush-supported backdoor attempt at privatizing education with vouchers and charter schools by setting public schools up to fail.

Fix It, Don’t Kill It

Teacher unions may not like it, states-rights die-hards might be offended, wimpy liberals who are afraid to identify failure might be repulsed, underperforming school districts with substandard procedures may wish they never heard of it, but in 2001 most everyone agreed that America’s schools were failing and something had be done.

Big problems call for bold solutions and No Child Left Behind is nothing if not bold. It has established a framework for reform and generated a debate that its supporters argue can only benefit the American school system.

Among its accomplishments, supporters say, is the raising of qualifications for teachers, an affirmation of the value of every child, sorely needed accountability, a boost to exploration of alternative teaching methods and a recognition that schools need to have uniform, measurable standards.

Or, as one teacher wrote on his blog in 2005, “It shined a light into the darkest corners of public education, and the number of scurrying cockroaches was sobering indeed.”

For those who believe education in the United States needed a fundamental overhaul, No Child Left Behind has provided a tool for change. It provides an affirmation of private-sector principles of just compensation for measurable results. It also emphasizes the principle that “proficiency” is a definable standard and should be established locally.

Writers at the conservative Heritage Foundation disagree with arguments that the law is fatally flawed because it allows states to define success. Reform attempts, like those of the Obama administration, that strive for national “common core” standards dictated by Washington will gut the law and stand its principles on their head, they say.

National standards speak more to a desire for uniformity of thought than a striving for excellence. That is better achieved, they say, through empowering parents to choose educational systems outside the traditional public realm, utilizing vouchers, charter schools and other innovative educational alternatives.

No Child Left Behind (CDE website)

Revamp Still Needed for “No Child Left Behind” (Sacramento Bee editorial)

Fixing No Child Left Behind (Los Angeles Times editorial)

Feds Promise Relief from No Child Left Behind Goals to States Moving in Right Direction. Georgia Seems a Shoo-In. (by Maureen Downey, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

No Child Left Behind Debate Centers on Federalism (by Joy Resmovits, Huffington Post)

Updating the No Child Left Behind Act (Darren, Right on the Left Coast: Views from a Conservative Teacher)

The Return of No Child Left Behind (by RiShawn Biddle, The American Spectator)

Why National Standards Won’t Fix American Education: Misalignment of Power and Incentives (by Lindsey Burke and Jennifer Marshall, The Heritage Foundation)

Waive State Educational Authority Goodbye (by Lindsey Burket, The Heritage Foundation)

Jack O’Connell, 2003-2010

Delaine Eastin, 1995-2002. Eastin was the first woman to hold this office. More than four years after her term ended, allegations were raised that department funds, given to community and non-profit groups, were actually funneled to political cronies. The state official who first reported this claimed he was demoted in retaliation. The department paid millions of dollars to settle legal claims. The federal government, which had granted the misused funds, conducted an investigation and demanded a refund of $3.3 million.

Louis “Bill” Honig, 1983-1993. In his third term of office, Honig was sued by the Board of Education over who had the right to make educational policy. Later, he was tried and convicted of conflict of interest charges. He paid department money in salaries without revealing that the individuals paid were employed by his wife’s company, which she ran out of their home. Governor Jerry Brown announced his intention in January 2011 to appoint Honig to the Board of Education, but Honig withdrew his name from contention one week later.

Wilson C. Riles, 1971-1982

Max Rafferty, 1963-1970

Roy E. Simpson, 1945-1962 appointed

Walter F. Dexter, 1937-1945 appointed, died in office

Vierling Kersey, 1929-1937 appointed, resigned to become head of the Los Angeles Unified School District. His new position paid $12,000 a year; the old, $5,000.

William John Cooper, 1927-1929 appointed; resigned to become Federal Director of Education

Will C. Wood, 1919-1927 resigned to become State Superintendent of Banks

Edward Hyatt, 1907-1918

James W. Anderson, 1891-1894

Thomas J. Kirk, 1899-1906

Charles T. Meredith, 1898 appointed

Samuel T. Black, 1895-1898 resigned to run the new State Normal School at San Diego

Ira G. Hoitt, 1887-1890

William T. Welcker, 1883-1886

Frederick M. Campbell, 1880-1882

Ezra S. Carr, 1875-1879

Henry N. Bolander, 1871-1875

Oscar P. Fitzgerald, 1867-1871