Students work together during an after-school tutoring club.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
For the first time since 2019, the California Department of Education has fully updated the California School Dashboard that tracks the annual progress of K-12 students on factors such as standardized test scores, chronic absenteeism, suspensions and graduation rates.
Since its rollout in 2017, the dashboard aims to show the progress of students at the state, district and school level using a color-coded system. It breaks this information down by 13 student subgroups, such as English language learners, disabled students and race and ethnicity. Friday’s update provides a snapshot of the progress made between the 2021-22 and 2022-23 academic years, representing the aftermath of the pandemic’s peak.
Red signals the poorest performance, followed by orange, yellow and green, while blue signals the best performance. State officials say that anything below green indicates the need for attention and improvement. Amidst the pandemic, the state stopped releasing this information in 2020.
The dashboard relies on some data, such as test scores and chronic absences, that was released in October. Other data — such as graduation rates and how many students met the entrance requirements to California universities, one measure of career and college readiness — were released Friday.
For the first time, this year’s dashboard adds a color-coded score to measure how many English learners are making progress toward proficiency on the English Language Proficiency Assessments of California (ELPAC).
On chronic absenteeism and English learner progress, the state’s status was yellow, a midway point between blue and red. The state’s status was orange — the second-worst status — for its suspension rate, graduation rate and performance on standardized tests for mathematics and English language arts.
State officials said the results demonstrate California schools are making progress in the wake of the pandemic, which witnessed sharp declines in standardized test scores and a surge in chronic absenteeism.
“Recovery from the pandemic has been a long process all across the country,” said California State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond, in a statement. “While we have a long way to go, these results show that California is making strides, especially in enabling students to get to school and graduate ready for college and careers.”
The rate of students graduating from high school who met the minimum course requirements to attend a CSU or UC reached an all-time high: 45.15%. That number has continued to steadily increase throughout the pandemic, up from 41.24% in 2016-17.
The statewide four-year graduation rate is 86.2%, a decline from last year’s all-time high of 87%. State officials attribute 2021-22’s peak to a loosening of state graduation requirements and grading policies at the height of the pandemic. Officials say this most recent dip is due to a return to pre-pandemic policies.
The dashboard’s color coding system takes into account both whether a metric is high or low, and also whether that metric has declined, maintained or improved within the past year.
For instance, the orange ratings for math and English language arts test scores reflect the fact that after huge dips from pre-pandemic scores, there was little change from the previous year’s scores. Math scores edged up 2.6 points and English scores dipped 1.4 points.
The state’s chronic absentee rate in 2022-23 was 24.3%. That means nearly a quarter of students missed 10 or more days of school that year. That is a 5.7 point dip from the previous year’s all-time high of 30%. However, it is still a historically poor rate, roughly double the 2018-19 rate of 12.1%. Chronic absentee rates were above 20%, the worst category, in 62% of districts.
Data shows that chronic absenteeism surged nationwide in the wake of the pandemic, and it hit nearly every school district. Experts have said that sick days from Covid and quarantining can account for part but not all of the rapidly increasing absentee rates. The CDE trumpeted the state’s declining chronic absenteeism rate.
“This is encouraging news, and our work is not complete,” said Superintendent Tony Thurmond, in a statement. “We have made an unprecedented investment in services that address the needs of the whole child. We can see that those efforts are paying off, but this is only the beginning.”
But some questioned whether the dashboard’s metrics provide a meaningful portrait of progress in the state.
The dashboard was created before the pandemic when there were a different set of assumptions about what progress would look like in schools, said Heather Hough, executive director of PACE, a Stanford-based education research organization. Metrics didn’t tend to surge or nosedive year to year before the pandemic. Improvement on metrics like chronic absenteeism or standardized test scores are worth noting, she said, but the dashboard’s focus on one year of change can be misleading.
“That can mask the concern that we should still be having: A lot of students are far behind where they have been, and large portions of students are not attending school,” Hough said.
The color coding system has implications for which schools are eligible for additional assistance. Skyrocketing chronic absenteeism rates were largely responsible for a surge in schools that were eligible for differentiated assistance. In 2019, 333 school districts were eligible but by 2022 that number shot up to 617. This year 466 school districts were eligible.
Advocates for English learners also worry that the way that the dashboard presents metrics is downplaying an urgent issue in education.
The dashboard shows that about half (48.7%) of English learners in the state advanced at least one level or remained at the top level of English language proficiency, based on their scores on the ELPAC, a test English learners are required to take every year until they reach proficiency. This is about the same number who progressed as last year.
CDE considers this to be a yellow score — a medium number of students making progress toward English proficiency, and not much change in how many did so. In order to reach green, the number of students making progress toward English proficiency would have to increase by 2 percentage points.
Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, an organization that advocates for English learners statewide, said fewer than 50% of English learners making progress each year should be considered very low, or red, rather than medium, or yellow.
“That seems to be a passing score, so to speak, and really doesn’t create the sense of urgency to really focus on the needs of English learners,” Hernandez said. “We really think the state has low expectations for districts having students make progress.”
Hernandez said if students advance one level each year, they would achieve proficiency in six years, which is a reasonable expectation based on research. When students take longer than six years to achieve proficiency, they are considered long-term English learners and can struggle in middle and high school.
Californians Together has advocated for the state to change indicators for English learner progress. The group believes that districts or schools should receive a high, or green, level of progress if at least 70% of English learners progress at least one level in one year. Currently, the state considers 55% of English learners progressing at least one level to be high.
About a third of English learners (32.7%) in the state remained at one of the same lower levels of English proficiency as the year before on the test. Almost one fifth (18.6%) decreased one level in English proficiency.
Districts achieved varied scores on English learner progress – 66 were red, 215 orange, 152 yellow, 192 green, and 43 blue.
In addition, Californians Together criticized the fact that the dashboard rates English learners’ scores on English language arts and math tests together with the scores of students who have achieved proficiency in English in the last four years.
“It’s a very, very weak picture of the needs of English learners,” said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic advisor for Californians Together.
Melissa Valenzuela-Stookey, director of P-16 research at Ed Trust-West, said that the nonprofit that advocates for justice in education, is planning to dig into the data to get insight into what is happening for the state’s most marginalized students, but the initial data is concerning.
“This data shows that the status quo for students of color is unacceptable, and we’re making alarmingly slow progress — but it also points to schools and districts that are proving that we can do better,” Valenzuela-Stookey said.
To create an education system that has stable funds for mental health, California educators and leaders are turning to the health system and launching a statewide behavioral health initiative to fill funding gaps in fluctuating, sometimes unpredictable school budgets.
“The health systems and the education systems are not bound together successfully enough to make sure we engage in both prevention and treatment,” said David Gordon, a commissioner at the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. “That’s particularly true for the most underserved communities.”
Funding for mental health in California public schools typically has come from general education budgets, a reason funds have never been stable. As the need for more mental health services and specialists skyrockets, administrators and experts are turning to the health system to better serve needs that existing education budgets just can’t cover.
Schools bridge some gaps by placing nurses, social workers, school counselors and psychologists on campuses, but there’s never enough money to fully meet student mental health needs. Without a built-in, statewide system to fund mental health in schools, districts are left to figure it out themselves.
“We’re so used to trying to provide external funding to fund us to some sort of equitable level for every student,” said Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors. “It’s never been the general fund will cover us — it’s just sort of baked into the cake.”
It’s been that way since at least the late 1980s, when Whitson began her education career, she said.
The Local Control Funding Formula, legislation that changed the way education was funded in California, created more funds for mental health and “a more holistic view and review of schools,” Whitson said. “But if there’s not enough money to go around, then school district administrators need to make very hard decisions.”
If districts have to rely on general fund money for mental health providers, it creates competition with funding for teachers and education programs, Whitson said. If budgets had more funds specifically for mental health, it would mean more money for education.
If we piecemeal it like it’s been, then we’re always trying to find money through categorical programs or grant funding.
Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors
California doesn’t mandate districts to provide school counselors, social workers, nurses or psychologists, but it is encouraged. Some experts say mandates could ensure there would be mental health specialists at every school. But that goes against the idea of local control, Whitson said, which allows districts to make decisions based on their community’s needs and resources.
Grants for mental health have helped, but it’s not sustainable, Gordon said. School districts will receive grants for a few years or even less, and when those dollars run out, the services or mental health specialists do too if districts don’t have money to keep them going.
Similarly, districts turned to pandemic relief dollars to boost staffing for school counselors, social workers, psychologists and nurses, but those funds expired in September.
Nonprofits and community organizations have stepped in to help fill needs at lower costs, put therapists on school campuses, and taken over doing burdensome paperwork. But if the services aren’t free to school districts, then most money for mental health has to come out of the education budget.
Blending two systems
Gordon credits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Children Youth and Behavioral Health Initiative for beginning to merge the health and education system. The goal for two major systems to come together is reachable, Gordon said, “but it will take a lot of coordination and collaboration.”
A key component of the behavioral health initiative is to support partnerships between Medi-Cal managed care plans and schools to increase access for children receiving Medi-Cal — nearly 5.7 million kids in 2022. Another goal is to increase access to early interventions and preventative mental and behavioral health care.
The behavioral health initiative was part of the Budget Act of 2021 and the governor’s Master Plan for Kids’ Mental Health. The California Department of Health Care Services will invest $4.7 billion over multiple years in youth behavioral services.
According to the master plan, more than 240,000 children cope with depression, and 66% don’t receive treatment. Suicide rates among 10-18-year-olds increased by 20% in 2019-2020.
Efforts to implement the behavioral health initiative started in January 2022. So far, hundreds of millions of dollars in funding have been disbursed to dozens of organizations for training and retention of providers, loan repayments and scholarships to increase providers in underserved areas.
But some of the funding is distributed as grants and won’t last long, Whitson said.
“I think it’s important to consider: How do we sustain this? A lot of programs come in as temporary programs, so seed money,” Whitson said. “We look at sustainable money as Medi-Cal a lot of times.”
The amount of money school districts can bill to Medi-Cal recently increased, thanks to new legislation. The California Education Code was updated in January after AB-2058 passed, allowing districts to bill Medi-Cal for mental health services provided by school counselors.
A 2018 statewide count of school counselors tallied about 11,000, Whitson said. She estimates there are about 14,000 now.
“School counselors are one of the biggest billing forces in the state. It should be bringing in quite a bit of money,” Whitson said. “It could be used to lower the caseloads on all levels — social workers, psychologists, school counselors.”
However, the process for school districts to bill Medi-Cal can be long and cumbersome.
Sometimes districts won’t get a full refund, and it could take a few years before the money is returned, said Marlon Morgan, founder and CEO of Wellness Together, a nonprofit that brings mental health providers to school campuses in California and New York.
“Schools are pretty reticent to use that billing option because they could end up spending $1 million but only get $500,000 back,” Morgan said. “If you’re on a school board and looking at ways to stabilize your budget and to know what to expect, that’s a huge wild card, and frankly one that doesn’t get used very often.”
In Sacramento County, schools are partnering with the Sacramento County Health Department to have one mental health provider at every school, said Gordon, who is also the superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education. The partnership works well because the county health departments already manage Medi-Cal and Medicaid plans — which insure more than 60% of people in the county, he added.
The purpose isn’t only to provide direct services at schools, but to have someone from the health system stationed at schools interacting with staff, students, and families every day, Gordon said. The goal is to have “centers of wellness and prevention, rather than a center of let’s go out and seek treatment for a problem that should’ve been caught many years ago,” he said.
Some organizations are combining billing insurance and grant funding to bring providers to schools. Campus Clinic, which aims to remove barriers to health care access by putting providers at schools, has brought mental health providers and other physicians to 14 districts and more than 600 schools in California, said Thomas Shaffer, the organization’s founder and president.
Most districts haven’t had to foot the bill. Campus Clinic started paying for all the costs, Shaffer said, and was able to sustain its offerings through billing insurance, including Medi-Cal, and applying for grants. One burden Campus Clinic and other similar organizations lift from districts is handling the paperwork and billing.
“We aim to complete, not compete, with existing resources,” Shaffer said.
Still, the need for mental health services and providers is too great to catch up with demand. Campus Clinic is contracted with 28 more districts that are still in the planning stages, Shaffer said.
Campus Clinic also offers universal health screenings that allow schools to quickly identify which students are showing signs of anxiety, depression and risk of self-harm, Shaffer said. Schools can see responses through a dashboard that includes real-time notifications for students who are at risk of self-harm. Campus Clinic has teams that start reaching out to families to offer services.
But it doesn’t come without challenges. Building trusting relationships with families so they feel comfortable accepting services can be an uphill battle.
‘The cultural and trust piece’
Officials at Feaster Charter School in Chula Vista saw immediate results after Campus Clinic gave universal mental health screenings to students in grades six through eight in May.
Out of the 350 students, roughly 40% were identified as having some level of anxiety and depression, said Karen Haro-Esparza, community school coordinator.
Teams at Campus Clinic started contacting families right away, Haro-Esparza said. Although it’s a huge help, it also created challenges — “the cultural and trust piece.”
“Because they are not a regular part of our staff, when Campus Clinic communicates with families, they have a lot of questions,” Haro-Esparza said. “Our challenge has been, ‘How do we educate families further to destigmatize and normalize the partnerships?’”
The stigma around mental health — especially among people of color and different cultures — is one reason families or guardians don’t seek or access resources for students. Something most mental health experts working in education can agree on is the importance of maintaining trust among schools, providers and families.
“It’s not just putting money out to buy services. It’s working to try to put the systems together so that they’re relating and families will come to know and trust the medical system even though they aren’t located in their community.”
David Gordon
Campus Clinic providers aim to become part of the school community, Shaffer said. One strategy Campus Clinic providers use is to rotate through different classrooms to speak with students about health and wellness for 15 minutes to become more familiar and create connections.
Wellness Together is investing in interns to diversify the workforce and build trusting relationships between communities and mental health providers, Morgan said. Before mental health professionals receive their licenses, they need to complete hundreds of hours that typically are unpaid — some programs won’t even allow future providers to have paid internships.
Morgan, who started his career as a school counselor, said he’s seen dozens of people never get their licenses because they can’t afford to work for free. It contributes to the lack of diversity in the behavioral health workforce, he said. Now, the nonprofit has more than 30 partnerships with universities in California to ensure interns are paid liveable wages and receive benefits.
Wellness Together pays interns working toward their licenses to be social workers, clinical and mental health counselors, licensed marriage and family therapists, and a pupil personnel services credential.
“The biggest challenge is finding staff and making sure the staff reflects the communities they’re serving,” Morgan said. “By paying interns and paying associates, we now have an option and an opportunity to really hire the best person for the job and often hire a person who is local and from the community.”
As a parent or caregiver, imagine having a social worker knock on your door to tell you that someone has reported their suspicion that you are not taking proper care of a child in your care. As mandated reporters, our calls to child protective services about “reasonable suspicion” of child abuse and neglect are informed by our training and experience. Mandated reporting is about ensuring child safety. Unfortunately, the ambiguous and emotionally charged nature of this topic, coupled with tremendous fear of individual and organizational liability, inadequate and inconsistent training, and lack of support for mandated reporters often leave us to make consequential decisions based on limited information and in isolation. We must know that the decision to report a family to a county child welfare agency is not without consequences, and I firmly believe it sometimes does more harm than good. When we prioritize the liability of our organizations over the well-being of families and children, no one is well-served.
Each year, as school and district employees, we dutifully complete our annually required mandated reporter training. In my experience, the main takeaway of these training sessions is that we must report any potential concerns, no questions asked (don’t investigate!) or risk personal and professional consequences, including fines and loss of credentials. This training approach disempowers mandated reporters and has, unfortunately, resulted in educators being the most likely to report concerns that are ultimately determined to not be abuse or neglect once investigated by child protective services.
Besides law enforcement, educators are the second-largest group making referrals to child protective agencies. According to the California Child Welfare Indicators Project data presented at the Knowledge is Power Summit, educators made 20% of the referrals to child protection in 2019, impacting about 23,308 children. However, only 10% of those referrals were substantiated following an investigation. In Los Angeles County in 2022, the substantiation rate was 6% for allegations made by mandated reporters in education.
California law does not require standardized mandated reporter training. The system relies on professionals to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. It prioritizes organizational risk over the best interests of children and their families. The lack of concrete guidance leaves mandated reporters feeling ill-equipped to make sound reporting decisions. As humans, our biases, both implicit and explicit, affect our judgment. A recent survey of mandated reporters found that 43% of respondents made reports when they did not suspect maltreatment. Of these, 17% filed reports to connect families to services because they didn’t know how to help those families access services. As a former child abuse investigator, I’ve seen how this over-reporting can cause unnecessary stress, trauma, increased isolation and disruption for children and families, particularly those in underserved communities, and specifically communities of color.
To shift the focus from enforcement to support, Assembly Bill 2085 was signed by the governor in 2022. This law aims to eliminate inaccurate reports of general neglect by narrowing the legal definition of general neglect to apply only when there is substantial risk of serious injury or illness. It clarifies that poverty does not equal neglect.
Los Angeles County is also joining the broader effort to improve training and systems to support families who have needs that should be met outside of the child protection system. In alignment with the “LA County Mandated Supporting Initiative”, multiple agencies and key partners are working together to transform the mandated reporting process in L.A. County to better support historically underserved children, youth and families. They recently launched training aimed at enhancing child safety and reducing harm and systemic inequities driven by unnecessary and inappropriate reports of suspected child neglect to the Department of Children and Family Services. More focused training will be offered in 2024, including sector and discipline-specific content to address distinct mandated reporter groups.
For us as educators, this is a call to action. A call to reconsider when child protection is needed versus when a family may need support — and to meet this moment, we must reexamine our approach, our training and our narratives.
•••
Alicia Garoupa is chief of well-being and support services for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.
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.
And if you thought 2023 was a downer, just wait for …
“Hold on,” ever-wise Ms. Fensters interrupted. “Why would anyone read a New Year predictions column if you make them feel like jumping back in bed and pulling the covers over their head for the next 362 days?”
She’s right.
Let’s celebrate the dawn of the new year before wading into the swamp that will be 2024.
How’D you Do betting on 2023?
My predictions for 2023 were like my singing: off-key but not terrible.
I said third-grade English language test scores would plunge. They were stagnant.
I predicted strikes in a half-dozen districts: Teachers struck in LA, Oakland and Rohnert Park Cotati Unified, and settled within hours of hitting picket lines in San Francisco and Fresno.
I said that members of the new California College Corps, which pays college students to do community work, would become a legion of elementary school reading tutors. It was wise advice couched as a prediction, which Gov. Newsom ignored. (It’s still a good idea.)
If you kept your own scorecard, go here to compare your results. If not, grab a pencil and paper and bet your fensters for 2024. They’re redeemable with S&H Green Stamps at your local Mervyn’s.
Arts on the rise
School attendance will soar, and students will master the math of music in triads and quarter tones in districts like Manteca Unified in San Joaquin County, which will get about $3.8 million in new funding from Proposition 28. That’s the $1 billion ballot initiative, Arts and Music in Schools — Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act, that voters passed in 2022. Manteca, known for its quality bands and providing instruments to all who need them, will be better positioned than many districts. Most others will struggle to fill arts, dance and music jobs, at least initially.
Chances that arts will flourish in districts like 24,000-student Manteca Unified:
A note of caution: Under the terms of the new law, districts must use Proposition 28 to expand, not replace, existing arts funding. Eagle-eyed arts protectors will be watching how administrators move the Proposition 28 pea in the budget shells.
Chances that Create CA or other advocates will file a complaint with the California Department of Education against a district suspected of using Proposition 28 money to supplant, not supplement, its arts budget:
Now, brace yourselves for the dark side of the moon.
The state budget
Within days, Gov. Gavin Newsom will release his first pass at the 2024-25 budget, but Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek offered his gloomy forecast last month: a three-year projected state general fund deficit of $68 billion; between $16 billion and $18 billion would be in Proposition 98, the formula determining how much funding goes to TK-12 and community colleges.
Draining the state’s rainy-day fund for education and picking away at budgeted but unspent funding, perhaps for buying electric school buses and creating hundreds more community schools, could halve the problem. School lobbies will demand that legislators hold districts and community schools harmless and cut elsewhere in the state budget — to which UC President Michael Drake will reply, “You lookin’ at me?”
A likely compromise: Pay what the Legislature appropriated for 2023-24 but dust off a Great Recession strategy. Do what your boss does when he can’t make payroll but doesn’t want to lay you off: issue you IOUs. In edu-speak, they’re “deferrals” — and would involve pushing back state payments to districts scheduled for May and June 2024 into July, August or later in the next fiscal year. It’s not a painless tactic: Districts without cash on hand will have to borrow. And the money will have to be paid back, potentially eating into future levels of Proposition 98 funding.
Chances that the Legislature will impose billions in deferrals in the 2024-25 budget:
It gets worse
Schooldistricts have known the reckoning was coming. Called “the fiscal cliff,” it combines the expiration of billions in federal Covid relief, declining enrollment in nearly three-quarters of districts, and a leveling off from record state funding. What they hadn’t anticipated is a projected 1% cost of living increase, based on a federal formula that this year will disadvantage California; this compares with 8% in 2022-23 and 13% the year before that.
For districts like San Francisco Unified that negotiated sizable raises and over-hired with one-time funding, budget pressures will be intense to close underenrolled schools — never a popular decision — and lay off staff. Dozens of districts will suddenly find themselves on the state’s financial watch list.
Chances that by the March 15 notification deadline, 15,000 teachers and 10,000 classified employees, many hired with expiring federal funding, will get pink slips (the final number of layoffs will be less):
Chances that the number of districts with a financial rating of negative or qualified by FCMAT, the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, will at least quintuple from a low of 13 districts in April 2023 to more than 65 in April 2024:
Chances that San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles will close underenrolled schools, notwithstanding common sense:
PODCAST
What’s in store for California education in 2024?
JANUARY 11, 2023
State facilities bond
The state has run out of money to subsidize the costs of new school construction and renovations; billions of dollars’ worth of districts’ projects are in the pipeline. Covid, last year’s floods and sweltering temperatures — signals of climate change — exposed the need for retrofits to meet 21st-century conditions. But the first-ever defeat of the last state bond proposal, in March 2020, proved school advocates shouldn’t take voters for granted. Was the $15 billion price tag too big? Should funding for CSU and UC be included? There will be lots of polling to answer those questions.
Chances that a school construction bond will be on the ballot in November:
Chances that it will pass:
Toil and trouble
The odds are five fensters that the fight over library books and the backlash against transgender protections in reddish districts will embroil voters statewide in 2024. Suppose school choice and religious conservatives succeed in passing the initiatives they’re aiming to place on the ballot. In that case, progressive California voters will awake with a fright on Nov. 6, wondering if they’re living in Kansas.
Proposed for November vote
Private school choice: Pushed by the coalition Californians for School Choice, the initiative would create voucher-like education savings accounts equal to the average Proposition 98 per student funding, initially $14,000, that families could use to send their kids to private schools, including religious schools currently prohibited by the state constitution from receiving public money. Home-schools with 10 or more students could form a private school for funding, too. State oversight would be minimal. Subsidies for families already paying for private schools would cost the state $6.3 billion to $10 billion per year by diverting money from Proposition 98, the Legislative Analyst estimates.
In 2002, voters rejected a voucher initiative 70% to 30%. Capitalizing on unhappiness with schooling during Covid-19, this initiative will do better, but defenders of public schools, starting with the CTA, will hugely outspend the proponents.
Because the initiative would amend the state constitution, organizers would need to collect 874,641 signatures.
Chances that the initiative will make the ballot:
Chances, if it does make the ballot, that it will lose while getting 40% of the vote:
School Transparency and Partnership Actaka Outing Trans Kids Act.Unable to get traction in the Legislature, the parent activist group Protect Kids California, co-founded by Roseville City Elementary School District board member Jonathan Zachreson, is canvassing for the 546,651 signatures required for the initiative. It would require schools to notify parents within three days if a student asks to be treated as a gender other than listed in official school records. This would include requesting a name change, a different gender pronoun, participation in an activity using a different gender, or changing clothes identifying as a different gender.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Protect Girls’ Sports and Spaces Act, also collecting 546,651 signatures, is the second of three related initiatives proposed by Protect Kids California. It would repeal the 2013 state law allowing students to participate in school activities and use school facilities consistent with their gender identity. Biologically born male students in grades seven and higher in public schools and colleges identifying as females would be banned from participating in female sports or using bathrooms and locker rooms assigned to females based on their birth gender.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act, aka Parental Control Unless We Say So Act. California, which has been a sanctuary for families seeking medical care for transgender youths, will join the nearly two dozen states that ban transgender care if this initiative, the third transgender-restriction initiative pushed by Protect Kids California, passes. It would ban health care providers from giving medical care to patients under 18 seeking to change their gender identity. It would prohibit that treatment even if parents consent or doctors recommend it for the minor’s mental or physical well-being.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Eyes of the storm
Recall elections of school board members in two districts will serve as a gauge of whether activist conservative majorities represent a fringe minority or the will of the majority.
Longtime Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma and newly elected board member Madison Miner angered opponents by voting with two other conservatives to fire a respected superintendent on Jan. 5 during winter break without citing a cause. In October, the board became the sixth in the state to adopt a transgender notification policy.
Chances that Orange Unified voters will oust Ledesma in the March 5 vote:
A three-member majority in Temecula Valley Unified adopted a similar playbook this year, including firing its superintendent. A political action committee of voters appears to have turned in more than enough signatures to recall board President Joseph Komrosky, their primary target, but not enough to oust Jennifer Wiersma. In July, the board stirred the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom by rejecting a sixth-grade textbook that included a passage about gay activist Harvey Milk, whom Komrosky characterized as a pedophile. The third conservative, Danny Gonzalez, resigned in December to move out of state. In his last board meeting, he lashed out at opponents, including board member Stephen Schwartz, whom he accused of showing “vile contempt for Christians.” Schwartz is Jewish.
The outcome of the recall would be a measure of the power of the Evangelical 412 Church Temecula Valley and its pastor, Tim Thompson, who has been outspoken in defense of the board majority.
Chances that Temecula Valley voters will oust Komrosky later this year:
Etc.
California Personal Finance Education Act, aka “Why You Should Tear Up That 20th Credit Card Offer Act.” Pushed by Palo Alto entrepreneur Tim Ranzetta, who’s been proselytizing for teaching students personal finance through a nonprofit he co-founded, the initiative would require a semester of personal finance as a graduation requirement, starting with the graduating class of 2030. California would join about two dozen states with or phasing in the requirement.
Chances that it will make the ballot in November:
Chances that voters will approve it, despite some misgivings about mandating yet another graduation requirement:
Early literacy
In late December, a new alliance of advocates calling for the state to take a clearer and more resolute policy on early literacy published an early literacy policy brief with the expectation that it would lead to legislation in 2024. The California Early Literacy Coalition includes Decoding Dyslexia CA, 21st Century Alliance, Families in Schools, California Reading Coalition and the rejuvenated nonprofit EdVoice.
Among its positions, the coalition calls for:
Directing the California Department of Education to create a list of approved professional development courses grounded in the science of reading that districts and educators can select.
Requiring all teachers and reading coaches in elementary schools to complete training from the approved course list.
Providing help to schools and districts as they adopt the science of reading-aligned instructional materials.
The state, under Newsom, supports the science of reading approach to reading and, in piecemeal fashion, is partially funding some of what the coalition advocates. The difference is that a comprehensive policy would mandate what the administration has only encouraged.
Chances that a prominent legislator will sponsor the bill and that it will be one of the most discussed non-budget bills of the session:
Passage likely will take more than a year of effort and perhaps await the election of a new governor and state superintendent of public instruction willing to challenge the reflexive defense of local control on this issue.
Chances that comprehensive legislation will be signed into law in 2024:
Extra challenges for charter schools
Along with challenges facing all school districts, the state’s 1,300 charter schools will face added pressures. Many are in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where enrollment declines for districts and charter schools are largest. Tensions between them could escalate if funding-desperate districts deny charters fair access to school facilities, as the school board majority of Los Angeles Unified voted to do last year.
A pre-pandemic reform law allowing school districts to factor in financial impact when deciding to grant a new charter school will thwart growth and expansion, and the 2024-25 resumption of the charter renewal process, using problematic post-pandemic performance measures, could compound charters’ troubles. The result: Some financially fragile charters will close; the weakest performers will be shut down.
Chances that the number of charter schools in California operating in fall 2024 will drop by at least 30 schools.
One area in which legislators, charters and districts should agree is new accountability requirements for non-classroom-based charter schools that offer virtual schools or hybrid models combining home-schooling and classrooms. They’ve become more popular with families and been more prone to scams. In the two most egregious cases, A3 and Inspire charter networks, self-serving operators double-billed, falsified attendance records, and funneled funding to shell operations, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars.
San Diego County prosecutors, who convicted A3’s executives in 2019, have expressed frustration that it has taken so long to enact remedies. Three separate task forces will present findings by June.
Chances that the Legislature will pass non-classroom-based accountability reforms this year:
Worth every penny?
EdSource reporter Diana Lambert calculated that pay for superintendents in some of the state’s districts had increased by 60% in the past decade; it’s a tough job, and these days, not too many appear to want it.
Including benefits, Christopher Hoffman of Elk Grove and Alberto Carvalho of Los Angeles Unified, respectively the state’s fifth-largest and the largest districts, earn over $500,000 per year. That’s hardly chump change, but then again, Dodger pitcher and hitter extraordinaire Shohei Ohtani signed a 10-year contract for $700 million, an average of $70 million per year.
Carvalho could argue he’s certainly worth at least 1% as much: $700,000. After all, he oversees a $20 billion budget. But with declining enrollment and layoffs likely, this is not the year to swing for the fences.
Chances Carvalho or any superintendent among the 10 largest districts will receive a 7% raise this year:
The anti-anti-tax initiatives
The Business Roundtable and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, carrying the torch of Proposition 13, have placed an initiative on the November ballot to make it harder to pass state tax increases. It would redefine a number of state-imposed fees as taxes, therefore requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to pass and require all future taxes or increases approved by the Legislature to go before the general electorate for approval. It also would nullify a recent state court ruling that school parcel taxes initiated by citizens, not by school boards, need only a majority of voters to pass — instead of the standard two-thirds.
In a shrewd counter-move to head it off, legislators, mostly Democrats, voted to place a competing constitutional amendment on the November ballot. It says that any initiative that raises the voter threshold for passing taxes would need the support of two-thirds of voters, not just a simple majority, to be enacted. It’s explicitly aimed at making it less likely the Business Roundtable initiative will pass.
Chances that voters will be as confused as I am by this chess match and wonder what will happen if they both pass:
Thanks for reading the column. One more toast to 2024!
Correction: An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma denigrated gay activist Harvey Milk. The comment was made by Joseph Komrosky, president of the Temecula Valley Unified board.
Teacher apprentice Ja’net Williams helps with a math lesson in a first grade class at Delta Elementary Charter School in Clarksburg, near Sacramento.
Credit: Diana Lambert / EdSource
Top Takeaways
California leaders dismiss the criticism and methodology of the rankings.
And yet, graduate credentialing programs cram a lot in a year.
Many teachers may struggle with the demands of California’s new math framework.
In its “State of the States” report on math instruction published last week, the National Council on Teacher Quality sharply criticized California and many of its teacher certification programs for ineffectively preparing new elementary teachers to teach math and for failing to support and guide them once they reach the classroom.
“Far too many elementary teacher prep programs fail to dedicate enough instructional time to building aspiring teachers’ math knowledge — leaving teachers unprepared and students underserved,” the council said in its evaluation of California’s 87 programs that prepare elementary school teachers. “The analysis shows California programs perform among the lowest in the country.”
The report’s call for more teacher math training and ongoing support coincides with the state’s adoption this summer of materials and textbooks for a new math framework that math professionals universally agree will be a heavy lift for incoming and veteran teachers to master. It will challenge elementary teachers with a poor grasp of the underpinnings behind the math they’ll be teaching.
Kyndall Brown, executive director of the California Mathematics Project based at UCLA, agrees. “It’s not just about knowing the content, it’s about helping students learn the content, which are two completely different things,” he said.
And that raises a question: Does a one-year-plus-summer graduate program, which most prospective teachers take, cram too much in a short time to realistically meet the needs to teach elementary school math?
California joined two dozen states whose math preparation programs were rated as “weak.” Only one state got a “strong” rating.Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2025 State of the States report
Failing grades
The council graded every teacher prep program nationwide from A to F, based on how many instructional hours they required prospective teachers to take in major content areas of math and in instructional methods and strategies.
Three out of four California programs got an F, with some programs — California State University, Sacramento, and California State University, Monterey Bay — requiring no instructional hours for algebraic thinking, geometry, and probability, and many offering one-quarter of the 135 instructional hours needed for an A.
But there was a dichotomy: All the Fs were given to one-year graduate school programs offering a multi-subject credential to teach elementary school, historically the way most new teachers in California get their teaching credential.
On the other hand, many of the colleges and universities offering a teaching credential and a bachelor’s degree through an Integrated Undergraduate Teacher Credentialing Program got an A, because they included enough time to go into math instruction and content in more depth. For example, California State University, Long Beach’s 226 instructional hours, apportioned through all of the content areas and methods courses, earned an A-plus.
The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs
California State University
Most of the universities that offer both undergraduate and graduate programs — California State University, Bakersfield; San Jose State University; California State University, Chico; California State University, Northridge, to name a few — had the same split: A for their undergraduate programs, F for their graduate credentialing programs.
Most California teacher preparation programs have received bad grades in the dozen years that the council has issued evaluations. The state’s higher education institutions, in turn, have defended their programs and denounced the council for basing the quality of a program on analyses of program websites and syllabi.
California State University, whose campuses train the majority of teachers, and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which accredits and oversees teacher prep programs, issued similar denunciations last week.
“The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs,” the CSU wrote in a statement. The council “relies on a narrow and flawed methodology, heavily dependent on document reviews, rather than on dialogue with program faculty, students and employers or a systematic review of meaningful program outcomes.”
The credentialing commission, in a more diplomatic response, agreed. The report “reflects a methodology that differs from California’s approach to educator preparation,” it said. “While informative, it does not fully capture the structure of California’s clinically rich, performance-based system.”
Heather Peske, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality for the past three years, dismissed the criticism as “a really weak critique.”
“You can look at a syllabus and see what’s being taught in that class much in the same way that if you go to a restaurant and look at the menu to see what’s being served,” she said. “Our reviews are certainly a very solid starting place to know to what extent teacher preparation programs are well preparing future teachers to be effective in teaching.”
It’s not just a problem in California.
“When we compare the mathematics instructional hours between the undergrad and the graduate programs, often on the same campus, we saw on average that undergrads get 133 hours compared to just 52 hours at the graduate level. In both cases, it is not meeting the recommended and research-based 150 hours,” Peske said.
Part of the problem is that graduate programs usually don’t have enough time to instill future teachers with the content knowledge that they need.
Heather Peske
Whether or not examining website data is a good methodology, the disparities in hours devoted to math preparation between undergraduate and graduate programs raise an important issue.
True jacks of all trades, elementary teachers must become proficient in many content areas — social studies, English language arts, English language development for English learners, and science, as well as math. Add to that proficiency in emerging technologies, classroom management, skills for teaching students with disabilities, and student mental health: How can they adequately cover math, especially?
“Part of the problem is that graduate programs usually don’t have enough time to instill future teachers with the content knowledge that they need,” Peske said. “California programs have to reckon with this idea that they’re sending a bunch of teachers into classrooms who have not demonstrated that they are ready to teach kids math.”
Brown said, “There’s no way that in a one-year credential program that they’re going to get the math that they need to be able to teach the content that they’re responsible for teaching.”
That was Anthony Caston’s experience. Before starting his career as a sixth-grade teacher at Foulks Ranch Elementary School in Elk Grove three years ago, Caston took courses for his credential in graduate programs at Sacramento State and the University of the Pacific. There wasn’t enough time to learn all he needed to teach the subject, he said. A few classes were useful, but didn’t get much beyond the third- or fourth-grade curriculum, he said.
“I had to take myself back to school, reteach myself everything, and then come up with some teaching strategies,” Caston said.
Fortunately for him, veteran teachers at his school helped him learn more about Common Core math and how to teach it.
The math content Brown refers togoes beyond knowing how to invert fractions or calculate the area of a triangle; it involves a conceptual understanding of essential math topics, Peske said. Only a deeper conceptual grasp will enable teachers to diagnose and explain students’ errors and misunderstandings, Peske said, and to overcome the math phobia that surveys show many teachers have.
Ma Bernadette Salgarino, the president of the California Mathematics Council and a math trainer in the Santa Clara County Office of Education, acknowledges that many math teachers have not been taught the concepts behind the progression of the state’s math standards. “It is not clear to them,” she said. “They’re still teaching to a regurgitation of procedures, copy and paste. These are the steps, and this is what you will do.”
Although a longtime critic of the council, Linda Darling-Hammond, who chaired California’s credentialing commission before becoming the current president of the State Board of Education, acknowledges that the report raises a legitimate issue.
“Time is an important question,” she said. “It is true that having more time well spent — the ‘well spent’ matters — could make a difference for lots of people in learning lots of subjects, including math.”
Darling-Hammond faults the study, however, for not factoring in California’s broader approach to teacher preparation, including requiring that teaching candidates pass a performance assessment in math and underwriting teacher residency programs, in which teachers work side by side with an effective teacher for a full year while taking courses in a graduate program.
“You could end up becoming a pretty spectacular math teacher in a shorter amount of time than if you’re just studying things in an undergraduate program disconnected from student teaching,” she said.
Weak state policies
The report also grades every state’s policies on math instruction, from preparing teachers to coaching them after they’re in the classroom. California and two dozen states are rated “weak,” ahead of seven “unacceptable” states (Montana, Arizona, Nebraska, Missouri, Alaska, Vermont and Maine) while behind 17 “moderate” states, including Texas and Florida, and a sole “strong” state, Alabama.
The council bases the rating on the implementation of five policy “levers” to ensure “rigorous standards-aligned math instruction.” However, California’s actions are more nuanced than perhaps its “unacceptable” ratings on three and “strong” ratings on two would indicate.
For example, the council dinged the state for not requiring that all teachers in a prep program pass a math licensure test. California does require elementary credential candidates to pass the California Subject Examinations for Teachers, or CSET, a basic skills test, before they can teach students. But the math portion is combined with science, and students can avoid the test by supplying proof they have taken undergraduate math courses.
At the same time, many superintendents and math teachers may be doing a double-take for a “strong” rating for providing professional learning and ongoing support for teachers to sustain effective math instruction.
Going back to the adoption of the Common Core, the state has not funded statewide teacher training in math standards. In the past five years, the state has spent $500 million to train literacy coaches in the state’s poorest schools, but nothing of that magnitude for math coaches.
The Legislature approved $20 million for the California Mathematics Project for training in the new math framework, which was passed in 2023, and $50 million in 2022-23 for instruction in grades fourth to 12th in science, math and computer science training to train coaches and teacher leaders — amounts that would be impressive for smaller states, but not to fund training most math teachers in California. (You can find a listing of organizations offering training and resources on the math framework here.)
In keeping with local control, Gov. Gavin Newsom has appropriated more than $10 billion in education block grants, including the Student Support and Professional Development Discretionary Block Grant,and the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, but those are discretionary; districts have wide latitude to spend money however they want on any subject.
Tucked into a section on Literacy Instruction in Newsom’s May budget revision (see Page 19) is the mention that a $545 million grant for materials instruction will include a new opportunity to support math coaches, too. The release of the final state budget for 2025-26 later this month will reveal whether that money survives.
Brown calls for hiring more math specialists for schools and for three-week summer intensive math leadership institutes like the one he attended in 1994. It hasn’t been held since the money ran dry in the early 2000s.
EdSource reporter Diana Lambert contributed to this article.
During small group reading instruction, AmeriCorps member Valerie Caballero reminds third graders in Porterville Unified to use their fingers to follow along as they read a passage.
Credit: Lasherica Thornton/ EdSource
Top Takeaways
On July 1, the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment will be replaced by a literacy performance assessment.
The licensure test puts a sharpened focus on foundational reading skills.
The new test is one of many new changes California leaders have made to improve literacy instruction.
Next week, the unpopular teacher licensure test, the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment, will be officially retired and replaced with a literacy performanceassessment to ensure educators are prepared to teach students to read.
The Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) has been a major hurdle for teacher candidates for years. About a third of all the teacher candidates who took the test failed the first time, according to state data collected between 2012 and 2017. Critics have also said that the test is outdated and has added to the state’s teacher shortage.
The literacy performance assessment that replaces the RICA reflects an increased focus on foundational reading skills, including phonics. California, and many other states, are moving from teaching children to recognize words by sight to teaching them to decode words by sounding them out in an effort to boost literacy.
Mandated by Senate Bill 488, the literacy assessment reflects new standards that include support for struggling readers, English learners and pupils with exceptional needs, incorporating the California Dyslexia Guidelines for the first time.
“We believe the literacy TPA will help ensure that new teachers demonstrate a strong grasp of evidence-based literacy instruction — an essential step toward improving reading outcomes for California’s students,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, a nonprofit education advocacy organization.
Literacy test on schedule
Erin Sullivan, director of the Professional Services Division of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, said the literacy performance assessment is ready for its July 1 launch.
“We’ve been field-testing literacy performance assessments with, obviously, the multiple- and the single-subject candidates, but also the various specialist candidates, including visual impairment and deaf and hard of hearing,” Sullivan said.
California teacher candidates must pass one of three performance assessments approved by the commission before earning a preliminary credential: the California Teaching Performance Assessment (CalTPA), the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA), or the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST).
A performance assessment allows teachers to demonstrate their competence by submitting evidence of their instructional practice through video clips and written reflections on their practice.
“It’s very different,” said Kathy Futterman, an adjunct professor in teacher education at California State University, East Bay. “The RICA is an online test that has multiple-choice questions, versus the LPA — the performance assessment — which has candidates design and create three to five lesson plans. Then, they have to videotape portions of those lesson plans, and then they have to analyze and reflect on how those lessons went.”
Field tests went well
This week, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing board is expected to hear a report on the field test results, approve the passing score standards for the literacy cycle of the performance assessment and formally adopt the new test.
All but one of the 280 teacher candidates who took the new CalTPA literacy assessment during field testing passed, according to the report. Passing rates were lower on the FAST, with 51 of 59 passing on the first attempt, and on the edTPA with 192 of 242 passing.
Cal State East Bay was one of the universities that piloted the test over the last two years.
“It’s more hands-on and obviously with real students, so in that regard I think it was very helpful,” Futterman said.
State could offer flexibility
Upcoming budget trailer bills are expected to offer some flexibility to teacher candidates who haven’t yet passed the RICA, Sullivan said.
The commission is asking state leaders to allow candidates who have passed the CalTPA and other required assessments, except the RICA, to be allowed to continue taking the test through October, when the state contract for the RICA expires, she said.
“We are looking forward to putting RICA to bed and moving on to the literacy performance assessment, but … we don’t want to leave anybody stranded on RICA island,” Sullivan said.
The commission has approved the Foundations of Reading examination as an alternative for a small group of teachers with special circumstances, including those who would have completed all credential requirements except the RICA by June 30, but the test may not be the best option for them, Sullivan said.
“It’s just a very different exam,” Sullivan said. “It’s a national exam. And while the commission looked at it and said, ‘We think this will work for our California candidates,’ it’s not the best-case scenario. So, trying to get these folks to pass the RICA and giving them every opportunity to do that until really it just goes away, that’s kind of what we’re looking at.”
The Foundations of Reading exam, by Pearson, is used by 13 other states. It assesses whether a teacher is proficient in literacy instruction, including developing phonics and decoding skills, as well as offering a strong literature, language and comprehension component with a balance of oral and written language, according to the commission’s website.
Teacher candidates who were allowed to earn a preliminary credential without passing the RICA during the Covid-19 pandemic; teachers with single-subject credentials, who want to earn a multiple-subject credential; and educators who completed teacher preparation in another country and/or as a part of the Peace Corps are also eligible to take the Foundations of Reading examination.
The Foundations of Reading test has been rated as strong by the National Council on Teacher Quality.
State focus on phonics
SB 488 was followed by a revision of the Literacy Standard and Teaching Performance Expectations for teachers, which outlined effective literacy instruction for students.
California state leaders have recently taken additional steps to ensure foundational reading skills are being taught in classrooms. On June 5, Gov. Gavin Newsom confirmed that the state budget will include hundreds of millions of dollars to fund legislation needed to achieve a comprehensive statewide approach to early literacy.
Assembly Bill 1454, which passed the Assembly with a unanimous 75-0 vote that same day, would move the state’s schools toward adopting evidence-based literacy instruction, also known as the science of reading or structured literacy.
At a recent Latino-themed graduation ceremony at California State University, Channel Islands, a student’s cap proclaims that nothing is impossible with family.
Courtesy of CSU Channel Islands
Top Takeaways
California colleges and universities have received more than $600 million in program grants.
Challenger successfully sued Harvard to end affirmative action in admissions.
Five UC campuses, 21 Cal State schools and many California community colleges are Hispanic-Serving Institutions.
Each year, most of California’s public colleges and universities are eligible for extra federal funding for a simple reason: They enroll high numbers of Latino students.
The federal government sets aside millions of dollars in grants annually for colleges classified as Hispanic-Serving Institutions, a designation earned by having an undergraduate student body that is at least 25% Latino. In total, California colleges and universities have received more than $600 million in HSI grants since federal funding for the program began in 1995.
California, with its large Latino population, has the most HSI campuses in the nation — 167,or more than a quarter of the 602 HSIs in the country. That includes five of the University of California’s nine undergraduate campuses, all but one of California State University’s 22 regular campuses and the majority of the state’s community colleges.
But now, California colleges classified as HSIs are facing an uncertain future and could be at risk of losing that designation and funding if a recently filed lawsuit is successful.
The lawsuit was brought in U.S. District Court by the state of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, the same group that successfully sued Harvard to end affirmative action in admissions. It argues the criteria to become an HSI are unconstitutional and discriminatory against other ethnic groups and that all colleges serving low-income students, regardless of racial composition, should be allowed to apply for the grants currently available to HSIs.
Colleges are eligible for the HSI designation if they sustain Hispanic enrollment of at least 25% and at least half of their students are low income. The designation allows them to apply to the competitive grant program. The money is meant to be spent on programs that could benefit all students, not just Latino students, proponents note.
So many California public campuses have the HSI designation in large part because of the state’s demographics: 56% of the K-12 enrollment is Latino.
The legal challenge is distressing to some officials and students who say the HSI grant funding has allowed many California campuses to improve their student support services, such as by offering faculty development as well as adding counseling and student retention programs that benefit Latino students and others.
“A lot of these campuses depend on HSI funds. And with that potentially being stripped, there is going to be a loss of vital infrastructure,” said Cristian Ulisses Reyes, a graduate student at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, where he has been part of an effort to help that campus earn HSI designation by next year.
Supporters of HSIs have been anticipating the possibility of a challenge to the program since President Donald Trump returned to office in January, particularly with the White House’s increased hostility toward diversity, equity and inclusion programs, said Deborah Santiago, the CEO of Excelencia in Education, a nonprofit focused on the success of Latino students in higher education.
“So this lawsuit feels like a culmination of all those fears,” she said.
The lawsuit names the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon as defendants. It’s not clear to what degree the department will fight the lawsuit. The Department of Education did not return a request for comment.
Edward Blum, a conservative activist and president of Students for Fair Admission, said in an email that the explicit Latino enrollment threshold requirement for HSI designation is, in his view, illegal.
“That means otherwise qualified institutions are denied access to millions in federal support solely because they lack the designated racial mix. That’s racial preference disguised as education policy,” he said.
The lawsuit was filedthis monthin the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and the plaintiffs argue that allcolleges in Tennessee serving low-income students should be eligible for grants currently available to HSIs.
“Funds should help needy students regardless of their immutable traits, and the denial of those funds harms students of all races. This Court should declare the HSI program’s discriminatory requirements unconstitutional, letting colleges and universities apply regardless of their ability to hit arbitrary ethnic targets,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit would create a lot of problems if the case goes against HSIs, but in the immediate future, it doesn’t change anything, said Santiago of the Excelencia in Education group. “There’s still going to be an application, as far as we know, for competitive grants this year, and institutions that have HSI funds are able to continue to use them,” she added.
California State University, Channel Islands, recently held its 2025 Sí Se Pudo Recognition Ceremony, an annual graduation celebration hosted at the campus.Courtesy of CSU Channel Islands
California State University, Channel Islands, has been an HSI since 2010 and now has a student body that is about 60% Latino. Achieving and maintaining the designation has likely helped the campus recruit Latino students over the years, said Jessica Lavariega Monforti, provost of the campus.
“Students are savvy today and they want to know what programs are available to support their success,” she said.
The campus, since 2010, has received $42 million in HSI-related funding, which includes National Science Foundation grants for which HSIs are eligible to apply.
One of the programs created with that funding, called the CSUCI Initiative for Mapping Academic Success, launched campuswide in 2022 and aims to helpstudents who are struggling academically. They are then set up with faculty in weekly workshops to get back on track. So far, according to Lavariega Monforti, retention for students in the program is 7% higher than their peers.
The majority of students who have participated in that program are Latino, but like many initiatives funded by HSI grants, it is not exclusive to Latino and Hispanic students.
The campus has also used HSI funding to train faculty in culturally responsive pedagogy, improve outreach to nearby community colleges to increase transfers, and offer mentorship for students to prepare for their careers after graduation.
“I think what we’re most proud of is that we have been truly student-centered in our approaches,” Lavariega Monforti said. “I hope we get to continue to do this because this is about the ways in which our institution is able to invest back into our community.”
About 150 miles north of the Channel Islands campus, another Cal State campus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, is in the process of trying to earn its own HSI designation. This past fall, Latino and Hispanic enrollment at the campus hit 25% for the first time. Campuses must maintain that threshold for two years before they can apply for the designation.
If the campus becomes an HSI next year, every CSU campus would have the designation. As of now, the only other campus that is not an HSI is California State University, Maritime Academy, but that is soon to be merged with San Luis Obispo.
Across UC, five of the system’s nine undergraduate campuses are HSIs: Irvine, Merced, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. Another, Davis, achieved eligibility this past fall by crossing the 25% threshold of Latino enrollment. UC hopes for every campus to eventually have the designation, including UCLA and UC Berkeley.
Reyes, the San Luis Obispo graduate student who also earned his undergraduate degree there, is hopeful that the HSI designation will still exist by the time the campus is eligible to apply. He helped launch the campus’s push for HSI designation while working in the Office of Diversity & Inclusion, including helping to plan a symposium on the effort in 2023.
Reyes is a first-generation college student and said connecting with other Latino staff and students helped him find his way and succeed on the campus.
He first enrolled as a biology major, but was failing classes and on academic probation in his first year. Then he met with a counselor who happened to be Latina and helped inspire him to change his major. He also ended up joining the Lambda Theta Phi Latin Fraternity, a Latino fraternity that he said ended up being the “backbone” of his time on the campus.
Getting the HSI designation and potential federal funding would allow the campus to add more services to help future students, Reyes noted. But after seeing the lawsuit that was filed targeting HSIs, he’s worried the campus might never get to that point.
“It kind of felt like attacks were inevitable to happen, but actually seeing that was frightening and worrisome for me,” he said.
About 18,000 Chinese students are enrolled at the University of California, 2,600 at California community colleges and 850 at California State University.
Chinese students have increasingly chosen colleges outside the U.S., including closer to home in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Like all international students, Chinese students can be a valuable source of tuition for public universities, since they pay more than California residents.
A flurry of at-times contradictory White House pronouncements are stoking confusion and concern among the 50,000 Chinese nationals who are studyingat California’s colleges and universities — and potentially steering students away from further work and study in the U.S.
Recent shifts in U.S. policy toward China have cast a “cloud of suspicion” over Chinese students, said Gisela Perez Kusakawa, the executive director of the Asian American Scholar Forum, an advocacy group.
“Let’s say you invested all this time, money and energy and years of your life studying to get into a prominent university here in the U.S.,” she said. “You get in, [but] now it’s no longer guaranteed that you could actually finish that degree.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a two-sentence statement on May 28 that the U.S. would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.” He also pledged to “enhance scrutiny” of future visa applications from China and Hong Kong.
But the proposal for stronger visa enforcement appears to have been short-lived. On June 11, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would allow Chinese students into colleges and universities as part of a trade truce with China.
The flip from crackdown to rapprochement is one of the latest flash points in a volatile period for Chinese students. Even before Trump’s second term, fewer Chinese students were coming to American universities, data show. International students on U.S. college campuses have experienced a tumultuous spring term as the Trump administration first terminated and later said it would restore thousands of international students’ records in a federal database. The State Department in May paused new student visa interviews but said Wednesday it would resume processing and require applicants to make social media accounts public for government review.
V., a Chinese national student at UC Davis, who requested that EdSource withhold his full name in light of uncertain U.S. immigration policy, said the reelection of Trump has made him “a little bit afraid of speaking out.”
“I’m more conscious about, if I speak online or on social media, maybe I’ll get deported,” he said, even though he generally avoids posting anything political online.
Though he hopes to continue working in the U.S. when he graduates this summer, V. knows several Chinese students who also attended American colleges as undergraduates and initially intended to pursue graduate degrees in the U.S., but are now continuing their education in other foreign countries instead.
The ebb and flow of Chinese students is of particular interest to higher education institutions in California. China accounts for 36% of all international enrollment in the state, according to the Institute of International Education, making it California’s single-largest country of origin for international students. Nearly 18,000 Chinese international studentsare enrolled at the University of California, almost 6,000 at the University of Southern California, about 2,600 across the state’s community colleges and roughly 850 at California State University.
Those students bring with them coveted tuition dollars, a boon to the state’s public universities, where international students pay a premium over the rate charged to California residents.
California universities responded to the Trump administration’s statements on Chinese student visas with expressions of support for international students from China. A written statement from the UC system on June 11 said the public university system “is concerned about the U.S. State Department’s announcement to revoke visas of Chinese students.” The statement said international students and scholars are “vital members of our university community and contribute greatly to our research, teaching, patient care and public service mission.”
If Chinese students were to stop attending U.S. colleges and universities, their absence would be felt across academic disciplines. More than a fifth of Chinese students in the U.S. studied math and computer science, roughly 17% pursued engineering and almost 13% sought degrees in business and management, according to 2023-24 data from the Institute of International Education.
Chinese students are most heavily enrolled in U.S. graduate programs. Roughly 123,000 Chinese nationals studying at U.S. colleges and universities — about 44% of all Chinese students in the U.S. — are graduate students.
Sources interviewed for this story emphasized that Chinese students are weighing not only the immediate twists and turns of U.S. foreign policy, but longer-term concerns about cost of living and the draw of preferable options closer to home. They also noted that restrictions on Chinese students are consistent with policies Trump pursued during his first term.
‘Our parents are super, super worried’
A Chinese international student at the University of Southern California who graduated from a Ph.D. program in May said he has become accustomed to exchanging concerned text messages with friends whenever news of possible changes to U.S. immigration policy breaks. EdSource agreed to withhold his full name due to his concerns about increased scrutiny on international students.
“I’ve gotten texts from people saying, ‘Oh, are you OK? Are you safe?’ I’ve got people checking on each other, asking them, ‘So what can happen to the current visa holders? And if I already scheduled [a visa interview], will I still be able to go?’” he said.
Already, he added, peers in China are contemplating pursuing their degrees in the United Kingdom or Australia as alternatives to the U.S. The student himself is applying for Optional Practical Training, which allows eligible international students to extend their time in the U.S. after completing an academic program.
Meanwhile, at UC Davis, V. has found something like a second home. He has joined a sports team, pledged a fraternity and played an instrument in a school-affiliated band. Contrary to the stereotypes of U.S. cities as plagued by gun violence and crime that are common in Chinese media, he has found Davis to be peaceful, diverse and open-hearted.
But with the latest vacillations in U.S. immigration policy, concern is growing at home among Chinese students’ families. “Our parents are super, super worried,” he said, something evident whenever he checks a group chat where the parents of Chinese students in the U.S. share their questions and concerns.
A gradual slide in Chinese students at U.S. colleges
There are ample signs that Chinese students have been cooling on American degrees long before Trump’s return to office this year.
Data from the Institute of International Education show that the number of Chinese students in the U.S. increased rapidly during the 2000s, a trend that continued at a slower pace through the early years of the first Trump administration.
But the number of Chinese internationals at U.S. institutions began to drop with the onset of Covid-19 and has continued to fall since. As of the 2023-24 school year, there were more than 277,000 Chinese students in the U.S., down more than 95,000 students from pre-pandemic levels in 2019-20.
Several expertsinterviewed for this story framed the Trump administration’s recent statements about Chinese students as the latest of several policy changes that may discourage Chinese students from attending college in the U.S.
After Trump left office in 2021, Biden administration Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken struck a more conciliatory tone regarding Chinese students in the U.S., saying in a May 2022 speech that the U.S. “can stay vigilant about our national security without closing our doors.” And during a November 2023 meeting, former President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping expressed a commitment to more educational exchanges.
But the Biden administration initially continued a Department of Justice (DOJ) initiative launched under Trump in 2018, which targeted Chinese researchers accused of stealing American intellectual property. The Biden DOJ ended the program in 2022 following concerns about racial profiling.
And in March 2024, before Trump’s return to office, reports surfaced that more than a dozen Chinese students were denied reentry into the U.S. despite holding a valid visa, while others reported being searched and questioned for hours at the U.S. border. The State Department told The Washington Post at the time that the number of Chinese students found to be inadmissible for entry had been stable in recent years.
‘We are still hoping it’s getting better’
Geopolitical concerns are not the only reasons some Chinese students may think twice about studying at U.S. colleges and universities.
Al Wang, the general manager of Wiseway Global, which recruits Chinese students to study in other countries, said that Chinese students may not apply tocertain U.S. institutions because rankings of the best universities in the world tend to score institutions in countries like the United Kingdom and Singapore above U.S. rivals. In addition, he said, Chinese students may choose to stay home for college, seeing joint-degree programs in China with U.S. universities like Duke as a more economical option.
Wang nonetheless anticipates that the U.S. and China will continue cooperating on education and cultural exchange programs, something the Chinese Ministry of Education has encouraged. He predicted that more Chinese students will study abroad in the U.S. for a school term or summer intensive, rather than enrolling in degree programs. “We are still hoping it’s getting better, but we don’t know where it’s going,” he said.
The Chinese international student at USC suggested that U.S. universities aiming to maintain their international student population should focus on providing legal support, security and a sense of belonging. Failing that, he added, it won’t take long for current students to warn would-be classmates.
“They’re going to tell their peers from high school, or they’re going to tell people from home, ‘Oh, don’t come,’” he said.
Despite statewide efforts, California is still struggling to support the personal and educational needs of its students, according to the 2024 California Children’s Report Card conducted by the organization Children Now, which “grades the State on its ability to support better outcomes for kids” and evaluates progress made on California policies and investments.
“California has failed to significantly improve outcomes for kids, allowing unacceptable and economic disparities to stagnate and in many cases grow,” Ted Lempert, Children Now’s president, wrote in a letter included in the report.
“What’s particularly disturbing is that California continues to trail far behind other states on a number of important indicators of child well-being. Despite our relatively high tax burden, our progressive leanings, and our enviable 5th largest economy in the world, California is far from a leader when it comes to kids. That’s not only a threat to our state’s collective future, but to the entire country as well since California is so often a bellwether for the nation.”
Children’s health
Among the health categories assessed, “health insurance” received the highest grade, A-minus. Meanwhile, “birthing health,” “preventative screenings,” “supporting mental health,” “preventing substance abuse” and “health care access and accountability, all received grades in the D range.
The rest of the health categories — including “environmental health and justice,” “oral health care” and “relationships and sexual health” — all received grades in the C range.
Additionally, the report noted that “while many states and municipalities across the country have declared racism as a public health crisis, California has yet to do so.”
According to the report, “children’s poor health outcomes are largely driven by racism at the intersection of poverty, sexual orientation, gender, and geography.”
Children’s education
Of the 12 topics under education, none earned a grade in the A range. Here’s how the report assessed the state on its education:
C-minus for child care.
B-plus for preschool and transitional kindergarten.
B-minus for early care and education workforce.
D for early intervention and special education.
C-minus for education for dual language and English learners.
C-plus for funding.
B for expanded learning programs
D for science, technology, engineering and math education.
C for educator pipeline, retention and diversity.
D for school climate: connections with adults on campus.
C for “school climate: discipline and attendance.
B-minus for higher education.
“California is investing record amounts in public education, yet struggles to effectively support students, especially those who need the most help,” the report reads.
It added that the state’s education system “ranks 43rd of 50 states of outcome gaps by race and ethnicity.”
Support from family
In terms of family support, “voluntary evidence-based home visiting” earned a C-minus, while in “paid family leave,” the state received a B-minus. “Income assistance for low-income families” was given a B.
“Children’s well-being is fueled by good health, enriching learning opportunities, and positive and nurturing relationships with adults. Both adult and child well-being can be undermined by unmet basic needs, economic hardship, social isolation, and stress,” according to the report.
“Throughout the pandemic, California made positive policy changes to bolster families with key supports, even as federal funding withered away,” the report read. “However, too often, families with young children are an afterthought in California policy.”
Child welfare in California
None of the child welfare categories garnered an A or B.
Instead, the state earned a C for “home stability and enduring relationships” and a C-plus in “health care for kids in foster care.”
Meanwhile, the state earned a D in both education supports for students in foster care and transitions to adulthood.
“For children and youth who cannot remain safely at home and must enter foster care, the State must ensure access to stable and nurturing foster homes, trauma-informed services, and targeted, high-quality educational supports to help them heal and thrive,” the report states.
Cross-sector issues facing California children
In terms of “cross-sector” issues, both “food security” and “cradle-to-career data systems” received a B-minus, while support for LGBTQ+ youth received a C-plus, “decriminalization of youth” received a D-plus and support for unaccompanied homeless youth landed a D-minus.
“While all of the issues in the “Report Card” are interrelated, the topics in this section have especially strong implications across multiple sectors and systems,” the report read.
“A whole-child approach to supporting kids incorporates services that meet young people where they’re at and address the many factors that are needed to help them thrive.”
