Across California, districts squeezed by budget pressures and testing demands are reducing or eliminating PE programs. In the San Bruno Park School District, funding cuts wiped out K-3 PE classes, leaving parent clubs to fill the gap, though two schools still went without PE.
Similarly, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), facing a $113 million budget deficit, restricted Parent Teacher Association (PTA) funds from covering staff, including PE teachers. Parents protested, fearing the loss of PE would push families to private schools.
The emphasis on standardized testing has also contributed to reducing PE programs. Under pressure to improve test scores, schools often prioritize core academic subjects over PE. This shift can lead to cuts in PE teachers and programs. This shortsighted approach neglects student health and deepens inequities for California’s most vulnerable students.
Despite California’s PE mandate — 200 minutes every 10 days for grades 1-6 and 400 minutes for grades 7-12 — compliance is inconsistent, and districts are rarely sanctioned. A study of 55 districts found that half did not meet the requirements, affecting 82% of fifth-graders, with Latino, Black and low-income students most affected. Between 2004 and 2009, audits of 188 districts revealed that half were not following the required PE minutes, yet there were no consequences for the districts.
The health consequences, however, are clear. Research shows students in districts meeting PE mandates are more likely to be physically fit. In compliant districts, 64% of students met or exceeded fitness standards, compared with 57% in noncompliant ones.
A recent study I conducted with my colleague Ruslan Korchagin revealed further disparities: 81.2% of Latino students and 81.3% of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students scored below average on statewide fitness assessments. Conversely, Asian American and Filipino students (73.2%) and white students (71.3%) performed above average. Socioeconomic factors — access to nutritious food, extracurricular opportunities, and safe spaces for physical activity — drive these inequities.
The Covid-19 pandemic made things worse. California eliminated the physical fitness test in 2020. Currently, schools collect only a pass or fail for physical fitness exercises. Research from 2023 found that lockdowns significantly increased student body-mass indexes and decreased muscular strength, hitting economically disadvantaged and racially marginalized students hardest.
Physical fitness isn’t just a health issue — it’s tied to academic success. Students who exercise regularly perform better in math and reading, demonstrate stronger cognitive skills and experience lower stress levels. While regular physical activity may not directly cause these academic and mental benefits, numerous studies show a strong correlation. The California Department of Education’s data supports this: Schools with higher fitness scores tend to have better overall academic performance.
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is a potential model for other districts seeking to improve physical education access and quality, even with limited resources. In 2007, the district launched a plan to hire credentialed PE teachers, reduce class sizes and improve facilities. After implementation, 1 in 4 schools reported progress: smaller class sizes, more instructors and increased active time during classes. Notably, some middle and high schools even exceeded the required 40 minutes of PE per day.
LAUSD’s Blueprint for Wellness report highlights the connection between physical education and academic performance, with research suggesting physical education has improved students’ memory, concentration and cognitive function — all of which contribute to stronger academic outcomes among its students.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s current education budget proposal presents an opportunity to address this crisis. Lawmakers must enforce existing physical education requirements across all school districts, hold public hearings to examine disparities in compliance, and include physical fitness scores in the state’s dashboard of key school performance indicators. Additionally, expanding after-school and community fitness programs in underserved neighborhoods and developing culturally inclusive, adaptive PE curricula will help ensure that all students feel represented and engaged.
California has an opportunity to lead the nation in prioritizing school fitness as a cornerstone of student success. Addressing physical education isn’t just about health. It’s about educational equity. Every child, regardless of background, deserves the lifelong benefits of quality PE. It’s time for decisive, urgent action.
•••
Da’Shay Templeton, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at California Lutheran University, a Hispanic-serving institution in Thousand Oaks.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
College applications are open for the fall 2025 term, and deadlines are looming.
California’s two public university systems — the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) — provide the state’s students with 32 campuses to choose from.
That’s on top of more than a hundred community colleges that can provide pathways to transfer to other campuses and associate degrees. Some also offer bachelor’s degrees.
Here are the basics of how and when to apply.
When are college applications due?
It depends on the college or university. The UC and CSU deadline for fall 2025 admissions to all undergraduate campuses is Dec. 2, 2024.
Community college admissions do not have a specific deadline, but it’s generally better to apply early. Private colleges and universities have their own deadlines, with most in mid-January.
Who is eligible to apply for California colleges?
To apply to the UC system, students who are residents are required to earn at least a C in the following so-called A-G requirements — and maintain a GPA in those courses above 3.0 during their sophomore and junior years.
Four English classes
Three math classes, though four are recommended
Two science classes, though three are recommended
Two history classes
Two courses in a world language, though three are recommended
One class in the visual or performing arts
One college preparatory elective class
Eligibility for California residents to apply to CSU is similar with respect to the A-G requirements, and applicants must have a GPA above 2.50. Students who do not meet the GPA threshold but have higher than a 2.0 could still be considered for admission with other supplemental factors taken into account.
Those supplemental factors can range from a GPA specific to math and science to household income to extracurricular activities.
Individual campuses have their own supplemental materials, which can be found here.
Standardized tests are not required for the UC or CSU systems.
How many applications do you need to complete?
That depends on the colleges or universities a student is applying to — and whether they’re public or private.
There is a single application for all UC campuses and another for all CSU campuses, so there is no need to apply to each university separately.
Many private colleges and universities, however, rely on the Common Application, which has its own universal essay prompts and allows campuses to customize additional requirements, including essays, short-answer questions and letters of recommendation.
What does the application involve?
In addition to students’ grades, the UC application also requires students to respond to four personal insight questions — or short essays under 350 words. There are eight prompts to pick from. The UC also has applicants expand on their experiences in high school, including a list of extracurricular activities and achievements.
The Cal State application is far simpler, and the main factor considered in the admissions process is a student’s grades in college preparatory classes taken after ninth grade.
Generally, the CSU system does not require writing essays.
For private campuses, essays are often required, along with letters of recommendation.
Are early action and early decision good options?
Early action and early decision give students the opportunity to apply to a college or university early — and also receive their decisions months early.
They are more common options at private colleges and universities — and can be good options if your child is ahead of the game, ready to click “submit” and wants to express a special interest in the campus.
Here’s the main downside of applying early decision: If your child is accepted, they will have to commit to that university and turn down any other offers of admission.
Early action, on the other hand, is generally not binding. So, they can be accepted early and still decide to attend another university.
How much does it cost to apply to colleges?
There is a single application for the UC system, and it costs $80 for every campus selected. Meanwhile, the CSU system charges $70 per campus, and community college applications are free for U.S. residents.
Private campuses vary — but often charge between $50 and $100.
What if you can’t afford the application fees?
The UC system will waive the application fee for up to four campuses in cases where students wouldn’t be able to apply without financial assistance.
Fees can be waived for students who are eligible for AB540 benefits and for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
The application itself will notify students if they are eligible once they add their family’s income and size in the “About you” section.
The CSU system also affords students application fee waivers; and, students automatically find out if they’re eligible once they complete the application.
Eligibility for CSU waivers involves the same criteria as the UC system — but students also have to have been a California resident for at least one year.
Like the UC system, the CSU waiver can apply to a maximum of four campuses.
Several private colleges and universities also provide fee waivers for students who need it.
How do you apply for financial aid?
For federal assistance with financial aid, it’s important to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. In California, students should aim to submit the form — which was revamped last year to make it more straightforward — by March 2025.
The California Dream Act was also updated earlier this year and expanded to also serve students who are U.S. citizens but who have a parent without a Social Security number.
When should you expect to hear back from universities?
Students usually hear back from colleges they’ve applied to in March — unless they apply for early action or early decision.
The UC Riverside parking lot is filled with the cars of students who commute.
Credit: Omisha Sangani
As we head into a second year of delays and confusion around FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, it is more important than ever to revisit the daunting financial scene many college students face today.
Beyond tuition, students incur additional costs, including on-campus housing, meal plans and indirect costs not paid directly to their college/university. Indirect costs include, among other things, books, transportation, off-campus housing and a computer. For California students living off campus, indirect costs are roughly $21,000 a year (and are even higher for students who live on their own).
With an eye toward costs, many students opt to commute rather than stay on campus because it is cheaper, they can live with family (which may include caretaking for their parents, siblings, and/or children), or they have other responsibilities at home to maintain. For example, 60% of UC students, 86% of CSU students, and 85% of all college students across the U.S. commute to campus.
The3E Study is currently collecting economic, educational and health and well-being data from students at public California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) campuses over time. We asked participants about how things were going this past school year and their most satisfying and disappointing experiences at their institution.
One trend immediately emerged from the results: Attending their schools is expensive, and commuter students are struggling.
Many students in our study described having to drive over an hour each way to get to school every day. The challenges posed by their commute often prevent students from thriving, both academically and socially, during a critical time in their development.
The participant responses bring to life the grim picture:
“I expect to be exhausted as classes end every day. My commute has taken a greater toll (avg. 100 minutes one-way) on my time management than I anticipated, and this is the greatest factor preventing me from being more involved on campus,” one student says.
Other commuting students shared that “it’s a lot harder to make friends” and “I work part-time and commute three hours a day for school.”
Commuting is an issue of affordability that is exacerbating unequal education access. When low- and middle-income students do not have affordable housing options on or near campus, are facing too many other expenses even to consider on-campus housing, and/or are juggling other responsibilities like caregiving, they may have limited options for where to live, regardless of how far they are from campus.
Living at home and commuting to and from campus also introduces new financial stressors. Many commuter students struggle to pay for gas. While living at home may be more affordable than staying on campus, financing a new tank of gas every few days is no bargain.
One participant who commutes from Los Angeles to Riverside (roughly 55 miles) for school writes, “A limitation that I keep having is the lack of money … gas is basically now an absolute necessity for me to even consider earning a higher education.”
Expanding affordable options and resources for students is the key to minimizing these class-based inhibitors to college access. For example, some institutions are creating specialized orientation programs and resources, such as commuter centers (areas with dedicated commuter-specific facilities such as a fridge or computers), to help these students feel more connected and supported during their college experience.
To decrease the financial burden of commuting, colleges should partner with local transit agencies to offer free public transportation to all students (a program that many California colleges are already implementing). When determining financial aid allocations, schools should consider the cost of commuting as part of the cost of attendance for any students not living on campus. Creating special grant programs designed to reduce tuition costs for commuter students allows students to put tuition savings toward affording gas and/or car payments.
Commuter students statewide are facing high tuition and high indirect costs. Better supporting the costs of commuting will help ensure an equal chance for everyone to get an accessible college experience.
•••
Isabella Yalif is an undergraduate student in economics and sociology at Vanderbilt University. Lindsay Hoyt is an associate professor of applied developmental psychology at Fordham University and co-leads the 3E study. Alison Cohen is an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco and co-leads the 3E study.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Cal State Northridge is one of 23 CSU System institutions.
Larry Gordon/EdSource
As the end of adecadelongpush to graduate more students nears, California State University made slight progressin 2024on increasing the four-year graduation rate for freshmen but saw six-year freshman rates stall and four-year transfer rates drop, new statistics show.
Those numbers show the difficulties the university system faces in its final efforts to improve its graduation rates, even after significant overall improvement toward ambitious goals over the previous nine years.
The data were presented Tuesday at a two-day symposium on graduation goals ahead of spring 2025, when the system’s much-scrutinized Graduation Initiative 2025 effort is supposed to end. California State University (CSU) officials urged colleagues to learn more about why many students are dropping out or taking so long to finish.
Across the CSU system, freshman six-year graduation rates have plateaued at around 62%, the same as in 2023 and 8 percentage points below the system’s graduation goal for 2025. Freshman four-year graduation rates ticked up to36% in 2024, a 1 pointgain from the previous year. But they fell shy of the system goal to hit 40% by 2025.
Transfer students’ performance was a mixed bag. Cal State is just 1 percentage point from reaching its goal of a 45% two-year graduation rate for transfers, a decent increase from 41% in 2023. But among transfer students who entered CSU in 2020,four-year graduation rates dropped from 79% in 2023 to 75% this year, putting them 10 points below the Graduation Initiative 2025 target.
CSU also tracks graduation rates for its 23 campuses, all of which have been assigned varying goals. But the university system has not published campus graduation rates for 2024 to a dashboard available online, and those were not included in the public report Tuesday.
Though the system’s current graduation rates compare favorably to similar public universities, Chancellor Mildred García said they are “not good enough.”
About 25,000 first-time students who entered CSU in 2018 did not graduate in six years, Garcia noted. “That’s 25,000 students whose dreams are deferred, 25,000 students who left — and because of the cost of living in the state, are leaving with debt,” she said. “We’re not going to take responsibility for that? I think we have to, we have to talk about the elephant in the room and really examine, again: Are support services really helping? Are we listening to our students?”
García said the university system must also do more to connect recent graduates with careers, like a Cal State graduate she encountered working in a hospitality job who said they can’t find work in their desired field.
“Where is our responsibility there?” she said. “There’s so many options for them. How are we teaching them about the amazing career options that are out there, so they could know which way they want to go?”
García’s remarks followed a presentation about the system’s graduation and persistence rates by Jennifer Baszile, the associate vice chancellor for student success and inclusive excellence.
The system is yet to close the gap between students without Pell Grants (more affluent students) and lower-income students receiving such assistance. Among the CSU cohort that started in fall 2017, roughly 68% of more affluent students without Pell Grants graduated in six years. Among Pell Grant recipients, that figure was just 56%.
Officials have previously attributed at least part of their trouble closing equity gaps to the coronavirus pandemic, which added pressure on students who have to work or care for family members.
Cal State also touted some good news.Since the effort began, the system has nearly doubled its four-year graduation rate, Baszile said. A Cal State analysis comparing CSU to state systems like the City University of New York and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education — after making adjustments to leave out top-tier research institutions — found that CSU’s six-year graduation rates for freshmen was near the top of the pack.
Higher graduation rates are also a good deal for students. Baszile noted that getting their degrees faster means money in the pockets of Cal State graduates, since they can join the workforce sooner and save on the additional fees and tuition they would have paid if it took longer to finish their programs.
A closer look at how some students fared
The past 10 years have seen notable demographic changes at Cal State. The university saw its incoming freshman classes grow 31% between 2009 and 2019. During the same period, the population of first-generation, Pell Grant and/or historically underserved students increased by 50%, according to Baszile’s presentation.
Baszile then turned to persistence rates, which measure the percentage of students who return to a campus after each year of education.
Overall, the analysis found that 84% of first-time students in the 2018 cohort came back to campus for a second year. But equity gaps emerged early. First-year persistence among students who were Latino, male and first-generation was 78%, lagging 6 points behind the system average.
Disparities were amplified in subsequent years. The divide ultimately fed into lower graduation rates: 48% of Latino, male and first-generation students graduated in six years, again trailing the 62% graduation rate among all students in the 2018 cohort.
“More than 50% of the Latino, male, first-generation students who started in 2018 are no longer with us. They are gone,” Baszile said. “We might be able to help them re-enroll. There’s always a chance. But think about on your university campuses: How much energy, how much effort, how much investment is required to have students fully depart and have to identify them, re-engage them and bring them back?”
How to stop students from ‘leaking out of the pipeline’
Baszile and Dilcie D. Perez, Cal State’s deputy vice chancellor of academic and student affairs, urged colleagues to learn more about the specific reasons why students leave CSU — in the hopes of preventing more students from following them out the door.
“We’ve got to find a way to go get those students and bring them back,” Perez recalled saying to Baszile in one of the many conversations the two have had about improving student persistence. “And (Baszile) was like, ‘Yes, but how about we never lose them?’”
President Richard Yao of Cal State Channel Islands said his campus has started using exit surveys. The first challenge is getting a response; once students leave, he said, they can be hard to reach. The next is making sense of the idiosyncratic reasons students depart.
“When we look at the exit data, why students are leaving, it is not just one thing,” Yao said. “The variability is off the charts, and it’s so individual. So for us, right now, we’re struggling.”
One throughline in the data, he said, is that students who leave are struggling academically. But he encouraged colleagues to look beyond academic performance, too.
“We have to identify what’s happening in that first year in our classrooms, in our residential areas, in our co-curricular — what is it that may be contributing to those poor outcomes, whether it be mental health, basic needs — and maybe taking a deeper dive into what is contributing to those poor academic outcomes as well,” he said.
Elk Grove Unified director of elementary school education Jodi Boyle gets tips on how to use a canvassing app before she heads out in support of Measure N, a school facilities bond.
Diana Lambert/EdSource
California school board races, largely ignored by voters until the 2022 election, are again taking center stage. The California Teachers Association(CTA), the California Republican Party and other organizations have significantly ramped up efforts to help their favored candidates win local school board seats on Nov. 5.
On Saturday, teachers and other school employees dropped into the offices of the Elk Grove Education Association to receive last-minute instructions and pick up yard signs and union T-shirts before fanning out across the Sacramento County district to encourage residents to vote for a local school bond and union-supported school board candidates.
It is part of a larger effort by CTA to get its local unions more engaged in school board elections. For the last few months, California teachers have been attending rallies and canvassing neighborhoods to drop off door hangers and knock on doors. County Republican central committees, other conservative organizations, and in some parts of the state, charter school organizations are doing the same.
CTA President David Goldberg said the union is “absolutely” taking this year’s school board elections more seriously than it has in the past, and is counting on the engagement and popularity of its teachers to win local races. It is also trying to change the culture of local unions not being active in elections.
“We know that our popularity as educators and union educators is at an all-time high,” Goldberg said. “And just the words: … ‘I’m an educator in your community, and I’m asking you to vote for this person,’ just that alone, changes elections. I mean that’s the gift we have. So we just have to lean into it and use it much more than we have in the past.”
Before the 2022 election, the Republican Party, and some conservative organizations and churches, spent more than a year recruiting, training and endorsing candidates in an attempt to create a “red wave” to win what are supposed to be nonpartisan seats.
Their goal was to gain seats on California school boards to promote conservative ideas, including fighting educational policies on gender identity and racial equity. Although the effort made some headway, it failed to flip many seats in more liberal areas of the state.
This year, county Republican central committees and conservative groups, like the Leadership Institute, again recruited and trained school board candidates throughout the state with a focus on winning seats in more liberal areas of the state.
Shawn Steel
Conservatives are campaigning even more aggressively than they did two years ago, said Shawn Steel, the Republican National Committee member from California. “There’s been a lot less noise but a lot more action,” he said.
Both sides say power is the issue
Goldberg said that some of the conservative candidates running for school board are self-proclaimed “white Christian nationalists” who are part of a broader movement to dramatically change public education to suit their ideology.
“It’s not an attack on Christianity, what we’re saying,” Goldberg said. “Because this has very little to do with Christianity at all. It’s about power, and it’s about using power to really re-imagine public education in a way that does not include the majority of our students in that vision, but really is a fundamentalist attack on democracy.”
Steel says the teachers unions have too much power and that union members are trying to get candidates elected that they can control.
“You got the union reps that are literally knocking on doors and financing their candidate,” Steel said. “And why are they doing that? It’s not because they want education better, they want better salaries and more power. It should be illegal, in my view.”
How the union supports campaigns
As a rule, the CTA focuses its efforts on statewide races and propositions, while local unions support local races. But local unions can apply for financial support for school board races from the CTA Political Action Committee. The CTA and local teachers unions sometimes share the cost of joint mailers advertising statewide races on one side and local races on the other, Goldberg said.
“We’re never going to have enough money to fund these races,” Goldberg said. “We live in the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have billionaires who frankly could write a bigger check in a single day than 300,000 members could raise in years. So, our real power is our member strength. And our members and educators are trusted more than any other people.”
Over the next several years, the CTA is spending about $60 million so that every union president can be released from the classroom to engage with their members, including encouraging their members to participate in local campaigns, Goldberg said.
California Teachers Association President David Goldberg and local school board presidents at State Council. The union is paying to release all the presidents from their teaching duties so they can engage with their members and promote participation in elections.California Teachers Association
This is the first year Elk Grove Education Association members have canvassed neighborhoods for candidates. Teachers who were campaigning on Saturday credited the leadership of local union President James Sutter for getting Elk Grove teachers excited about supporting union-endorsed candidates and a local school facilities bond in the upcoming election.
Troy Morgan, science teacher at Monterey Trail High School, has been knocking on doors promoting union-endorsed candidates every Saturday since early September. He sometimes goes out after school on weekdays as well.
“I think we just realized how important it is, having a cohesive school board that supports students, and just knows how things should work, or what’s going to work best for students and all staff, not just teachers,” Morgan said Saturday before heading out for more canvassing. “There have been times in the past where it hasn’t been a cohesive kind of board, and we want to make sure that we have the kind of board that is going to be supporting all students.”
Elk Grove Unified teachers, wearing “Yes on N” T-shirts, have collectively knocked on about 7,000 doors since they started hitting the streets each Saturday since September, Sutter said.
Temecula teachers fight back
Goldberg recently walked for union-endorsed candidates running for the Temecula Valley Unified school board. The district in Riverside County has been in the media spotlight for more than a year for everything from rejecting textbooks with materials that included references to gay rights activist Harvey Milk, banning critical race theory and passing a policy requiring teachers and school staff to notify parents if a child appears to be transgender.
“That’s been turning our district a little upside down,” said union President Edgar Diaz. “Most of the board meetings have turned to focusing on these issues, instead of how do we address supporting students who are falling behind on the dashboard, who have IEPs (individualized education programs), who are English language learners? How do we develop systems that help them be successful in the classroom? So, in this election, it’s turned a lot into supporting candidates who believe in good governance.”
Tension over the policies of the conservative majority board led to the recall of board President Joseph Komrosky in June. Komrosky is running for one of the four available seats on the board in the upcoming election.
Two years ago, teachers at Temecula Valley Unified paid little attention to board races and campaigning, Diaz said. That all changed after a conservative majority was elected to the board in 2022. This year, members of the Temecula Valley Educators Association are sending out mailers, making phone calls and texting potential voters.
“Once they were elected and the policies and kind of chaos they brought into school board meetings, that is what got people motivated to do the work,” Diaz said.
The union’s political action committee recruited and interviewed candidates for endorsements and has spent about $60,000 total – $20,000 on each of three endorsed candidates. In 2022, the union spent $18,000 in total helping three candidates get elected.
Local teacher unions fund their PACs with donations primarily from their members. Temecula also received contributions from other union locals as well as money the union got from CTA, Diaz said.
Parental notification still on the ballot
School board policies directing school staff to notify parents if a student asks to use a different pronoun or name than given at birth — often called parental rights policies — continue to be a hot-button issue in some districts this election season, despite a new state law that will make these policies illegal starting in January.
The new state law requires a student’s consent before information about their sexual orientation or gender identity can be given to parents. The law also protects school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference.
In Yuba County, north of Sacramento, members of the Republican Central Committee attended school board meetings to evaluate whether school board trustees supported parent notification policies and, if not, whether they should be replaced in the upcoming election, said Florentina Di Gennaro, the treasurer of the committee.
“We kind of let them know if you’re not going to stand up for these things that we need to start happening in our schools or defending parents’ rights for our children, we are going to find someone to replace you,” Di Gennaro said.
The California Republican Party leaves funding and campaigning for down-ballot races to its county central committees, said Jonathan Zachreson, a candidate for the Roseville City School District board.
The Yuba County committee recruited and endorsed “Mama Bears” and “Papa Bears” to run for school board seats. Committee members wanted people who would push back against the new state law and other policies, Di Gennaro said.
The central committee is also attempting to replace Marysville Joint Unified Superintendent Fal Asrani because she won’t disregard the law. Asrani went on medical leave earlier this month. Di Gennaro said that a committee that will include a member of the GOP Central Committee will soon begin looking for a new superintendent.
Steel doesn’t agree with everything conservative board members have done since the last election. Some of the people elected to school boards in 2022 were wrongly focused on social issues instead of economic issues or fighting against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, he said. Steel said that DEI policies are racist and punish students for their color, but he doesn’t agree with policies focused on LGBTQ+ communities, he said.
“That’s a mistake,” he said. “I think most folks don’t think that the gay community should be targeted and scorned. So, that’s something I think most of the folks have learned this time around, because it’s not something that most folks believe. It’s not a community that should be attacked.”
San Jose union protecting board seat
The San Jose Teachers Association has been recruiting candidates and helping them win elections for years, but this year the 1,500-member union is putting more energy and money into campaigning after seeing conservative organizations recruiting candidates for local school board seats, said Renata Sanchez, union president.
“We shared it (the information) with our smaller locals as well,” Sanchez said. “And we’re like, let’s get ready now because they’re coming for us next year. And now they’re here.”
One candidate running for San Jose Unified is being endorsed by the Santa Clara County branch of Moms for Liberty, a national group that has supported efforts to bar schools from teaching about race, gender and sexuality. Members of the organization and the Silicon Valley Association of Conservative Republicans also are endorsing the candidate, Sanchez said.
“So, we’re making sure that we protect our school board and protect our academic freedom, by making sure that she doesn’t get on,” Sanchez said.
The union is sending out mailers, buying digital advertising and recently launched a mass text-messaging campaign. It also has encouraged teachers to go on “block walks” in the neighborhoods around their campuses after the school day ends to talk to potential voters about union-backed candidates and a facilities bond that includes some funding for workforce housing. Groups of teachers also canvas neighborhoods every Saturday.
“The stakes are higher than they’ve ever been,” Sanchez said.
LA teachers take on charter proponents
Not all hotly contested elections are cultural. In Los Angeles Unified, the teachers union and charter school organizations are also battling over school board seats.
The union is running campaigns in two of the three school board races, endorsing and supporting a UTLA member — who will stop teaching if elected to the paid school board seat — and an incumbent it has endorsed in prior elections, said Julie Van Winkle, vice president of United Teachers Los Angeles. The incumbent is running against another UTLA member who has been an advocate for charter schools and is outspending the union candidate 3-to-1, she said.
“We are always outspent by the charter school candidates, and we anticipate that in our school board election in the Valley, we’re going to be outspent 7-to-1,” Van Winkle said.
The union political action committee that finances campaigns is funded by about $2 million in member contributions and additional funding from the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, she said.
Because funding is limited, Van Winkle said it is more advantageous for UTLA to mobilize its 39,000 members to knock on doors and to talk to residents about the union’s endorsed candidates.
“People value teachers and respect teachers, and so we feel like our best strategy is just getting teachers to donate their time to go out and tell people about why it’s important to vote for our candidates,” Van Winkle said.
Billie Montague, 2, puts a vote sticker on her nose while watching her mom, Ashley Montague, vote in Newport Beach in 2020. Credit: Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Polaris
Children are not merely passive recipients of voting outcomes; they are capable participants in building a future shaped by informed civic values and active community involvement. We must foster responsible use of their civic knowledge and power for a better future.
Introducing children to voting from an early age — as young as 5 or 6 — can instill in them a sense of civic responsibility, sparking curiosity about how individual actions influence the broader community, and shaping informed, engaged citizens for the future.
In my work on diversity, equity and inclusion, I spend much time thinking about misinformation, access barriers and participation roadblocks.
Voting processes are vulnerable to misinformation tactics aimed at suppressing marginalized voters, including Black, Latino, disabled, rural residents, and the elderly. Voting with children is no exception to this insidious campaign to bar access and participation for every eligible voter. Child care access issues can even act as an indirect form of voter suppression. When parents, particularly single parents or those in underserved areas, are unable to find or afford child care, voting in person may become challenging or impossible. These barriers are compounded in areas with limited polling locations, long wait times, or fewer resources for early or mail-in voting, which are essential accommodations for parents who may otherwise be prevented from casting their vote due to lack of child care. Even when voting accommodations — voting by mail or surrendering early ballots at polling places — are available, misinformation around these options can impact parents’ ability to participate.
Recognizing the significance of civic engagement among Gen Z (the youngest of whom are 12 years old), it’s noteworthy that they exhibit higher voting rates than previous generations. In 2024, a staggering 41 million Gen Z youth are eligible to vote, with millions more set to join the electorate by 2028.
Efforts to expand access and participation are crucial because civic engagement, including voting, is essential and has widespread impact. Ultimately, it’s a fundamental right that touches each of us deeply; it’s the sole avenue for every citizen to participate in the democratic process.
Political socialization is how people learn about politics, form beliefs and understand their civic role. While parents typically pass political views to their children, research shows influence can also go the other way: Children’s awareness of civic issues can shape their parents’ views, a process known as “trickle-up socialization.” As children engage with topics affecting their communities — through school, social media, and peers — they may prompt discussions that lead parents to consider new perspectives. Bringing children to the voting booth reinforces this process, offering them hands-on exposure to democracy, sparking meaningful questions, and fostering family engagement, especially in marginalized communities where awareness and representation are vital.
However, it’s concerning that American knowledge of civic engagement has declined, with significant gaps in understanding fundamental aspects of government and constitutional rights, as revealed by the Annenberg study released annually on Citizenship Day. The study noted 1 in 3 Americans cannot name the three branches of government, and less than a third can name the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment beyond freedom of speech.
As parents, we can inspire an informed and engaged generation of citizens. If you haven’t made a family voting plan for the Nov. 5 election, there’s still time to register and participate together. Preparation is critical; here are practical considerations for voting with children in California:
Voting with kids in the November presidential election is not only allowed but purposeful, serving as a primer for future elections and instilling democratic values early on.
•••
Amira K.S. Barger, MBA, CVA, CFRE, is a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant and an adjunct professor at California State University, East Bay.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Despite being the nation’s economic powerhouse with the largest postsecondary system in America, California stands alone among all 50 states without a higher education coordinating entity. This gap has resulted in missed opportunities and unrealized potential — and it’s a systemic failure that leaves real people behind every day.
Ask Fred P., who applied for unemployment when he lost his job during the pandemic. What California’s systems failed to tell him was that he qualified for the Golden State Education and Training Grant designed to help displaced workers like him. As his savings dwindled and bills mounted, available support remained hidden in bureaucratic silos. Fred only discovered the program months after his unemployment benefits expired — and only because his partner happened to work in state policy and budget.
Meanwhile, millions of other Californians, without such connections, remain unaware of potential pathways to economic mobility and continue to fall through the cracks of our state’s disconnected education and workforce systems. During the pandemic, over 19 million Californians lost jobs and applied for unemployment, yet very few were informed they qualified for this scholarship program, which should have connected them to training opportunities for career advancement. California allocated $500 million to this program, but two years later, only $20 million had reached just 6,100 individuals. Why? Because the agency administering scholarships couldn’t identify unemployed workers, and the unemployment office couldn’t connect people to the available education funding. Two state systems, both serving Californians, but operating in silos, left resources untapped and communities unsupported.
This fragmentation creates a maze that widens opportunity gaps, particularly for those without the social capital or resources to guide them through complex systems. At the start of the pandemic, over 5 million Californians intended to enroll in college in the next two years, but many — especially especially Latino, Black, Native American residents, first-generation college students, Californians with children, and those working low-wage jobs — face a gauntlet of barriers that numerous disjointed access programs fail to address. Meanwhile, more than a billion dollars in education and workforce development funding goes unused, while Californians seeking better opportunities have trouble finding quality training opportunities to reach their career goals, and employers struggle to find qualified workers for open positions.
These disconnected systems don’t just create inconvenience — they perpetuate cycles of poverty. For Californians living on the margins, the cost associated with college —an established path to economic mobility — is a huge barrier and makes it seem out of reach. Meanwhile, over a hundred programs exist that could defray the financial burden and increase college access. But, without coordination, these public benefit programs designed to improve economic stability remain inaccessible to those who need them most. When systems don’t talk to each other, the promise of these programs remains unfulfilled, leaving workers, families and employers struggling in an economy that demands better solutions.
The solution is clear: coordination. And it’s now within reach. Both Gov. Gavin’s administration and key legislative champion Assemblymember Mike Fong have aligned in their support of establishing the California Education Interagency Council. This council would bridge the divides between our TK-12 education, higher education, workforce development, and social services systems, creating a coherent ecosystem that powers economic growth and resilience for individuals and the state.
This isn’t about adding bureaucracy — it’s about setting up the needed infrastructure to fulfill the promise of economic mobility and good jobs for Californians — the driving reason so many pursue higher education in the first place. With this council in place:
Unemployed workers would be connected to education and training programs that would strengthen their re-entry to the workforce.
Residents experiencing financial hardship who receive public benefits would enter into education pathways that lead to living-wage careers, creating intergenerational economic mobility.
Students would easily navigate clear paths from high school through college to meaningful employment.
Schools and colleges would receive actionable labor market insights to shape programming.
Employers would find skilled workers to fill critical positions, strengthening California’s economy.
Collectively, these outcomes strengthen California by fostering a robust economy and thriving communities built on shared prosperity.
Finally, the council would enhance accountability by tracking outcomes across systems, identifying what works and what doesn’t, and ensuring programs reach their intended recipients. A coordinated approach is especially critical now, during challenging budget times. California must ensure every dollar works. The proposed council would maximize returns on billions of existing investments by eliminating redundancies, filling workforce gaps, and ensuring that programs help the people they are designed to serve.
For too long, we’ve relied on spot-fixes and piecemeal solutions. We’ve watched promising initiatives fall short of their potential. The time has come, with alignment between the governor’s office and the Legislature, to build the coordination infrastructure that connects Californians with opportunity. Our state’s promises of prosperity and bright futures depend on it.
•••
Su Jin Jez is CEO of California Competes, a nonprofit working to solve California’s higher education and workforce issues through research, advocacy and collective action.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
As Californians gear up for elections that have the potential to shape the lives of young people in fundamental ways, a consortium of mostly California foundations have set up a fund to elevate the role of public schools in promoting civic leadership and democratic participation.
It is a key part of what the nearly dozen foundations who are participating in the project are calling the California Thriving Youth Initiative, a multiyear effort “to support the learning, leadership, and well-being of adolescents in California.”
The goal is to “create the conditions for young people, especially students of color, to practice civic engagement and democracy inside and outside public school,” said Kathryn Bradley, director of the Purpose of Education Fund at the Stuart Foundation.
The foundation initiated the effort with a seed investment of $30 million, which will be administered by the Los Angeles-based California Community Foundation,
“Nothing is more important than young people participating in and improving our democracy,” said Jesse Hahnel of the Crankstart Foundation, one of the other foundations participating in the initiative.
Even though young people will be affected by government policies for longer than any other age group — and thus arguably have more of a stake in election outcomes than any other age group — they have historically lagged behind in their voting patterns.
In the 2020 elections, for example, 47% of 18- to 24-year-olds voted in California, compared with 67% of voters 65 and older.
The good news is that, in recent years, more and more of them are casting ballots. Just a decade before, a mere 18% of eligible 18– to 24-year-olds voted in the national elections.
The Stuart Foundation’s Bradley says there is a need to think about civic education more broadly than just traditional civics or American government classes.
Students, she said, need opportunities for civic engagement that “allow them to practice democracy right now.”
To that end, a range of promising approaches have emerged in recent years, which the initiative hopes to build on. Since 2020, for example, California students have been able to earn a “State Seal of Civic Engagement” that is affixed to their high school diploma. It is now one of a half-dozen states offering a similar certification.
To be awarded the seal, students must demonstrate “excellence in civic education,” which includes completing a civic engagement project of some kind, in addition to completing courses in history, government and civics.
Encouragingly, the number of seals has more than doubled to nearly 13,000 in 2022-23. But these represent just over 2% of California’s nearly 400,000 students who graduate each year, and so far, only a small proportion of California high schools are participating in the program.
Debunking stereotypes that today’s generation isn’t overly interested in community engagement, a recent national survey by the nonprofit YouthTruth showed that 60% of high school students “want to help others and work across differences to improve society.” But it also found that fewer than half said they had learned the necessary skills in school in order to do so.
What’s more, civic participation varied by parents’ education levels and students’ racial or ethnic background. “Those with parents holding advanced degrees stand out as most civically prepared, while Latino students are significantly less civically empowered than other racial groups,” the survey found.
Schools have a central role to play in changing that, and Bradley points to numerous examples in California where schools are engaging students from all backgrounds in civic education projects.
At the most recent annual Civics Day in Long Beach Unified, students described how they had successfully worked to get trash cans placed at their local beach. Students had to contact the local Public Works Department, which involved sending emails and making phone calls. “They were able to identify the levers of change in their community, and the people of influence that they needed to reach,” Bradley said.
At Oakland High, a goal of the Law and Justice Pathway Students is to help “students become active participants in advocating for positive social change in their community.” In Mallory Logan’s social studies class, students have researched homelessness in their school and district and had an impact on the district’s staffing patterns to assist unhoused students.
As part of Project Soapbox, organized by the decades-old Mikva Challenge, students in the Anaheim Union High School District issue calls to action on topics such as the death penalty, gun laws and college tuition. It is just one of numerous civic education initiatives underway in Orange County schools.
“These initiatives show that young people do have strong civic dispositions, that they want to help others, they want to work across lines of difference,” said Bradley. “They just need more opportunities within their schools and within their core content coursework to do it.”
In addition to promoting civic engagement, the foundation partnership is also launching a “Youth Thriving Through Learning Fund,” which will support initiatives to help adolescents in California “actively pursue their goals for careers, work and civic life.”
“Today’s students are building the communities we will all live in together in the future,” said Kent McGuire of the Hewlett Foundation, one of the partnering foundations. “In this critical moment, when our public institutions are under attack, we need to do everything we can to support them.”
Four foundations involved with this initiative — the Stuart Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the College Futures Foundation, and the McClatchy Foundation — are among over 20 foundations providing support to EdSource. EdSource maintains full control of its editorial content.
A poster at Oakland High School encourages 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the school board election. These posters are displayed throughout the campus.
Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
While the upcoming presidential election crowds voters’ minds, a new demographic will be casting their ballots for the first time this November. Both the cities of Berkeley and Oakland announced in August that 16 and 17-year-old constituents are now eligible to vote in local school board races.
Berkeley voters approved Measure Y in 2016 by just over 70% of the vote. In Oakland, Measure QQ — which indicates similar youth voting stipulations as its Berkeley counterpart — was approved in 2020 with 68% of the vote.
Years after the approval, continued community advocacy from organizations like Oakland Kids First has helped push the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to finalize a system to register 16- and 17-year-old voters.
At a school board candidate forum on Oct. 22 hosted by Fremont High School and organized by Oakland Youth Vote, students, teachers, administrators, organizers and school board candidates from Oakland Unified School District gathered to register voters and learn more about the candidates running in local school board contests.
Nearly all the school board candidates from districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 were present, and each was given a chance to introduce themselves and discuss their priorities and platforms within a time-limited format moderated by students from Fremont High School.
After the student moderators and administrators gave introductions and explanations on registration, voting and the school board, the moderators emphasized the importance of voting in making student voices heard. They cited the efforts of community organizations like the Oakland Youth Commission and Californians for Justice in their success.
Organizers and candidates spoke to students at the Oakland Youth Voting Forum on Oct. 22.Credit: Emily Hamill / EdSource
“Your vote has the power to bring us closer to your vision and make your dream a reality,” said a student moderator. “This makes history, but it was only possible because we have been fighting for the last five years. We have earned this — it is a right.”
Forum presenters highlighted what they considered the most important issues to Oakland students — access to health and wellness, community-centered schools, and essential life skills — all of which outlined concerns from over 1,400 student survey forms gathered from across the district.
The remainder of the forum consisted of the student moderators asking the candidates questions about how they plan to represent student concerns for equitable resource distribution, holistic mental health and wellness checks, school safety and budget deficits.
Oakland Tech senior Ariana Astorga Vega and sophomore Amina Tongun, both members of the All City Council, or the ACC, attended the forum and emphasized the importance of students using their newfound voting rights, which are limited to the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD board races. The ACC is made up of 11 peer-elected high school students to represent student concerns to OUSD.
“Even though I can’t vote yet because I have not turned 16, I’m here as a part of the ACC to support the local youth vote,” Tongun said. “I feel like it’s really special because we get to vote as young people and our voices are being heard. That’s one of the main reasons that I joined the ACC, because I really believe in advocating for young people and helping their voices be heard.”
Vega echoed Tongun’s opinion about the new voting rights, and her appreciation for being able to be “a part of that change.”
The two have also been involved in the ACC’s efforts to encourage youth voting, including streamlining social media posts about it and putting up fliers reading “Breaking News: 16-17 year-olds can now vote!” across district’s schools.
Although they have run into obstacles, like student disinterest due to not knowing how to vote and what the implications are, Vega and Tongun hope their community’s continued efforts to raise awareness and education will motivate their peers to take action.
Maya Rapier, an organizer with Oakland Kids First, who also attended the forum, has been committed to the purpose. By helping distribute voter registration forms, spread awareness about the forum, and even implement a new voting curriculum into OUSD schools, Rapier said the organization has helped the district register over 1,000 student voters.
“I genuinely feel like Oakland is such a beautiful place with such a beautiful community of voters who deserve so much, but there’s a history here of students being underserved and under-resourced,” Rapier said. “Students know their own experiences best, so for them to be able to be in the schools real-time, notice an issue, take that to the representative, and know that they have the power to bring attention to it, means a lot.”
Rapier added, “I’m a former student of OUSD, and I’m really inspired by the students here and the work that they’ve been doing.”
Fremont High School Principal Nidya Baez echoed these sentiments, expressing that her student body “feels responsible” for representing families and community members who cannot vote. She has worked to help “eliminate (obstacles like) the fear factor” by partnering with local coalitions to organize class presentations, lunchtime tabling and events like the candidate forum.
At Berkeley High School (BHS), students, with faculty help, have spearheaded youth voter registration and education. On Oct. 8, students from the BHS Civic Leaders Club organized a school board candidate forum with assistance from John Villavicencio, the director of student activities. The students invited the candidates to speak at the high school and allowed time for students to ask questions.
Villavicencio added that other BHS student organizations have led efforts in encouraging students to register to vote and done the groundwork by taking mail-in voter registration forms to classrooms. He also noted efforts from Josh Daniels, a former member of both the Oakland and Berkeley unified school district boards, who organized a weekly Zoom call between student leaders, student organizations and nonprofits in support of the youth vote to discuss efforts in their respective school districts.
During one weekly meeting, Oakland Youth Vote shared a curriculum members had put together detailing what the school board does, introducing the OUSD school board, emphasizing the importance of youth voting and assisting in registering students to vote.
After hearing about the curriculum Oakland Youth Vote created, Villavicencio encouraged Berkeley to create something similar. BHS teacher librarian Allyson Bogie offered to help, and created a shortened two-day curriculum tailored to Berkeley Unified. After review from the superintendent’s office, student leaders, teachers and administrators, the curriculum was shared with teachers who could use it in their classrooms.
“I wanted to make sure any teachers who wanted a tool to talk about youth voting, and getting kids registered, and the history of it, had something really easy to use,” Bogie said. “I believe it’s important for kids to vote, and I want to support the teachers, and that’s part of my role as a librarian.”
According to Villavicencio, there have been several hurdles to overcome in convincing students to register, and to understand why this opportunity is special. Some students did not know their own Social Security numbers, complicating the registration process, while others have never heard of the school board or don’t know what the school board does, making it difficult to teach students about the impact of their vote.
Villavicencio said they could “easily reach 1,000 pre-registration” out of about 1,800 potential BHS students who could register to vote. As of Oct. 22, 491 students were registered, leaving him “slightly disappointed,” he said.
“(Some students) are very passionate about activism and also engaging in the community,” Villavicencio said, but the overall sentiment is “lukewarm.” Bogie noted that she doesn’t think students view it negatively but has noticed a lot of students who also “aren’t that interested.”
Looking forward, Bogie hopes to see “continuing student momentum” for future elections.
“It’s commendable, what’s being done,” Villavicencio said. “And it’s crazy to say that there could be a lot more done.”
Emily Hamill is a third-year student at UC Berkeley double-majoring in comparative literature and media studies and minoring in journalism. Kelcie Lee is a second-year student at UC Berkeley majoring in history and sociology. Both are members of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.
California Student Journalism Corps member Jo Moon, a junior at UC Berkeley studying political economy, gender and women’s studies and Korean, contributed to this story.
Courtesy: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
With each passing year, we learn how a changing climate can affect our lives. For most Californians, two things stand out: bigger, more destructive wildfires and long-term threats to our precious water supply.
There are proven solutions to these challenges, enabling us to shift to prevention instead of simply responding to growing natural disasters fueled by climate change. The longer we wait to make this change, the greater the consequences and the costs.
Proposition 4, on the Nov. 5 ballot, represents a strategic investment in California’s environment, its economy and its people. The $10 billion bond measure dedicates $1.5 billion to preventing wildfires and smoke by creating fire breaks near communities, improving forest health to reduce wildfire intensity, supporting specialized firefighting equipment, and deploying early detection and response systems. To protect safe drinking water supplies, it provides $3.8 billion to treat groundwater contaminants, recharge aquifers, rebuild crumbling water infrastructure, and restore watersheds.
It also provides an important opportunity for California’s community colleges and the students we serve.
Proposition 4 will create important jobs in an evolving green economy. The question is how we build the workforce needed to do the work ahead.
California’s Community Colleges are uniquely positioned to ensure Proposition 4 dollars are leveraged to usher in this new workforce. If it passes, students will see new opportunities in career technical education programs that align with industry needs, including:
Expansion of clean energy training programs: Proposition 4 could support programs in solar energy installation, wind turbine maintenance and battery storage technology. By equipping students with these skills, community colleges can prepare them for high-demand jobs in the renewable energy sector, which is projected to grow as California expands its clean energy infrastructure.
Green construction and sustainable building techniques: The bond could provide resources to expand programs in sustainable construction, teaching students energy-efficient building methods and retrofitting techniques. These skills are crucial as California ramps up efforts to build climate-resilient infrastructure, creating jobs for students in green construction.
Water management and conservation technology: As the state faces ongoing water challenges, Proposition 4 could help community colleges develop programs focused on water conservation and management. Students trained in operating water technologies and wastewater treatment would be in high demand across various sectors, especially agriculture and public utilities.
Electric vehicle (EV) maintenance and infrastructure: With the rapid shift toward electric vehicles, funding from Proposition 4 could be used to expand EV technology programs, preparing students to service EVs and maintain charging stations. This would align with the state’s push to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles, creating opportunities for students in a growing market.
Work-based learning and internships in climate projects: Proposition 4 could enable partnerships between community colleges and green industry employers to provide internships and hands-on experience. Students could work on real-world projects in renewable energy, water management, or green construction, giving them practical skills and a competitive edge in the job market.
By dedicating at least 40% of its investment to disadvantaged communities, Proposition 4 ensures that these communities must be part of the work ahead, not witnesses to it.
As an educator, I see opportunity. California’s 116 community colleges are distributed across the state and are deeply embedded in their communities, particularly those in rural areas. When natural disasters strike, these communities find shelter at their community college campuses. Proposition 4 is a chance for California to build out its climate infrastructure efficiently by leaning on its community colleges in two ways: (1) sites for infrastructure deployment and (2) for workforce development. By expanding access to green job training programs, Proposition 4 will enable Californians from all backgrounds to participate in climate jobs of the future.
The students in our community colleges today will be the innovators, technicians and leaders of tomorrow. Proposition 4, through its focus on climate resilience, offers the chance to support these students in gaining the skills they need to succeed in an evolving job market while preventing wildfires, providing safe drinking water, protecting California’s iconic natural heritage, and contributing to the state’s clean energy transition. If we invest in them now, we invest in California’s future.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
