Transitional Kindergarten students in Garden Grove Unified School District benefit from a full day of high quality instruction.
Courtesy: Garden Grove Unified School District
According to a recent survey on education, overwhelming majorities of Californians think that preschool is important for student success in K–12 schools, and a strong majority supports state-funded programs such as transitional kindergarten for all 4-year-olds.
California is on course to make TK a universal option for California families. Universal TK in our districts provides a full-day program with credentialed teachers and full-time aides. In 2021, the state laid out a five-year timeline to expand TK, gradually phasing in younger students each year, until 2025-26 — when all 4-year-old children will have the ability to enroll.
The intent of this foundational program is to meet a critical need for quality early learning and care for children at no cost to families. This allows parents to work full time to support their families, knowing that their children are receiving educational services that lay a foundation for academic success and support children’s development. Our districts serve distinct communities that have in common a high proportion of low-income students and significant numbers of English learners. As we shared information about the TK expansion with families, unsurprisingly, we heard from many who wanted to enroll their 4-year-old children, including young learners whose fourth birthdays fall outside the annually expanding eligibility window.
Our families urged us to accelerate the implementation of the early TK timeline and provide universal TK as soon as possible.
Recognizing our families’ significant need and the benefits of early learning, our districts decided to get ahead of the curve. We planned ahead for an accelerated two-year rollout of transitional kindergarten for students born through June 30. We knew we would not receive average daily attendance (ADA) funding for students whose birthdates fell outside the state’s rollout plan, but as we were planning well in advance of the 2023-24 school year, we were unaware of any penalties for early rollout as they did not exist at that time. We budgeted accordingly for the expansion of our enrollment and made plans to staff our TK classrooms months in advance of school starting.
Our districts are now facing penalties in the millions of dollars for taking these proactive steps. And we are not alone. Based on a voluntary informal survey, seven of 28 districts in Orange County likely face penalties for accelerated implementation. We believe many districts across the state are similarly impacted, with some yet unaware of the fiscal hit for early expansion.
Last July — months after districts started planning for the 2023-24 school year — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed education budget trailer bill SB 114, which created new statutory requirements for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years for school districts offering early transitional kindergarten. These changes included a maximum class size of 20 students and a 1:10 adult-to-student ratio, which is smaller than regular TK ratios. No additional funding was provided to meet these new requirements. The trailer bill imposed significant fiscal penalties for districts if they did not comply with the new provisions.
Districts like ours were not able to meet the lower class size requirements because the school year was weeks away from starting when this bill was signed. We had no time to change course. Many families in large urban districts like ours are most in need of TK due to families’ inability to afford private preschool and lack of free preschool options. Turning away families who had enrolled their child in TK and who desperately needed this care was unthinkable.
School districts plan and budget — inclusive of staffing, facilities and bargaining — at least nine months in advance of the next school year, which typically begins in early or mid-August. This includes communicating with families so they can make plans for their children, and enrolling students in January and February for the following school year. This is necessary so that schools will be appropriately staffed and classrooms are ready before the first day of school.
The steep fiscal penalties we face for early enrollment in TK threaten our fiscal outlook in a budget year that is already anticipated to be lean.
There is an opportunity to make this right.
The Legislature and Newsom administration can waive the current year, 2023-24 fiscal penalties and allow districts appropriate time to plan and implement requirements for 2024-25. Actions can be taken via legislation — Assembly Bill 2548, authored by Assemblymember Tri Ta, would waive the current school year penalties on districts offering early TK; another option is to enact the waiver for 2023-24 through budget trailer bill language. We, and more than 40 leaders of districts and county offices of education, are urging lawmakers to take action now.
The districts that are impacted by penalties for early enrollment in TK serve high-poverty communities where free or low-cost full-day preschools are not available and parents cannot afford paid preschools.
Making early TK available to as many families as possible is the right thing to do. Approving the waiver of the fiscal penalties for 2023-24 will save our districts from millions of dollars in penalties and protect our fiscal stability while we continue to make great strides in serving early learners.
•••
Gabriela Mafi is superintendent of the Garden Grove Unified School District. John Garcia is superintendent of the Downey Unified School District
The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
School districts nationwide are grappling with whether, how and when to teach about LGBTQ and race-related issues. Deep-seated divisions are playing out in school board meetings, local social media, and directly between parents and educators.
We have been surveying American adults’ beliefs about the potentially contested topics elementary and high school children should be learning in school since 2022. Based on our results, here are eight suggestions for those struggling to thread the needle between students learning to respectfully engage with diverse opinions, honoring parental authority and avoiding indoctrination.
Start with common ground.
Among the most surprising and hopeful results was strong bipartisan support for public schools. Adults are overwhelmingly supportive of public education, while wanting to see it improve. This bipartisan support for public schools provides a critical foundation necessary for communities to thread the needle.
Seek to understand others’ underlying beliefs.
Key to compromise is understanding others’ perspectives. We found large gaps related to core values; for example, three-quarters of Democrats think teaching children to embrace differences is a very important purpose of education, compared with just one-third of Republicans. More Republicans (81%) are worried about children feeling guilty if they learn about historical racism compared with Democrats (33%). More Republicans are worried than Democrats that learning about transgender or gay people might make children think about whether they are or want to be trans or gay. In both groups, people are somewhat more concerned about their children learning about trans people (66% of Republicans versus 23% of Democrats) than they are about lessons about gay people (55% versus 20%). We are better at listening to others’ perspectives when we feel heard ourselves.
Come up with processesfor reconciling disagreement.
Adults disagree about processes for reconciling disagreement regarding the content children are learning in school. This means communities need to develop mutually agreeable consensus-building processes like public panel deliberation, advisory groups and provisions for dissent. Involving children and teens could develop their current and future civic capabilities.
Educate adults about the challenges and consequences of opting children out of classroom content.
We learned that a brief message specifying potential benefits of children learning diverse perspectives, and the logistical drawbacks of opting individual children out of lessons, substantially reduces the opt-out preference, by 15 percentage points (25%), from 57% to 42%. This approach was equally effective for Democrats and Republicans and when considering younger and older students. Educators and school boards could use this model to craft messages sharing potential challenges and benefits relevant to their own communities.
Double down on approaches with broad support, like assigning diverse texts.
Three-quarters of adults (64% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats) agree children should read books written by people from racial minority groups because they provide different experiences and perspectives. Teachers may find assigning and discussing age-appropriate books written by diverse authors to address topics of race, gender and sexuality to be an approach their communities will accept.
Support teachers in facilitating discussion of potentially contested topics.
Rand’s nationally representative survey of teachers shows many are afraid to facilitate potentially contentious discussions and lack guidance from their leadership. Curriculum and aligned professional learning should be designed to equip teachers with the skills and confidence they need to facilitate their students’ discussions of potentially contested topics. School and district leaders can also make clear their support for such discussions.
Inform and involve parents.
Transparency about how district curriculum content addresses state learning standards provides this insight. Parents will also benefit their children and themselves by learning about the diversity of perspectives within their community, and of the necessity of collaboratively resolving competing perspectives. Once processes are defined, parents, school board members and educators will need to build safeguards and respect for the system they collectively design.
Remind everyone that children will live, study, work and be citizens of diverse local, national and international communities.
Students need to learn about and how to communicate effectively with others, including those with different beliefs and backgrounds. Schools need to provide open forums allowing for sharing and evaluating both dominant and nondominant perspectives without fear of reprisal. A difficult tension for schools and teachers to manage is avoiding “indoctrination,” while maintaining norms of respect and care for others. Schools must intervene if/when students’ values negatively affect how they treat each other, indeed upholding the Golden Rule (i.e., “do unto others as you’d have done to you”)—a fundamental tenet of most religions and belief systems worldwide — requires they do.
Educating children in our pluralistic democracy is challenging. We suggest a path forward for educators, parents, and school boards, ultimately to children’s benefit.
•••
Anna Saavedra is a research scientist in the Center for Applied Research in Education within the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research. USC is a private research university located in Los Angeles.
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.
Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages
This is the first in a series of stories on how inadequate staffing may be impeding California’s efforts tooffer high-quality instruction to all 4-year-olds by 2025.
Several California school districts and charter schools have been fined for violating state guidelines on average class size and/or staffing ratios in transitional kindergarten, a grade level that has been expanding to include all 4-year-olds by 2025.
Through its universal pre-kindergarten initiative, the state intends to offer high-quality instruction to all 4-year-olds through TK, an additional year of public education prior to kindergarten. To do so, California has implemented legislation placing requirements on transitional kindergarten and adding fiscal penalties for noncompliance. State-set TK guidelines require classes to maintain an average student enrollment of 24 kids and to use a 1:12 adult-to-student ratio.
Here are the highlights from audit reports from the 2022-23 school year, the first school year since the state added the fiscal penalties for TK requirements:
Ten school districts and 22 charter schools were not compliant with the required average class size of not more than 24 students, resulting in fines ranging from $1,706 to more than $6.9 million.
Seven school districts and 16 charter schools will pay between $2,813 and over $1.1 million for failure to meet the 1:12 adult-to-student ratio for TK classes.
Three school districts and 12 charter schools were out of compliance in both class size and adult-to-child ratio.
District audits review compliance with a sample of schools.
Based on the audit reports released to EdSource, the nationwide teacher shortage seems to be a leading reason for districts being out of compliance.
While most districts blame the national staffing shortage, some districts are critical of the California Department of Education for not clearly outlining TK requirements as well as for fining districts unfairly.
“It is not typical,” Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said in late January when the district released its audit findings at a board meeting. “It does not make sense.”
The following districts and charters have been named as noncompliant, and fiscal penalties they face:
For going over the 24-student average enrollment
Aspire Port City Academy, a charter and part of Aspire Public Schools: $20,146.42
A charter school under Big Picture Educational Academy: $2,116
Culver City Unified for two of its schools: $125,129
Equitas Academy Charter School for its first and third Equitas Academy schools: $38,504.90
Inglewood Unified for Bennett-Kew Elementary: $335,056
John Adams Academy, the El Dorado Hills campus, which is a charter school: $21,156.60
Seven charter schools in KIPP SoCal Public Schools – KIPP Iluminar Academy, KIPP Comienza Community Prep, KIPP Compton, KIPP Corazon Academy, KIPP Empower Academy, KIPP Ignite and KIPP Vida Preparatory Academy: $87,123.26, in all
Los Angeles Unified for two district schools: $6,963,151.68
Los Angeles Unified charter school, Hesby Oaks Leadership Center: $8,977.26
Los Olivos Unified, a one-school district: $4,488.63
Lowell Joint School District for Macy Elementary and Meadow Green Elementary: $81,051
Monroe Elementary School District, a one-school district: $1,706
A charter in Palm Springs Unified, Cielo Vista Charter School: $21,223
Four charter schools run by Rocketship Education – Rocketship Delta Prep, Rocketship Alma Academy, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary and Rocketship Spark Academy: $91,688.13, in all
Rowland Unified for Blandford Elementary: $217,351
Scholarship Prep Charter School – Oceanside: $22,833.88
Voices College-Bound Language Academies, charter school campuses in Morgan Hill, Mt. Pleasant and Stockton: $12,846.44
For not meeting 1:12 adult-student ratio
Aromas-San Juan Unified for two of its schools: $154,715
Culver City Unified for two of its schools: $61,886
The same seven charters in KIPP SoCal Public Schools: $167,080.05
Equitas Academy Charter School, Inc. for its first, third, fifth and sixth schools: $142,327.45
A school in Laton Joint Unified, which only has one elementary: $30,943
Los Angeles Unified for 20 district schools: $1,175,824
Los Angeles Unified charters Canyon Charter Elementary and Knollwood Preparatory Academy: $30,943 and $61,886, respectively.
Los Olivos Unified: $2,813
Pomona Unified for Kingsley Elementary, San Jose Elementary, Armstrong Elementary and Philadelphia Elementary: $123,772 with each being penalized $30,943
Two of the four charters fined for average enrollment under Rocketship Education, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary and Rocketship Spark Academy: $12,376.30, with both being penalized $6,188.15
Sacramento City Unified for Hubert Bancroft Elementary: $53,261
Scholarship Prep Charter School – Oceanside: $12,376.30
Not all the districts, such as Aromas-San Juan Unified, Culver City Unified and LAUSD, disclosed the names of the penalized schools in the audit reports. They are not required to do so.
The school districts and charters will lose funding from the Local Control Funding Formula in the amount of their penalties.
Unlike the other charter schools penalized, those in LAUSD and Palm Springs are operated by their respective school districts, rather than by charter management organizations. The fines received for the charter schools operated by LAUSD and Palm Springs Unified will be paid at the charter school level, not at the district level, according to the California Department of Education (CDE).
Why requirements on TK?
The state Education Department has outlined several benefits of implementing smaller TK class sizes and adult-to-student ratios.
According to the department’s September 2022 TK requirement presentation, more attention and feedback from adults creates more opportunities for student learning and engagement. With a smaller class size, teachers form better relationships with students, and parent participation improves.
The lower adult-to-student ratios, the CDE has said, allow staff to provide individualized instruction as well as supervision at all times. Additional adult support, the department says, leads to increased cognitive and social-emotional development, lower rates of students being placed in special education and teachers experiencing less stress. Plus, the 1:12 ratio is closely aligned with 1:8 staffing practices in early education at licensed child care centers, private preschools and state preschool programs and the 1:10 ratio at Head Start.
Noncompliance brings fiscal penalties
State compliance with TK requirements is verified in a district’s annual audit at the end of the school year. The TK class size requirement is based on the average number of students while the 1:12 staffing ratio is based on the number of district staff dedicated and available to all TK students in each class. The numbers are counted on the last teaching day of each school month before April 15. For most school districts, that is August to March.
How is the penalty determined?
Depending on whether the violation is for average student enrollment or the staffing ratio, penalty calculations consider areas such as base funding, the TK funding rate add-on, average daily attendance and the statewide absence rate.
For average student enrollment violations, the penalty equals the grade span base funding for TK/K-3 multiplied by the Second Principal Apportionment (P-2) for TK Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
For TK staffing ratio violations, the penalty equals the product of:
Additional adults needed
24 reduced by the prior year elementary statewide absence rate
TK add-on funding rate for the school year, which is available online; $2,813 was the funding rate for 2022-23
Some district audits miscalculated the class average or staffing ratio penalties, reducing the expected fines by hundreds of thousands of dollars for some.
Penalty amounts changed from $369,347 to $125,129 for the class average penalty in Culver City Unified; went from $641,561 to $217,351 for the class average penalty in Rowland Unified; changed from $239,133 to $81,051 for the class average penalty in Lowell Joint School District; and decreased from $10,483 to $2,813 for the staffing ratio penalty in Los Olivos School District.
A school district or charter school must maintain an average TK class enrollment of not more than 24 students for each campus. Because the audit considers the number of students each month, it is possible for a school to have a TK class that exceeds the limit for a time and still maintain an average of 24 or less.
For example, Marcella Gutierrez, a Mountain View School District TK teacher, told EdSource that she received her 25th student in February because her class enrollment average was under 24. Based on active enrollment at the end of each month, the number of students in her class was 24 in August and September, 23 in October when a student moved, 23 in November and December and 22 in early January when another student left the program but 24 by the end of the month when two new students joined her class.
With her class average at 23.5, not the 24-student classroom average for TK, the district accepted a 25th student for Gutierrez’s class. The district also added a third aide to meet the 1:12 student-staff ratio, she said.
According to the state Education Department, to be counted in the staffing ratio, the “assigned” adult must be an employee who is dedicated and available to all TK students the entire school day.
The audit selects a representative sample of schools to review compliance. If districts or charter schools are found to have violated the TK guidelines, they will face penalties for each sampled school in violation.
Legislation requires paraprofessionals to work alongside California teachers to lower class sizes and fulfill the 1:12 adult-to-student ratio requirement in TK classes.
According to the audit reports, districts and schools such as Scholarship Prep Charter School in Oceanside, Pomona Unified in eastern Los Angeles County and Culver City Unified, also in Los Angeles County, blame staffing shortages for their inability to comply with state guidelines.
But the staffing shortage isn’t limited to paraprofessionals. Based on state and regional hiring and vacancy data, state legislation has identified TK teachers as a high-need teaching position impacted by the teacher shortage.
Pomona Unified couldn’t maintain its staffing ratio at four schools that each needed the equivalent of 0.5 additional adults.
Culver City Unified was unable to hire enough teachers to stay within the class size enrollment or staffing ratio guidelines, resulting in noncompliance in two classes at two schools.
Even when staffing shortages played a role in noncompliance, some districts faulted the state Education Department.
The seven charter schools in KIPP SoCal Public Schools in Los Angeles that were penalized for being out of compliance for both class average and ratios said the state guidance about the TK program was not clear when their elementary schools planned their instruction and classroom models for the 2022-23 school year. Planning takes place before the school year starts.
Although July 2021 legislation introduced the TK requirements on average class size and staffing ratios, legislation in September 2022 added details to the requirements, at which time KIPP schools had already planned classroom instruction.
Historically, KIPP schools have created combination classes of TK and kindergarten students, with no more than five TK students in the class of 24, supervised by one teacher and an aide.
Because the students are educated in the same space, the TK adult-to-student ratio requirements must apply to all students in the combo class, according to the CDE. The class average has to be at or below 24 and the ratio at 1:12, even though only five TK students are in the class.
Similar to KIPP schools, Monroe Elementary School District in Fresno offered a combo class with TK and kindergarten students, resulting in an average enrollment of 29 kids.
The district acted under the incorrect assumption that the combo class would be considered two separate classes since the TK and kindergarten students had their own teachers. However, the class was considered one class and out of compliance.
KIPP schools have since implemented a monthly process to check student enrollment and ratios and will conduct more frequent audits.
Monroe Elementary School District also agreed to monitor enrollment numbers more closely; the school district will be annexed into Caruthers Unified by next school year.
District leaders called the penalties “egregious.” Los Angeles Unified incurred over $8.1 million in fines for being out of compliance with TK ratios and class size limits.
In the audit sampling of 88 schools, two exceeded the 24-student class size average and 20 did not maintain the 1:12 staffing ratio.
When the district’s audit results were released during a January LAUSD board meeting, district leaders, including Carvalho, said the district will work to ensure compliance but will push against schools incurring fines for lacking one additional adult.
The district received 20 fines, totaling $1,175,824, for not complying with the 1:12 ratio in its district schools, a fine they would have avoided if they had 19 additional adults in the TK classrooms.
“A small variance from the ratio brings about a significant fine,” Carvalho said, calling the penalties unfair and in need of fixing.
The district has already put mechanisms in place to track compliance this school year, including a TK toolkit for school and district administration, distributing specific revisions to TK legislation, and holding meetings with principals in the spring to review guidelines.
The school district will also host biweekly department meetings to monitor classes and have monthly meetings to identify schools that are not compliant with staffing ratios, according to its audit report.
Besides taking corrective action to address compliance with the transitional kindergarten requirement, penalized schools have two other options to respond to audit findings: an appeal or a payment plan. In March, the CDE issued letters to most of the penalized districts and charters asking them to choose what they plan to do.
Existing legislation does not allow districts to avoid penalties.
Under the appeals process, schools can challenge the finding based on “errors of fact or interpretation of law” including incorrect information in the audit findings or in the way the law is applied or interpreted.
They may also appeal on grounds that they were in substantial compliance with the law in which they can argue that, despite minor or unintentional noncompliance, they provided an educational benefit consistent with the purpose of the transitional kindergarten program.
According to CDE spokesperson Scott Roark via email, how soon the penalty is deducted from a district’s funding will depend on whether the school district or charter uses one of the options for resolving audit findings.
A preschool student shows his classmate a spider he made from pipe cleaners and a paper cup.
Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages
This is the second in a series of stories on how inadequate staffing may be impeding California’s efforts to offer high-quality instruction to all 4-year-olds by 2025.
Four-year-olds, many of whom have never attended school or day care, are entering California classrooms in droves following the state’s rapid expansion of transitional kindergarten, a grade preceding kindergarten.
In this grade known as TK, young students are exposed to academics and become familiar with letters, sounds and numbers. They also acquire social, emotional and intellectual skills through play and exploration. For example, from having to share toys with their peers in a structured environment, they learn to communicate with each other and handle conflict.
Once designed to serve only children who missed the kindergarten age cutoff, TK has evolved and is now projected to reach all the state’s 4-year-olds by the 2025-26 school year. TK is the first year of a two-year kindergarten program that uses a curriculum modified for the age and developmental level of the participating children. When fully implemented, California will have the largest universal preschool program in the nation, serving nearly 400,000 children.
Expanding TK: The age cutoff
According to the California Department of Education, California children who turned 5 between Sept. 2, 2022 and April 2, 2023 were eligible for TK this school year. For the 2024–25 school year, children who turn 5 between Sept. 2 and June 2 will be eligible. Students who turn 4 by Sept. 1 will be eligible during the 2024-25 school year.
Some of the state’s largest school districts, including Los Angeles Unified and Fresno Unified, are ahead of the state’s timeline in offering that access.
Fresno Unified operates 116 transitional kindergarten classes. Los Angeles Unified has not released the number of TK classes it offers, but according to district data, they serve nearly 11,000 students.
Though imperative for students, the expansion has created a problem: Some districts are not staffing TK classrooms with enough adults to maintain the required 1:12 staff-student ratio, a problem that educators say puts the 4-year-old pupils at risk, hampers learning and violates state legislation.
Twenty schools in LAUSD have been cited by the state for understaffing classes and violating the ratio.
Teachers told EdSource that 4-year-olds can’t learn if they aren’t safe and properly supervised by adults, and that not having enough adults in the classroom jeopardizes children’s safety.
“If you’re one adult and you’re managing so many children that have never been to school before, there isn’t any teaching going on,” said David Hunter, a teacher in Fresno Unified who has taught TK for the last six years of a 17-year career. “You’re just keeping them safe as best as you can, but you’re not actually able to teach.”
School districts jeopardize state funding if they fail to meet the state-set TK requirements of the 1:12 staff-student ratio and the average class size of 24 kids.
Out of the 1,815 audit reports that the California Department of Education reviewed, just seven school districts and 16 charter schools have been fined and will lose thousands of dollars in funding from their Local Control Funding Formula for failing to meet the staffing ratios during the 2022-23 school year. Teachers and others in the classroom say that many more districts and charters are not meeting the requirements but are managing to avoid punishment.
Los Angeles Unified, which is facing multimillion dollar fines, considers being fined because the classes do not have one additional adult unfair, district leaders said at a board meeting earlier this year. Many other penalized districts blamed the national shortage of teachers and paraprofessionals while some districts were critical of the California Department of Education for not clearly outlining the requirements.
Some teachers, on the other hand, say that what is unfair is that TK classes are not being staffed as outlined by the legislation and to support the young students.
According to the Fresno Teachers Association, more than a dozen TK classes were not meeting staffing ratios during the 2022-23 school year, yet Fresno Unified was not fined. Fresno educators told EdSource that school districts that were not in compliance last year, such as Fresno Unified, escaped detection and fines because fiscal penalties are based on sample auditing that did not check every school.
“This is a systems issue,” Hunter said, “and I want to see the system be better for everyone.”
Why do TK classes need extra staffing?
The California Department of Education (CDE) has outlined numerous benefits to having a lower adult-to-student ratio in TK classes, including opportunities for individualized instruction, additional adult support and attention as well as supervision at all times.
Legislation requires district staff such as paraprofessionals to work alongside teachers to meet the ratio requirement and share responsibilities of serving the students.
On any given day, a TK student may need to use the restroom or have a potty accident; another may get sick and others will require different types of attention.
“How do you manage that when there’s one of you and 21 four-year-olds?” Hunter said. “You need another adult to help deal with those situations.”
Hunter said he taught a class of 21 TK students without an aide from August to December 2022 during the 2022-23 school year, the first school year after the state added fiscal penalties related to TK requirements.
He said a teacher and an aide can split a large class into small groups to foster individualized learning, improve student assessment and evaluation and, ultimately, educate the young students — things that won’t happen in one large group of up to 24 four-year-olds.
Verifying compliance is difficult
Going Deeper
Compliance with the TK staffing ratio requirement is based on adult counts taken on the last teaching day of each school month prior to April 15, typically from August to March. In evaluating ratio compliance, auditors must consider an aide’s daily or weekly schedule, class rosters and other documentation for each class, according to the audit guide.
State compliance with TK requirements is verified in a district’s annual audit at the end of the school year and is based on a representative sample of a district’s schools.
Schools that are out of compliance may go unchecked if the sampled schools in the district are compliant. Because the sampled schools meet compliance, even though other schools do not, some districts and charters avoid penalties.
Fresno Unified, Hunter’s district, was not one of the school systems fined. District spokesperson AJ Kato told EdSource that Fresno Unified has not had problems with meeting the requirements that other districts may be experiencing.
But that’s not what teachers say.
At least 13 classes, according to Fresno Teachers Association President Manuel Bonilla, only had one adult for more than 12 students.
“The district could have done a better job at hiring additional folks … or in an emergency term, having their administrative staff provide additional support, but that seemingly didn’t happen,” Bonilla said.
A Fresno Unified TK teacher and union leader surveyed his colleagues.
“They were out of compliance with the state, and ultimately the problem is that the students aren’t getting the additional support that’s necessary,” Bonilla added.
Hunter said this is the second consecutive school year he’s been teaching out of ratio.
This school year, Hunter has a part-time aide but is still out of ratio because he is the only adult for 16 students on days the aide isn’t scheduled to work.
Having a full-time aide, or the equivalent, he said, should be baseline and is mandated by law.
According to the state Education Department, to be counted in the staffing ratio, the “assigned” adult must be a district employee who is dedicated and available to all TK students the entire school day. Student teachers and volunteers do not count toward it, nor do staff such as a special education aide or speech therapist who are assigned to work with specific students.
Part-time aides can satisfy the classroom staffing ratio, but only if the working time equals 100% of the time of a full-time aide, according to the CDE. Because Hunter’s class has 16 students, he needs more than one part-time aide working enough hours to equal the hours of a full-time aide. He has only had one part-time aide this school year.
Laton Joint Unified was penalized $30,943 for having a 1:16 ratio last school year. The school had a paraprofessional scheduled for one hour, 45 minutes each day, and that person was not available for all students the entire school day, the audit report detailed.
There are also instances of aides being pulled for recess or cafeteria duty or other teaching responsibilities, removing that aide from the instructional minutes with students, teachers told EdSource.
“Rina,” a former TK teacher who asked to be identified only by her nickname, said that when she took a job at Ballington Academy in San Bernardino City Unified in the 2023-24 school year, the school’s one TK classroom had 18 students. Rina and her aide would align with state compliance for the 18 students. About a week before school started, Rina said the school informed her that the aide, though assigned to her TK students, would be pulled to other elementary classrooms whenever a teacher was absent.
“It was wrong,” she said. She only stayed in the position for about a week after school started.
Some schools and districts, such as Scholarship Prep Charter School in Oceanside, Pomona Unified in eastern Los Angeles County and Culver City Unified in Los Angeles County, said in their audit reports that staffing shortages resulted in their inability to comply with state guidelines.
But that’s no excuse, teachers say, because it’s up to district administration to recruit, hire and retain paraprofessionals, instead of making it the teacher’s problem, Rina said.
Some suggest that the problem with hiring and retaining paraprofessionals is the low compensation.
A preschool teacher’s aide at Ericson Elementary in Fresno Unified is not in the TK classroom but works with students who are the same age as those entering transitional kindergarten. Speaking with EdSource on condition of anonymity, she said aides, whether in the TK or preschool class, are dealing with the same challenge: subpar pay.
Throughout the day, especially when working in groups, she helps the preschoolers with writing their names and learning letters and numbers. At other times during the day, such as during reading time, the aide ensures students keep their hands to themselves and listen to the teacher. As an aide, she sees the impact and importance of her role.
“We’re like their (teacher’s) spine,” she said about paraprofessionals. “We’re there to support and help. We do so much for these kids.”
She is paid $15.90 an hour and has, over the last two years, questioned whether she should remain in the role.
“That’s not helping me,” she said. She’s had to take on side jobs in the district, such as at sporting events, or resorted to borrowing money from friends and family. “I have to buy food, pay bills and then, I have four kids.
“If they’re still going keep that low (salary), people are not going … to apply for a position as an aide.”
Can teachers do anything?
As a teacher who’s been working out of ratio, Hunter wants districts to be held accountable.
“There’s a mechanism there, and I’d like to see that enforced,” Hunter said about the fiscal penalties outlined in legislation.
While the only way to address the compliance is with fines — which Hunter called “reactive” — he said a tool to report violations throughout the year could push districts to comply sooner and stop teachers from working out of compliance.
Currently, there is no such system or tool.
And if teachers are providing instruction in classrooms that are out of compliance, they would not report the violation to the state, CDE spokesperson Scott Roark said via email.
“Complaints against a district, school, principal, teacher or school personnel are not within the jurisdiction of the CDE unless the complaint falls within the scope of the Uniform Complaint Procedures,” Roark said, explaining that the TK requirements are under local control, with each district’s school board having authority over the complaint process.
The same reasoning applies to a teachers union hoping to report compliance concerns or violations.
But the struggles teachers are experiencing shouldn’t detract from the importance of TK.
TK expansion is necessary; schools just need support
Patricia Lozano, executive director of the advocacy group Early Edge California and a champion for expanding transitional kindergarten, told EdSource last year about the importance of the program, including how it provides children who were infants during the pandemic with social and intellectual engagement as well as age- and developmentally-appropriate structure and routine to help them thrive.
Simply put, TK is imperative for students, said many teachers interviewed by EdSource.
Hunter, who has a background in early childhood education, said TK is vital for introducing students to what school is, for teaching socialization and exposing them to academics.
“Any child who’s been through TK is that much more ready to hit the ground running in kindergarten,” he said. “I just want to see the appropriate support that not only the state promised, but I want to see the districts live up to that support so we can show these learners the best we can.”
The number of homeless students statewide increased by 9.3%, according to recently released state enrollment data. Out of 761 districts, 433 — or 57% — reported an increase in their number of homeless students. This map shows the change in the homeless student population by district from 2023–24 to 2024–25. Click on a district to see the percent change and the number of homeless students enrolled.
Note: A particularly sharp increase from one year to the next may be due to improved tracking or reporting practices. Please contact the district for further details.
Data source: California Department of Education and EdSource Data Analysis
Grading in most classrooms remains tied to rubrics devised by individual teachers and rooted in century-old practices. Recently, amid a broader national trend, grading systems in schools have come under increased scrutiny as educators and policymakers debate the best ways to support students. This movement further gained traction during the Covid-19 pandemic as educators tried new grading approaches to help students.
Traditional grading systems assess students through tests, homework and projects combined into a single class grade and other more subjective factors, such as behavior, attendance and classroom participation.
Standards-based grading, however, measures academic achievement without considering these subjective metrics. Standards-based grading measures academic achievement against specific content standards, offering students multiple opportunities to demonstrate knowledge. It still involves assigning grades, but these grades are based on students’ mastery of the content, making the process more transparent and individualized.
For example, when a friend of mine was in a math class that used standards-based grading, he was assessed on specific learning targets, like solving quadratic equations, without considering participation or behavior. In a traditional grading system, his final grade comprises quizzes, tests, homework, participation and behavior. As such, a poor test score early in the semester could significantly impact his final grade. On the other hand, in standards-based grading, he had multiple opportunities to retake tests and demonstrate improved understanding, so his final grade reflected his highest mastery level. Traditional grading boosted his grade with attendance and participation points, even if he didn’t fully understand the material. Standards-based grading showed his actual academic achievement.
While there isn’t any national data, individual states across the U.S. have begun to adopt standards-based grading. A 2021 statewide survey in Wyoming revealed that over 63% of middle schools and 35% of high schools had either started or fully implemented standards-based grading. In Delaware and Mississippi, schools have actively worked to support the use of high-quality, standards-aligned instructional materials in K-12 classrooms.
Districts in California, including Lindsay Unified District in Tulare County, moved towards standards-based grading systems. High schools in Oakland are also transitioning to a more objective assessment system, emphasizing a gradual and inclusive approach to grading reform.
In my district, Dublin Unified, individual teachers instituted standards-based grading on a trial basis, but nine months ago, the district discontinued its standards-based grading system, impacting almost 13,000 students.
However, despite an overwhelming 85% of the student body voting in favor of standards-based grading practices, the school board discontinued the practice districtwide, preventing teachers from using any form of standards-based grading.
The rationale behind the board’s decision was simple: Trustees believed that standards-based grading decreased academic rigor and harmed students’ chances of success beyond high school by introducing a new grading system. Their concerns, primarily driven by parental pressure, focused on how the grades of high-performing students could fluctuate because of the introduction of a new grading system.
I acknowledge that standards-based grading was a new concept and could pose a risk to the perception of the academic achievement of high school students. (I was sympathetic, too; I am all too familiar with the competitive nature of high school.)
But I think the concerns about standards-based grading hindering academic progress are misguided. For traditionally high-performing students, this grading system allows these students, like all others, to focus on mastering concepts and skills. Instead of promoting memorization to pass tests, students are assessed on their ability to understand concepts, allowing the performance of these students to remain strong even under this new system. If anything, standards-based grading boosts academic performance, evidenced by a study that found that students in schools using standards-based grading were nearly twice as likely to score proficient on state assessments compared with those in traditional grading systems.
Our district’s push to switch to a standards-based grading system ultimately collapsed through misinformation and a lack of teacher training. This perceived lack of support made teachers feel they had to choose between supporting individual student needs and maintaining academic rigor, even though that wasn’t necessary.
Had our district provided more support for parents and teachers, we could have developed effective curriculums that help students and maintain rigor. Larkspur’s multi-year transparent process with teacher training and parent seminars allowed a smooth transition from traditional to standards-based grading. Similarly, in New York City, districts successfully shifted to the new system after training teachers and having town halls with parents.
The transition to standards-based grading or similar systems requires a shift in grading practices and a cultural and perceptual shift in how we view education and student success. It demands robust teacher training, practical communication with parents and students, and a collective commitment to redefining academic achievement. We must provide teachers, students,and parents with the necessary resources to succeed in these new grading paradigms. If we truly want to make education more equitable, districts must put their money where their mouths are and fully support our educators in this significant shift.
I hope the adults responsible for decisions regarding our schools and education can set aside partisanship and genuinely reassess grading practices. Because equity has never been, nor will it ever be, the enemy of achievement.
•••
Aakrisht Mehra just completed his junior year in the Dublin Unified School District.
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.
This high school wood shop, built in 1954, will not qualify for modernization funding until the district brings an outside entranceway added in the 1970s up to code – an additional expense that Anderson Valley cannot afford, according to Superintendent Louise Simson.
Courtesy: Anderson Valley Unified School District
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are wrestling over how to dole out facilities funding for the projected November ballot bond initiative, and my fear is that when all is said and done, small rural school districts will not get their fair funding share at the table. The result will be that students attending schools that have the least political power and the highest facility needs will be, once again, left behind. And more often than not, those are students who are socio-economically disadvantaged and of color. Sadly, the quality of a student’s educational facilities experience in California has become defined by a student’s ZIP code.
Too often, our small rural school systems, which are facing extreme enrollment decline and a lack of bonding capacity, lag far behind nearby more populated school districts. It is unfathomable to me why a student 45 minutes away can receive one educational experience, while students in a small rural district receive another.
During my superintendency at Anderson Valley Unified School District, a 70-year-old school system in rural Mendocino County, I was faced with facilities that were in an extreme state of deterioration. An unincorporated town of just 1,650 people had passed a bond measure back in 2012; but the $8 million they were able to get out was nowhere near enough to remediate the aging infrastructure.
When I arrived in 2021, the community stepped up again, passing an additional $13 million bond with an overwhelming 71% of the vote. With assessed valuations so low and with no real estate development on the horizon due to a lack of a municipal water and sewer system infrastructure, we were only able to pull out $6 million. Throw in on top of that two failed septic systems requiring replacement that topped$1 million with the indignity of students and staff using porta-potties for four months; a plethora of classrooms that hadn’t been touched since Dwight Eisenhower was president; and buildings that were out of compliance with mold and seismic codes, and you have the picture of instructional facilities inequity that just made the instructional divide even greater. And we are not alone. Similar conditions are common for those that don’t have a powerful voice in the Legislature and the lobbying community.
Small, rural districts like mine are run by a district office of three or four people. We are just trying to keep up with the tsunami of reports that the California Department of Education expects us to produce and, in our spare time, do what is best for kids. Wealthier districts exacerbate the disparity with their massive education foundations that create endowment programs that provide even more opportunity for those that need it the least.
It is time for the governor and the Legislature to give students in these crumbling school systems their fair share and create some educational equity on the facilities side. The bureaucracy of the hardship application process is not doable for small rural school systems to navigate by themselves. Small districts end up taking what little money they have for facilities and spending it on expensive consultants that know their stuff but cost the equivalent of a monthly teacher’s salary, to move the applications through the process.
Governor, if you want educational equity, this is how you create it:
I don’t need technical assistance. I need money to navigate the process. Allocate a funding stream for small rural schools systems to contract with architects and consultants to move applications through the facilities-hardship process outside my existing budget.
If a facility is more than 50 years old and hasn’t been remodeled, let’s use some common sense and engage in a different process. I shouldn’t have to demonstrate mold, seismic or structural hazards. This building is not an equitable learning environment for kids. Let’s get it done and stop the busy work.
I hope that the governor and legislative partners hear the plea of our rural students and leaders and don’t leave us behind again. What has gone on in the disproportionality of school facility funding for decades and decades will eventually be tested in the court systems, if something doesn’t change, and the poor condition of the deteriorating rural sites will attest to a judgment that will prevail.
Education in California should be based on equal opportunity to access quality programs and facilities, no matter where you live or whether your parents pick crops or work in tech. Something has got to change on the funding and facilities side if we want to talk about real equity for all kids.
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.
This is the third in a series of stories on the challenges impacting California’s efforts to offer high-quality instruction to all 4-year-olds by 2025.
This past school year, 4-year-old Yoshua would’ve been home, watching TV or playing on his tablet if he hadn’t been enrolled in Garden Grove Unified’s transitional kindergarten (TK) program, according to his mom, Briseida, who asked that her last name not be used.
“Learning the English language, learning how to start writing his name, learning colors and numbers, knowing that he goes to school with his classmates and can talk and play with them, knowing that his teacher will teach him new things,” Briseida said in Spanish in a district video about the importance of TK, an additional year of public education prior to kindergarten. “All of that has been very positive for us because if he had stayed at home, he would not have learned any of those things.”
The large, urban, nearly 40,000-student Garden Grove school community includes immigrants with many families who do not speak English at home. So, those TK students are exposed not only to academic content but also a full year of the English language, said Gabriela Mafi, superintendent of Garden Grove Unified School District, in which English is not the primary language of 63.6% of students.
Sending 4-year-olds to TK benefits students as well as their families. For example, enrollment for Noel allowed his mom, Celeste Monroy, time to seek employment and enroll in classes to learn English, she said in the school district video.
Many parents in the northern Orange County community cannot afford private preschool, which can cost thousands of dollars annually, nor can they accommodate a half-day program, such as many offered by the state’s public preschool programs.
TK has been gradually expanding to reach all the state’s 4-year-olds by the 2025-26 school year, and each school year, more 4-year-olds become eligible.
In 2023-24, children who turned 5 between Sept. 2 and April 2 were eligible. Districts had a choice to even enroll younger 4-year-olds ahead of the phased timeline, such as Noel — who has a birthday after April 2 and would turn 5 by June 30, the end of the school year.
Planning ahead, Garden Grove Unified staffed its classes to comply with the state requirement of 24 students per class size average and a 1:12 adult-child staffing ratio, getting that average to just under 21 students with one teacher and an aide.
Then, the state established new rules just months ahead of the 2023-24 school year.
Such “last-minute changes” at the state level complicate school district operations and impact students locally, superintendents say.
During the budget process in summer 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation creating a new category for kids participating in TK ahead of the state’s timeline, changing the birthday cutoff dates, lowering TK requirements for classes with those students and applying fiscal penalties for noncompliance.
The legislation added an “early enrollment” distinction for 4-year-olds with birthdays after June 2. Students with June 3-30 birthdays were to be considered early enrollment children, requiring stricter guidelines.
Prior to the legislative change, there were no special provisions for the enrollment of students who turned 5 before the school year ended on June 30.
For the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, any class with an early enrollment child must meet a 20-student class size maximum and a 1:10 adult-to-student ratio, or face penalties.
Districts were left with a difficult decision for a school year starting in less than two months: Retain the students they’d enrolled and try to comply with the stricter requirements; face penalties if and when they can’t adhere to the more restrictive regulations; or turn away families.
According to superintendents, the state’s last-minute changes illustrate the disconnect between state-level decisions and local implementation and exemplify the state’s lack of understanding of the needs of families, disproportionately impacting districts trying to meet those needs.
“We make commitments to our families and then now have to either undo them or incur something punitive because we tried to serve our communities the best we possibly can,” said John Garcia, superintendent of the 22,000-student Downey Unified, an urban/suburban school district in southeast Los Angeles County.
Why enroll younger students?
The need to offer early childhood education, generally believed to benefit disadvantaged children, was at the heart of Garden Grove and Downey Unified decisions to accept younger cohorts of children for TK sooner than the state’s timeline.
Families in both districts were unable to afford fee-based preschool or work due to a need for child care.
“If he wasn’t given this opportunity to go to TK, he would have either been in day care/preschool, or I would’ve had to quit work and not be able to financially provide for my family,” a Garden Grove Unified parent shared regarding their child for a district document about the impact of TK.
TK not only saves on child care costs that burdened families but, according to educators and experts, also builds a strong educational foundation and bridges the opportunity gap between low-income families and affluent ones — gaps more prevalent in high-poverty districts.
Enrolling younger students sooner meant a full year of instruction before kindergarten, Garcia said, adding that Downey Unified kindergarten teachers notice a difference in those who gain an extra year of schooling.
In high-poverty districts specifically, that additional year gives the kids “an opportunity to have a head start on kindergarten,” Mafi said. “And those are the kids who need it the most, which is why many high-poverty districts chose to accelerate TK faster.”
About 81% of students in Garden Grove and nearly 70% in Downey Unified are classified as low income, based on January data of unduplicated student counts. In contrast, high-wealth districts may not have had the need to offer TK sooner because their families can afford to pay for private preschool, Mafi said.
“This is the message I feel they’re telling us: ‘Poor kids — they don’t need to be helped, to have the same quality of a pre-kindergarten experience like their more affluent peers.’ And I don’t think that’s the message they should be sending.”
Even though low-income students could benefit more from early childhood education, such children have lower preschool enrollment, the Public Policy Institute of California found.
Research shows that high-quality preschool leads to students being prepared for school with improved behavior and learning skills and higher academic performance in math and reading once enrolled, all of which can help bridge the gap between students from high-poverty and high-wealth families.
“All we’re trying to do is address the opportunity gap,” Mafi said.
Trailer bill changed birthday cutoffs, requirements
In July 2021, legislation to expand TK passed, phasing in 4-year-old students until all are eligible by 2025-26.
Based on the 2021 legislation and continued guidance in 2023, districts could enroll TK students ahead of the state’s timeline as long as they turned 5 by the end of the school year, defined as June 30.
January-February 2023: For the 2023-24 school year, many school districts started TK registration, including for students who would turn 5 by June 30, 2024 — a choice aligned with legislation and state guidance available to districts at the time.
There were even younger 4-year-olds with July or August birthdays, who would not turn 5 during the school year and would not be eligible for TK until 2025-26, based on the 2021 legislation.
January 2023: Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposed a way to fix that by allowing districts to use local dollars to enroll children with July and August birthdays, “a welcomed proposal” that remained in the May revisions, a Los Angeles Unified spokesperson told EdSource.
June-July 2023: Lawmakers reached a compromise to allow the younger 4-year-old students as long as classrooms adhere to stricter requirements.
July 2023: The governor signed SB 114, an education budget trailer bill, which created lower statutory requirements for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years for school districts serving newly-defined “early enrollment” children, 4-year-olds with summer birthdays during and after the school year (from June 3 to Sept. 1).
“We believe that this compromise was vastly preferable to the alternative of disenrolling families, who would have had to scramble for alternative education and care options for their 4-year-old children,” Newsom administration officials said.
San Diego Unified, which had been supportive of efforts to include all 4-year-olds, and Los Angeles Unified were not privy to the compromise between legislative leaders and the Newsom administration, but they were pleased that the result allowed schools to serve students they had already enrolled, spokespersons from the districts said. About 14% of LAUSD TK students have summer birthdays between June 3 and Sept. 1.
Other districts that were enrolling students ahead of the state’s timeline, but within the previous legislation language, had registered students with June 3-30 birthdays.
“It’s that June 3rd to June 30th — that is the date change … making them early enrollment kids,” Mafi said. “No one ever said that before in the last four years.”
The differences are significant
The state’s authorization for the youngest group of TK students came with stricter requirements. Specifically, the 2021 guidelines required a regular TK class to have an average of 24 or less, measured across the school, with an adult-to-student ratio of 1:12. The 2023 rules require a TK class with early enrollment kids to be measured individually and held to a 20-student maximum with a 1:10 ratio.
The stricter ratio for classes with early enrollment kids is more closely aligned with 1:8 staffing practices in early education at licensed child care centers, private preschools and state preschool programs and the 1:10 ratio at Head Start.
But combined with the 20-student max, the requirements exceed guidelines of other programs serving 3- and 4-year-olds, statewide organizations, county education offices and superintendents from LAUSD, Fresno, Oakland, Garden Grove, Downey, Westminster and La Habra City unified school districts said in a March letter.
The California state preschool programs allow class sizes of 24 with a 1:8 ratio, according to the letter, which urged legislators to eliminate penalties and give districts time to reduce ratios for the early enrollment students.
Photo courtesy of Garden Grove Unified School DistrictPhoto courtesy of Garden Grove Unified
Prior to the 2023 change, students born between April 3 and June 30 were considered regular TK students without different requirements. The trailer bill made those born June 3 to June 30 early enrollment kids.
Garden Grove didn’t disenroll the students, who’d already been promised a spot.
Serving 1,736 TK students, the district had classes with an average of 21 students, well below the 24-student average enrollment requirement for regular TK but above the stricter 20-student requirement for any class with an early enrollment student.
Garden Grove estimated their penalties at around $58,000 per class with an early enrollment child. The fines could total $3.1 million.
A penalty on kids that districts aren’t paid for: ‘double penalty’
Districts are also reeling from what they say will be a double penalty: The state pays them nothing for early enrollment kids, yet will fine them for not meeting the stricter guidelines.
School districts receive average daily attendance (ADA) funding for TK-12 students through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The state determined at what point the 4-year-olds would generate the funds based on its timeline of students eligible to enroll.
Three categories of TK students — age-eligible, early admittance and the new early enrollment — exist. Age-eligible students in 2023-24 had birthdays prior to April 2, falling within the state’s timeline, and generated funds from the first day of school.
Those enrolled ahead of the timeline with birthdays until June 2, considered early admittance kids, generated funding when they turned 5.
The newest category of students — early enrollment kids with birthdays after June 2 — did not generate funding at all. Before the change, districts enrolling students with June 3-30 birthdays could generate state funding once they turned 5.
“We’re going to take a penalty for students that we’re not getting revenue for in the first place,” Garcia said about districts educating students without the funding. “It’s unjust.”
But what can be done now?
The summer 2023 legislative changes for the 2023-24 school year didn’t leave enough time for many districts to comply with the stricter requirements.
Still, some refused to turn away families, knowing they’d incur penalties. And unless further legislative action is taken this summer, those districts could be penalized millions of dollars for not meeting the tougher requirements.
Existing legislation does not allow districts that are caught out of compliance to avoid penalties; however, the penalty can be waived through the legislative process, relief that Garden Grove and Downey Unified have been seeking for the 2023-24 school year.
Assembly Bill 2548, proposed by Assemblymember Tri Ta of northwestern Orange County, would waive the 2023-24 penalties on districts offering early TK.
In a letter to legislators, the Association of California School Administrators, the California Association of Suburban School Districts, Small School Districts’ Association, county education offices and school districts supported the legislation because the 2023-24 school year was weeks away from starting when the July 2023 trailer bill implemented the early enrollment regulations. In all, nearly 50 school districts, not including multiple districts represented by county education offices, supported the proposed waiver.
The Early Care and Education Consortium, according to a bill analysis completed by the Legislature, argued against the bill because it “disregards the legislative intent” in enacting the 1:10 ratio and 20-student max for classes with early enrollment students, which ensure student safety.
Another option to address penalties for the 2023-24 year is through budget trailer bill language, which can make the penalties effective after a certain date or exempt districts from penalties imposed.
The existing draft of this year’s education trailer bill does not include changes for TK penalties.
Impacting students, now and in the future
Downey Unified had 70 early enrollment students spread across about 15 classes.
“We could have pulled these kids out of this classroom, moved them to other schools in our district, but we just didn’t feel that was right,” deputy superintendent Roger Brossmer said. “That was just not something we were willing to put our kids and our families through.”
The impact of maintaining enrollment: about $1 million in possible penalties.
Going Deeper
An audit of this school year can be conducted now that the school year has ended but any fiscal penalties won’t be accessed until after the state education department reviews the audit findings, something that may not occur until the spring semester of the 2024-25 school year.
The district would lose funding from the Local Control Funding Formula in the amount of its penalties —reducing services for students, Brossmer said.
Because the penalty is accessed up to a year later, Downey Unified officials questioned the intent of the penalty, which takes money away from students.
“What is the value of a penalty after the year has already commenced and been funded?” said Robert McEntire, assistant superintendent of business services. “We have served these children, so who benefits from this penalty? This doesn’t help anybody.”
Fiscal penalties for noncompliance are a common practice in education. Violations for LCFF unduplicated pupil counts, K–3 grade span adjustments, instructional time, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and TK can result in penalties following audit findings, according to the state education department.
The penalties ensure “effective accountability,” California Department of Education Communications Director Elizabeth Sanders said.
“Penalizing districts is never our goal,” she said. “The related penalties (for TK requirements) … are to ensure that there’s appropriate and effective support of students. The goal is never to collect a penalty; it’s to support and ensure compliance with what kids need.”
To Downey Unified leaders, the resulting penalties from the 2023 trailer bill legislation punish districts for trying to meet the needs of their families.
As a result, for the 2024-25 school year, Downey Unified will not enroll students with birthdays after June 2.
“There are another potential 70 students out there with birthdays between June 3 and June 30 that we are not going to have in our schools because we are reticent as a result of what’s happened,” Garcia said. “We don’t feel like we’re able to fully serve our community to the best we can because of the experience that we’ve gone through this year. And that’s disappointing.”
The burned remains of the Paradise Elementary school on Nov. 9, 2018, in Paradise. Blocks and blocks of homes and businesses in the Northern California town were destroyed by a wildfire.
Credit: AP/Rich Pedroncelli
Starting next March, California school districts will be required to post a plan on their websites outlining how they will provide instruction to students within 10 school days of an emergency that keeps children from attending classes. They should also make contact with students and families within five days of the emergency. Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the education trailer bill as part of the 2024-25 budget.
The plan must be operative by July 1, 2025.
Local educational agencies — school districts, charter schools and county offices of education — that do not develop an instructional continuity plan as part of their school safety plan will not be eligible to recover lost state attendance funding if schools close or a significant number of students are unable to attend because of an emergency.
In a separate action, the trailer bill also addresses chronic absenteeism by authorizing school districts to provide attendance recovery programs during school breaks, weekends or after school, to allow students to make up for up to 10 days of school missed for any reason. Beginning next July, districts that offer the programs will be able to recover state funds lost when students in the program were previously absent from school.
The legislation comes four years after California schools closed for more than a year because of a worldwide pandemic. Since then, chronic absenteeism rates have more than doubled. Wildfires and flooding also have closed schools across the state with increasing frequency in recent years.
“Given the effects of public health emergencies and the significant and growing number of natural disasters that the state has faced in recent years, there is an increased need for local educational agencies to provide instructional continuity for pupils when conditions make in-person instruction infeasible for all or some pupils,” according to the trailer bill.
The instructional continuity plan must describe how districts will provide in-person or remote instruction to students, including potentially temporarily reassigning them to other school districts. Students who are reassigned during an emergency will not have to comply with any residency requirements for attendance in that district.
Penalties removed
The legislation has changed dramatically since the May budget revision, which would have given districts five days to offer students instruction after an emergency, and penalized them financially if they didn’t.
The revisions are due, in part, to heavy opposition from a coalition of nine education organizations, including the California Teachers Association, California School Boards Association and California County Superintendents.
“There are countless instances where the physical infrastructure and human capacity necessary to comply with this requirement does not exist: roads, landlines, internet connectivity, access to devices, access to shelter, family and staff displacement, etc.,” said California County Superintendents in a May letter to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly budget committees. “When this occurs, a LEA may find it impossible to offer remote instruction.”
Derick Lennox, senior director for governmental relations and legal affairs for the association said, “There was the feeling that the state does not understand the challenges that schools face to locate and serve the basic needs of their students and families during a serious emergency.”
As an alternative, the coalition asked for a proactive planning process without financial penalties, and lawmakers agreed, Lennox said.
El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Ed Manansala said that the proactive, constructive tone of the new legislation is more productive than the punitive tack legislators took in the original version.
Manansala said it isn’t feasible to expect schools to deliver instruction 10 days after schools close in an emergency.
El Dorado County has had at least 70 wildfires of varying sizes between 2004 and 2023, the largest being in August 2021, according to CalFire. It burned 221,835 acres and razed Walt Tyler Elementary School in Grizzly Flats.
“We had teachers and students that were being displaced out of their communities,” Manansala said.
Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools Nicole Glentzer first experienced the extended closure of schools in 2017 when a fire burned 36,000 acres.
Glentzer, who worked at nearby Ukiah Unified School District at the time, had to evacuate her home. She moved into the district office and went to work making decisions about school closures. The district’s schools were closed for five days.
Since then, the county on the state’s north coast has been ravaged by numerous fires, including two of the nation’s largest, which together burned more than 1.41 million acres in multiple counties in 2018 and 2020.
Schools in Mendocino County also have been closed recently because of flooding and power outages.
Glentzer said that while she is satisfied with the revamped language in the legislation, she cringes when she hears that small districts, with small staffs, are expected to come up with plans similar to larger districts. The Mendocino County Office of Education will help the 12 school districts in its county by providing sample plans and templates, she said.
Attendance recovery
State chronic absentee numbers have skyrocketed from 12.1% in 2018-19 to 30% in 2021-22, according to an analysis of California data. Chronic absenteeism rates are determined by the number of students who miss at least 10% of school days in a given year.
Attendance recovery programs like the one required by the new legislation can help districts reduce their chronic absenteeism and regain the average daily attendance funding lost when students miss school. The programs must be taught by credentialed teachers and be aligned to grade-level standards and to each student’s regular instructional program, according to the legislation.
Attendance recovery programs can be funded through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program at school sites where the after-school or summer enrichment programs are being offered and operated by the school district.
“In my mind, it’s a whole theme that the administration and Legislature are going for, around addressing chronic absenteeism — one of the top issues facing students today,” Lennox said. “And, they basically outlined a few different strategies to do it.”
Mark Twain Union is a small rural elementary school district in Calaveras County serving some 700 students.
Credit: Louise Simson / Mark Twain Union Elementary School District
I believe in accountability and performance. My years in the private sector showed me a way of doing business that is accountable for funds spent and services delivered.
But one government accountability measure — the Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) review — is an exercise in compliance that places a disproportionate burden on small school districts and takes desperately needed resources away from our kids. It is set up for large districts that can devote a full-time staff person to manage the process, attend the trainings, and upload the tsunami of documents that are required, but it forces small districts like mine to invest thousands of dollars in consultants and software just to file the paperwork.
The intention of this process is to ensure that a local education agency is meeting statutory program and fiscal requirements for categorical funding — targeted for programs serving low-income and special needs students, among others. These funds can range from thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more based on the size of the district. That’s all good in theory, but in reality, it has turned into a paper-pushing time suck for small school districts.
I recently assumed the helm of an impoverished small school district in the Calaveras foothills after rehabbing facilities in dire need in Mendocino County for another district. In my current district office, there are four staff members, two principals, plus me to serve 700 kids. There are no curriculum or special ed directors, no director of student services and no program managers. An $11 million budget for 700 kids doesn’t go very far with facilities that are 70 years old, and everyone wears multiple hats to make the system go.
When I arrived last July, I learned that we were in the monitoring review. I was grateful that California Department of Education (CDE) representatives who oversee the process agreed to push the review out to this September to allow me time to get situated.
However, the whole exercise needs to be examined through the lens of the resources of a small district. Here’s what we faced:
First, there is a week of webinars in August that district coordinators — or in the case of small districts, superintendents — are supposed to attend. Let’s get real. My first priority in August is getting school open for kids, not sitting in front of a webcam. When I raise this concern, I’m told, “Can’t you have someone else watch them?”
My response: “Who? The two principals, one of whom is brand new, who are getting their school sites ready for the fall term? The person in my office who does purchasing and has curriculum orders flowing in? The personnel assistant coordinating critical hires and also managing payroll, or the executive assistant who is also the food service director? Which person won’t be able to do their job because of a multiday seminar ill-timed for August?
I understand that this is a federal requirement. But I also know CDE has influence over the review requirement process. It is time for CDE to start advocating on behalf of small under-resourced districts with the federal government.
The department should know that the monitoring process for small districts diverts money from their limited, cash-strapped budgets to pay for part-time consultants or expensive software, because no small district office can manage the requirements alone.
Let’s also be realistic about the number of areas of reporting required in the review. I acknowledge my new district is in need of improvement in a couple of important areas. I would be happy to explore those two items. But it is not realistic to expect a district with a small staff to report on a smorgasbord of “indicators” that the review committee has determined require examination.
CDE staff, many of them who are still enjoying the luxury of working at home two or three days a week, need to come out into the field, walk my walk, and start making regulations and reports that reflect the best interest of all involved, not just the accountants and program reviewers.
Here’s how we can improve:
Record and post all FPM audit seminars. Asking district staff to attend a solid week of webinars the week before school opens proves that Sacramento is out of touch with life in the field. (As of mid-July, some session recordings were posted, but it wasn’t an option that was offered when I asked.)
Limit the number of areas of scope for small school districts proportionate to the staff ratio in the district office.
Provide funding directly to districts, not the county office, for a consultant to support the process. CDE has invented another industry with the review process. Just look online and see all the different software and consultants who make money off of assisting districts, taking money away from kids. Instead, just apportion each district $50,000 for the review so that we can staff it appropriately.
Work with school sites on the dates and areas of review before you assign them. Reach out the year in advance and ask for some potential windows for the audit and self-identified areas of reflection. Work as a partner, not as a dictator. A small school district (or any district) notified in May of a September review (which means all documents must be submitted by August), where the program instruments are not ready until July, training is not held until August, and the place you upload documents is not ready until July …is ridiculous. Avoid August-October reviews for small districts — or, if there is no alternative — notify them earlier and have the resources ready to go in a timely manner. Move up the CDE deadlines to make more sense for schools.
The federal review is not intended to be a gotcha exercise. But small, rural districts don’t have the workforce to devote to the process. The bureaucracy of one size fits all is strangling us. It’s time for a change.
•••
Louise Simson is the superintendent of Mark Twain Union Elementary School District and former superintendent of Anderson Valley Unified School District.
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.
