The California state education bureaucracy is in a state of flux with the arrival of the new governor.

Brown moves to redefine education bureaucracy [Sacramento Bee, 1/8/11]: In his first week in office, Gov. Jerry Brown's approach to education has emerged as one reminiscent of an earlier era – when the governor didn't have an education secretary and the State Board of Education was the chief executive's primary vehicle for setting school policy. See Festerwald’s blog posting on this (1/8/11). 
Many see influence of teachers union in Gov. Jerry Brown's shakeup of California Board of Education [Los Angeles Times, 1/8/11]: In one of Gov. Jerry Brown's first official acts this week, he sacked the majority of the state Board of Education, replacing several vocal proponents of charter schools, parent empowerment and teacher accountability.
State school chief declares emergency in education [Los Angeles Times, 1/7/11]: California's new Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson can't call in the National Guard, but he can declare a state of emergency for the state's schools. The message was not new but Torlakson said Californians need to understand just how bad things are: 30,000 teachers laid off statewide, as well as 10,000 support staff; 174 school districts in jeopardy of default; 16 of the state’s 30 largest school systems compelled to shorten the school year.

Illegal school fees continue despite settlement, whistleblower says [California Watch, 1/7/11]: Schwarzenegger administration of allowing school districts to charge students illegal fees for classes and extracurricular activities. The agreement with the state was touted as a victory for parents and the poor.
Schools will be put to test [San Bernardino Sun, 12/29/10]: Gov.-elect Brown's recent prediction that the state's deep fiscal problems will most likely mean more cuts for California schools has local educators preparing for the worst in the coming year. Classroom overcrowding, teacher layoffs and other reductions that impact area students could remain a reality into 2011 and beyond.
For California schools, next year stands to be worse [Sacramento Bee, 12/21/10]
La Habra vs. Capo teacher strike: Why divergent outcomes? [Orange County Register, 12/25/10]: Capistrano Unified School District teachers ended three days of striking last spring with a mutual agreement – teachers would take an imposed 10.1 percent pay cut, in exchange for a pay restoration clause in their contract. But when La Habra City School District teachers ended a five-day strike last week, they returned to their classrooms without any such settlement.

Some interesting out-of-state education issues have arisen lately:

N.H. case: Can a divorced parent veto home schooling? [Christian Science Monitor, 1/7/11]: The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in the case of a father who objected to his ex-wife's choice of home schooling for their child; The case deals partly with religious views.
Court Backs School Employees in Principal's Defamation Suit [School Law Blog, 1/6/11]: Three Maine school district employees who were sued for defamation after they criticized a principal's actions should have been allowed to raise a defense under a state law limiting strategic litigation against public participation, or SLAPP suits, a federal appeals court has ruled.Read the decision in Godin v. Schencks.
Battle Over Education Funding on Docket in New Jersey [Wall Street Journal, 1/5/11]: One of the most controversial cases in the New Jersey Supreme Court's history will be back before justices Wednesday, as an advocate for urban-school funding challenges Gov. Chris Christie's education budget cuts.

The tension that often arises between the First Amendment and public schools is alive and well. These are interesting, even though many of these are from outside of California.

Lawsuit over short-hair rule may be a long shot [Indianapolis Star, 1/3/11]: The parents of a former Greensburg Junior High basketball player are asking a federal court to declare the team's haircut policy unconstitutional.
Court to Rehear Case on Elementary Students' Speech Rights [School Law Blog, 1/3/11]: A full federal appeals court has agreed to hear fresh arguments in a case weighing whether elementary school students have First Amendment rights to distribute items with religious messages to their classmates. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, announced on Dec. 17 that it would rehear Morgan v. Swanson, a case involving the scope of free speech rights of elementary school students.
The "I (Heart) Boobies!" Bracelets Controversy Goes to Court: Why the Students Are Right and the Schools Are Wrong. [Writ, 12/28/10]: Julie Hilden comments on a controversy that has recently divided students, parents, and administrators in public schools in a number of states -- and that, in at least one state, has led to an ACLU lawsuit: Students are wearing bracelets, purchased from a public-interest foundation, that bear the message "I (Heart) Boobies!" The foundation is selling the bracelets to convey the point that although many people believe that breast cancer is a disease afflicting only women over 40, it is also the largest cause of cancer deaths in women under 40-- and can even affect young girls. Wearing the bracelets has become a popular trend among teens, but some school administrators have banned them, on the grounds that they are vulgar, lewd, and/or disruptive. Hilden argues that such bans should be held to violate the First Amendment -- but she also notes that some prior Supreme Court precedent may support the schools' decisions.
Students Star in Challenge to Ban on Breast Cancer Wristbands [The Legal Intelligencer, 12/20/10]: In a day-long injunction hearing before U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, lawyers for two Easton, Pa., middle school students set out to challenge a school ban on the wearing of rubber bracelets to promote breast cancer awareness that are emblazoned with the phrase "I [heart] boobies."
Can a High-School Cheerleader Be Required to Cheer For a Player She Says Assaulted Her? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Says Yes. [Writ, 12/20/10]: Julie Hilden comments on a decision issued by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit this Fall, rejecting a cheerleader's contention that she should have been allowed to stay silent rather than be required to cheer for a basketball player who she claims assaulted her. (She cheered for the team, but not for this player individually.) Hilden describes several Supreme Court cases regarding the right not to speak, and contends that the three-judge panel ought to have taken these precedents into account. Hilden also expresses doubt as to whether -- prior to fact discovery -- the panel correctly decided that the cheerleader's silence created "substantial interference with the work of the school," as it held that Supreme Court precedent required.

Congress has spoken and taken a controversial stance on which teachers are to be “highly qualified.”

Kearney: Alternate route, same destination: all highly qualified teachers [Thoughts on Public Education, 1/5/11]: Last month, Congress passed legislation defining “highly qualified” to include teachers pursuing their credential through an alternative certification program.
Fensterwald: Miller defends vote on interns [Thoughts on Public Education, 12/22/10]: Congress on Tuesday broadened the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” to include the 10,000 novice or intern teachers in California who are working toward their teaching credential. The clause was inserted into the Continuing Resolution to temporarily fund the federal government. It passed, as expected, last night.
Who should be considered a "highly qualified" teacher? [Washington Post blog, 1/22/10]: Teach for America educators and others still in training could be considered "highly qualified" teachers under legislation being considered by Congress. No Child Left Behind requires that every student be taught by a "highly qualified" teacher, but a recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling determined that teachers still enrolled in teacher-preparation programs should not be considered "highly qualified." Education blogger Valerie Strauss writes that the issue affects some of the country's neediest children and should be fully debated.