Ask anyone what they know about Compton, California.
Many would bring up tennis legends Venus and Serena Williams, who learned to play on Compton’s public courts, or the election of Douglas Dollarhide, who, in 1969, became the first Black man to serve as a mayor of a metropolitan area in California.
The city shown in these two stories was about hardship, rampant crime, and certainly not about academic achievement.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Compton Unified School district struggled financially also. In 1993, it had incurred $20 million in debt and was taken over by California’s Department of Education.
About two decades later, in 2012, the district was once again on the brink of entering receivership for financial hardship.
Today, Compton’s story is very different, and the school district has been applauded across the state and nation for how far it has come in boosting students’ standardized test scores and performance.
Compton Unified School District, now home to about 20,000 students who attend more than 40 campuses, is among those achieving districts, despite the vast majority of its students being socioeconomically disadvantaged, according to Ed-Data. Nearly 95% of the district’s students are considered “high-need” under the state’s local control funding formula.
“Compton Unified School District’s achievements are truly inspiring,” Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Debra Duardo said in a statement to EdSource. “Their impressive graduation rate, coupled with significant academic growth and a strong focus on college and career readiness … demonstrate a deep commitment to student success.”
Going Deeper
The Associated Press analyzed data from the Education Recovery Scorecard, produced by Harvard’s Tom Kane and Stanford’s Sean Reardon, which uses state test score data to compare districts across states and regions on post-pandemic learning recovery. The AP provided data analysis and reporting for this story.
After the Covid-19 pandemic set students across the country back, Compton Unified has managed to raise its scores significantly in both English language arts and mathematics, according to the Education Recovery Scorecard, released by the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University and The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, and published by the Associated Press.
“The progress we’ve seen in Compton Unified is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the entire educational community — from the students and teachers to the administrators and families,” Duardo added.
The data from the universities’ Education Recovery Scorecard combines state standardized test results with scores from the Nation’s Report Card.
The district’s results in the state’s Smarter Balanced assessments show a similar, positive trend — with the number of students meeting or exceeding English and math standards in 2024 increasing by more than 2 percentage points from the previous year.
Compton Unified remains behind the statewide average on Smarter Balanced assessments in English Language Arts in 2024, nearly 35% of students met or exceeded math standards, in comparison to 30.7% statewide.
And based on the Education Recovery Scorecard, Compton still remains behind state and national averages in both math and reading for third through eighth grade students.
Darin Brawley, Superintendent of Compton Unified Credit: AP Photo/Eric Thayer
Between 2022 and 2024, Compton Unified has seen a steady rise in students’ performance on standardized tests in math, and their reading scores saw a jump post pandemic — an improvement that doesn’t surprise district Superintendent Darin Brawley, who has been leading the district since 2012.
Brawley attributes the district’s growth to ongoing diagnostic assessments in both English language arts and math, allocating resources based on students’ performance and aligning district standards to the state’s dashboard.
According to Brawley, some of the district’s specific methods include:
Having principals write and submit action plans based on the previous year’s Smarter Balanced assessment results by June
Holding superintendent’s data chats every six weeks, so principals can meet and discuss their school’s data as it relates to the state’s dashboard indicators
Having district administrators go through “instructional rounds” and walk through classrooms at various school sites to help campuses learn from each other
Conducting diagnostic assessments at the start of every school year in math and English language arts, and following them up with other benchmark assessments throughout the school year
Having students complete five questions each day, from Monday through Thursday, related to the standards being taught, and evaluating their learning on Friday through a five-question assessment
Having more than 250 tutors in both subjects to work with students in need of additional support
Brawley emphasized the importance of getting students to better understand the type of language that appears on tests, especially in a district with a high percentage of English learners.
“The secret to getting better is using assessments to guide your instruction, to develop your intervention groups, to identify the students that are doing well,” Brawley said. “Don’t be afraid to do what we know works.”
Tough decisions lie ahead for schools across California as the federal government cracks down on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The latest measure came in the form of a letter issued Friday by the U.S. Department of Education, giving K-12 schools across the country two options: to eliminate programs focused on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) within two weeks, or face unspecified cuts in federal funding.
“I fully anticipate that it will have a chilling effect on school districts, but also colleges and universities,” said Royel Johnson, who leads the University of Southern California Race and Equity Center’s National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates.
The Department of Education’s letter isn’t law — nor is it legal, Johnson said.
However, many advocates and community members say they are concerned that more and more districts will gut their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives out of fear and deprive students from marginalized backgrounds of the support they need to succeed in the classroom and beyond.
“We often think about California as being protected from this larger right wing movement,” Johnson said. “But as we saw with changing patterns and demographic votes in the presidential election, I think there are many people in California who are wrestling with this conservative movement and who are afraid of it — and who are proactively or preemptively making decisions.”
‘An underlying disconnect’: The letter
The Department of Education’s letter opens with the words “Dear Colleague,” but the ensuing message takes on a different tone.
“Rather than engaging in that work of acknowledging and affirming educators, what the Trump administration has done thus far is to express hostility and disdain,” said John Rogers, a professor at UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies and associate dean for research/public scholarship.
The letter specifically claims that white and Asian American students, including those from lower income backgrounds, have been discriminated against and that “educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism.’”
Increasing schools’ scores on the Nation’s Report Card has been a justification for some of the administration’s changes, according to Rogers.
But instead of boosting student performance, Rogers maintains that the directive could “throw K-12 schools into further tumult” due to the high fiscal costs of culture wars. Just last year, conflicts surrounding race and LGBTQ+ issues cost schools more than $3 billion nationwide.
“They’re pushing superintendents and those underneath the level of the superintendency to spend time seeking out legal counsel, talking with other educational leaders, trying to figure out, ‘What do we do? What are we doing now that might be considered problematic? Do we need to take action, etc?’” Rogers said.
“All of that time and energy, and to the extent that they’re seeking out costly legal counsel, that has real costs associated with it. It’s pushing people away from the important work of improving student learning and supporting student well-being.”
While Rogers maintained that the letter was hostile in tone, he also described it as vague and confusing — a sentiment shared by many.
Rogers said: “If I was a superintendent, I would want to know: ‘Can my principals bring together a group of Asian American students to talk about whether they’ve experienced anti-Asian hate? Could my district invite African American parents to share their oral histories about growing up in my community as part of African American History Month, or, for that matter, can we even celebrate African American History Month?”
Superintendents, he said, “don’t have enough information — yet they’re being given two weeks to either take dramatic action or not, of which they have really no sense of what that would mean.”
‘Uncharted territory’ for California districts
With new, unclear circumstances on the horizon, more questions than answers are percolating through school districts across California.
Nikki Henry, spokesperson for Fresno Unified School District, said Tuesday that the district and its attorneys are reviewing the letter to understand its impact.
That mindset and approach may put Fresno Unified, which received around $238 million in federal funds this school year, in jeopardy of losing such funding under the new administration.
With nearly 93% of its students identifying as members of minority communities, the district has implemented “strong” diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, Henry said. Their DEI policy ensures that students have equitable access to the district’s programs and services, that the curriculum reflects and celebrates diversity and that there are sufficient academic, social-emotional and behavioral supports.
Further south, administrators in Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest district, have also expressed support for students of all backgrounds — a move that is lauded by Evelyn Aleman, the organizer of Our Voice/Nuestra Voz, a bilingual Facebook group largely made up of parents and advocates.
“In terms of advocating for and supporting the difference between populations that it serves, (LAUSD])really does try to do that, so … I think we’re going to be OK. I think we have a district that gets us.”
In a statement to EdSource, a Los Angeles Unified spokesperson said the district “adheres to all federal and state law and guidance” — and that if there are discrepancies between the two, they would be resolved through the state.
However, last July, Parents Defending Education, a Virginia-based conservative group, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against the Los Angeles Unified School District for its Black Student Achievement Plan.
And some members of LAUSD’s larger community, including United Teachers Los Angeles President Cecily Myart-Cruz, said they fear that this decision could signal how the district might respond to directives from the federal government.
“If I only had to go on that (decision regarding the Black Student Achievement Plan), then I would say I’m concerned,” Myart-Cruz said. “I believe in our students. … I know that UTLA, we’re going to stand right alongside our students and our community. … If we put resources in for our students, then it helps everyone.”
Other districts like Clovis Unified, however, maintain that they will not be impacted, according to spokesperson Kelly Avants.
Based on the way Clovis Unified is interpreting the Education Department’s letter, Avants said affected districts are likely those with hiring practices or scholarships with DEI guidelines or selection criteria based solely on race or gender.
Avants added that all Clovis Unified activities to celebrate different cultures are open to the entire student population.
“We’ve not gone one direction or the other,” Avants said. “We really have tried to be sensitive to our programs being holistic versus centrally focused.”
What’s at stake
Experts and teachers have continually emphasized that diversity, equity and inclusion programs enrich students’ learning and that they also play a critical role in students feeling like they belong.
“DEI provides mechanisms for addressing issues of safety and security for students who sometimes experience physical harm, psychological harm,” Johnson said. “But, if we start removing the very mechanisms that are designed to address these issues, we’re going to see higher reports and students having concerns around their safety at school.”
He added, “If students feel a sense of connectedness and belonging to the school environment, they’re more likely to be retained, they’re more likely to come to school on time and persist toward their goals.”
Several indicators of student success, from student attendance rates to engagement, rise when DEI programs are implemented, he said.
And in the classroom, Aleman from Our Voice/Nuestra Voz, emphasized the importance of learning about the contributions of immigrants from various backgrounds.
“We’re at a stage of global interaction that requires that we understand … the rich history and contributions of immigrants and different populations,” Aleman said. “We are a heterogeneous culture. … and we don’t understand why the administration doesn’t understand that.”
Pushing back
While the Department of Education’s letter focuses on race, civil rights protections — including through diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — support students from various identities based on other factors, including gender, disability and age, according to Amir Whitaker, senior policy counsel of the ACLU of Southern California.
And Johnson said marginalized groups, including those who are LGBTQ+ and first generation, could also be impacted by potential cuts to DEI.
“I hope that school district leaders and leaders of college and universities will not back down from this moment — and lean into the institutional values that have animated their work for years prior to this erroneous sort of guidance that is designed to threat and intimidate,” Johnson said. “If we all roll back and back down at this moment, then our students will suffer.”
Whitaker added that the very policies that the letter cites — like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — were victories that “people fought and died for.”
The Trump administration’s action, he said, is a “a step backwards in this nation’s journey towards equality and justice.”
“If California backs down,” Johnson said, “I wonder also what message that sends to the rest of the country, that this ultra-progressive place is already making concessions and their sort of commitments to do DEI, what that might mean for less progressive places who are figuring out where they fit within this conversation.”
Accountability has been a central plank in California’s — and our nation’s — school reform efforts for over two decades. Over nearly that entire period, California has been criticized (including by me) for being one of the few states that does not include a measure of student achievement growth in our accountability system. The current approach, exemplified in the California School Dashboard, rates schools on their average performance levels on the state’s standardized tests, and on the difference between the school’s average performance this year and last year.
But the state doesn’t have, and has never had, a student-level growth model for test scores. Student-level growth models are important because they do a much better job than the state’s existing measures of capturing school effectiveness at improving student achievement. This is because growth models directly compare students to themselves over time, asking how much individual children are learning each year and how this compares across schools and to established benchmarks for annual learning. The crude difference models the state currently displays in the dashboard could give the wrong idea about school performance, for instance, if there are enrollment changes over time in schools (as there have been since the pandemic).
Growth models can help more fairly identify schools that are often overlooked because they are getting outsize results with underserved student groups. In other words, they send better, more accurate signals to report card users and to the state Department of Education about which schools need support and for which students. Along with Kansas, California has been the last holdout state in adopting a report card that highlights a growth model.
Though the state’s task force on accountability and continuous improvement, on which I served, wrapped up its work and recommended a growth model almost nine years ago, the process of adopting and implementing a growth model has been — to say the least — laborious and drawn-out. Still, I was delighted to see that the California Department of Education (CDE) has finally started providing growth model results in the California School Dashboard! This is a great step forward for the state.
Beyond simply including the results in the dashboard, there are some good things about how the state is reporting these growth model results. The growth model figures present results in a way I think many users will understand (points above typical growth), and results for different student groups can be easily viewed and compared.
There is a clear link to resources to help understand the growth model, too. The state should be commended for its efforts to make the results clear and usable in this way.
It doesn’t take a detailed look at the dashboard to see, however, that there are some important fixes that the State Board of Education should require — and CDE should adopt — as soon as possible. Broadly, I think these fixes fall into two categories: technical fixes about presentation and data availability, and more meaningful fixes about how the growth model results are used.
First, the data are currently buried too deeply for the average user to even find them. As far as I can tell, the growth model results do not appear on the landing page for an individual school. You have to click through using the “view more details” button on some other indicator, and only then can you see the growth model results. The growth model results should, at minimum, be promoted to the front page, even if they are put alongside the other “informational purposes indicator” for science achievement. A downloadable statewide version of the growth model results should also be made available, so that researchers and other interested analysts can examine trends. Especially in light of the long shadow of Covid on California’s students, we need to know which schools could benefit from more support to recover.
Second, the state should prioritize the growth model results in actually creating schools’ dashboard ratings. Right now, the color-coded dashboard rating is based on schools’ status (their average scale score) and change (the difference between this year’s average score and last year’s). It would be much more appropriate to replace the change score with these growth model results.
There are many reasons why a growth model is superior, but the easiest to understand is that the “change” metrics the state currently uses can be affected by compositional changes in the student body (such as which kinds of students are moving into and out of the school). Researchers are unanimous that student-level growth models are superior to these change scores at accurately representing school effectiveness. Even for California’s highly mobile student population, growth models can accommodate student mobility and give “credit” to the schools most responsible for each child’s learning during that academic year.
To be sure, I think there are other ways the dashboard can likely be improved to make it more useful to parents and other interested users. These suggestions have been detailed extensively over the years, including in a recent report that dinged the state for making it difficult to see how children are recovering post-Covid.
The adoption of a growth model is a great sign that the state wishes to improve data transparency and utility for California families. I hope it is just the first in a series of improvements in California’s school accountability systems.
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.
Student para-planners at the Chico State Financial Wellness Clinic provide the campus community with free financial planning and education services overseen by a licensed financial planner.
Credit: Jessica Bartlett / Chico State
There’s a group of students whose fate has largely been forgotten amid the shifting political and policy landscape of higher education. It’s young people from lower-income backgrounds who are taking classes and studying while also working, caring for their families, and struggling to afford housing and basic needs, such as food.
As the shifts continue, institutions and their allies can step up and do more to ensure these students complete their studies and realize the lifelong benefits of graduating with a bachelor’s degree. And they can do so by prioritizing affordability, recognizing that cost is often a major barrier to student success.
Consider the example of Dejanae Wilson, who graduated from California State University, Chico, last year with a bachelor’s degree in social science. While working toward her degree, she was also caring for three younger siblings.
“I had a lot on my plate trying to manage our finances and keep up with my courses,” she said.
To ensure that Dejanae could graduate on schedule and according to plan, she turned to the recently established Financial Wellness Clinic at Chico State. Thanks to consultations with both a student and a faculty adviser at the clinic, she managed the household budget and connected to campus resources (like the Hungry Wildcat Food Pantry), which offered her family crucial support.
“It’s easy to get caught up in the flow of life, your job, and taking care of people — and not realize there are resources on campus that can help,” Dejanae said.
Across California State University’s 23 campuses, administrators, faculty and students are working diligently to support students like Dejanae to complete their studies on time and according to plan. From expanding mentorship, tutoring, and academic advising, to increasing access to financial counseling, to instituting early warning systems to identify and support struggling students, campuses are piloting a range of promising approaches to support student persistence and success. These approaches often build on existing campus policies and programs, making them impactful and achievable.
The Financial Wellness Clinic at Chico State, led by finance professor Jaycob Arbogast in the university’s College of Business and staffed by finance students, is just one example of these practical and effective strategies. This well-organized and structured program, which seamlessly integrates classroom learning with practical experience to support student needs, was recognized for its effectiveness and bestowed the prestigious Catalyst Fund award by the National Association of Higher Education Systems. The awards recognize replicable programs and strategies that California’s public colleges and universities are pursuing to remove cost as a barrier to higher education.
At CSU Channel Islands, another innovative initiative that received Catalyst Fund support has provided additional resources to students who are struggling academically so they can stay on track and reduce the time (and costs) of earning a degree. Launched in spring 2022, the initiative targets students who have nonpassing or incomplete grades and/or other indicators that they are not progressing academically. The program connects these students to faculty and peer mentors and special, cohort-based activities where they bond with other students and develop skills and mindsets that support their persistence and success.
Early results from the program show that participating students’ average GPAs increased, and the percentage of students who graduated or returned for the following semester was higher than that of the general student population. Interestingly, one of the key benefits students point to is how the program builds connections with peers facing similar challenges. As one student said after participating in the program, “You are able to be part of a group that becomes your family, you learn about the experiences of other students, and realize you are not alone.”
Supporting students to persist in their studies can take several forms. At Sonoma State University, students who are the first in their family to go to college are 47% of all undergraduates. As university officials started to see a decline in retention among these “first-gen” students during the Covid pandemic, they developed an early alert system that pings a student and connects them to their adviser and other support when a faculty member reports low test scores or attendance problems. At the end of the program’s pilot year in 2023-24, 97% of first-year, first-gen students enrolled in the program ended in good academic standing and returned the following fall.
What’s happening at Sonoma State and the other CSU campuses is part of a broader commitment to closing the equity gap in higher education across a university system that, despite its uniquely diverse student population, continues to experience racial disparities in degree completion. It was in response to these disparities that CSU set a goal to increase graduation rates between 2015 and 2025. Thanks to Graduation Initiative 2025, the system has nearly doubled its four-year graduation rate for first-year students, and undergraduates are earning their degrees faster than ever before.
Expanding access to a bachelor’s degree and supporting student persistence and success are core functions of the higher education system. In California and across the nation, campuses are showing it’s possible to do better, even in today’s uncertain political and policy environment. All it takes is creativity and a commitment to students who might otherwise struggle to achieve their college dreams.
•••
Dilcie Perezis a deputy vice chancellor and chief student affairs officer for the California State University system. Monica Martinez is program director for college success at the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund.
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.
Despite Congress working through a spending deal to maintain federal grant funding for Head Start over the next six months, staff members at Head Start are starting to fear for the program’s future and the potential impacts on the Bay Area’s preschoolers from disadvantaged backgrounds, the East Bay Times reported.
So far, there aren’t any signs that Head Start will face cuts. But Melanee Cottrill, the executive director of Head Start California told the East Bay Times that “the broad, overarching challenge is all the uncertainty.”
“Even in areas as relatively close-knit and compact as the Bay Area, every program is a little different to meet the needs of the community — whatever those are — in the places where they are,” Cottrill told the Times. “Regardless of what kind of organization you are, losing any chunk of your funding would be a challenge.”
Funding approved on March 14 isn’t enough to help Head Start employees keep up with cost of living increases. And earlier this month, a Head Start program run by the Santa Clara County’s Office of Education had to hand out pink slips.
Meanwhile, in February alone, roughly 3,650 children in Contra Costa County received subsidized preschool.
Contra Costa County’s Employment and Human Services Department director, Marla Stuart, told the Times said several actions taken by the federal government — including threats to reject grants that support Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — have already impacted the program.
She also pointed to Project 2025 and claims that Head Start’s federal office is “fraught with scandal and abuse” and should be cut.
“I don’t take the ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ approach,” said Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia at a board meeting, according to the Times. “We’re not going to know until the end, but if we want to advocate to say, ‘here’s the impact of these cuts,’ no one is stopping me from talking about that.”
Several legal experts, according to the Times, have said that grant money for Head Start isn’t in jeopardy, unless the program is specifically cut.
“I’ve got lists of where possible funding impacts can occur, and I think we have a responsibility to talk about that,” Gioia said, according to the Times. “We’re not creating fear, we’re talking about reality.”
An evening stroll down Cours Mirabeau in Aix-en-Provence in December.
Courtesy: Layla Bakhshandeh
I had never thought about studying abroad until two of my best friends went abroad and told me about their experiences in Spain. The paella. The nightlife. The making of new friends who end up feeling like family. The next day, I signed up to study in France.
The golden ticket landed in my lap midway through the winter quarter of my junior year at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo: I had been accepted into a language and culture program in the south of France for the fall 2023 semester.
Along with my acceptance came a long list of forms and seminars that all the more than 1,000 Cal Poly SLO “Global Mustangs” had to complete. After all these training sessions, I felt equipped to deal with the culture shock I would feel there, and I was as prepared as one can be when I arrived.
What I was not prepared for was the unexpected culture shock that I faced when I returned to the United States. This “reverse culture shock” brought feelings of depression and confusion. I wondered how it was possible to feel so unsettled when returning to California, the place I spent my entire life, especially when my arrival in France didn’t result in any significant feelings of displacement.
Very quickly, the south of France felt like home. Daily routines formed as my French language skills progressed. International friends nestled their way into my heart, and French cheeses riddled my creaky apartment’s mini fridge.
Living in a new culture forced me to reflect on my own identity and experiences. I did miss my family and friends back in California, but that longing for loved ones was overshadowed by the glow of my new life in Aix-en-Provence.
I realized later on that it wasn’t my life that was glowing, it was me.
This inner glow was a result of massive self-growth and self-discovery that opened up for me when I moved across the world alone. In France, I was learning more about who I was and the person I wanted to be. Constant cross-cultural experiences and openness to new ideas brought me a sense of extreme fulfillment.
At times, I felt like I was trying on a new life; but just when it felt right, it began to unravel. My studies abroad were over, and I had to return to California.
The real difficulties unveiled themselves when I returned home and started my winter quarter in San Luis Obispo, and I realized I was experiencing “reverse culture shock,” which the U.S. State Department defines as the psychological, emotional and cultural aspects of reentry. (I first heard the term through a Cal Poly study-abroad training session.)
And that’s how I felt. Confusion, discomfort and depressive feelings fogged my everyday actions. I missed the constant stimulation of my time in France. After growing immensely on a personal level, while I was abroad, I felt unsure of who I was in a town that had not changed at all since I left. My major classes suddenly felt insignificant, and I couldn’t tell if my friends really knew me anymore.
It felt like I was viewing my old life through a new lens, unsure of how to move in my new environment. In rushed feelings of isolation and identity confusion. This, coupled with my heavy course load, made it difficult to even think about my time away.
But burying your memories and experiences only makes it harder to adjust to life back in your home country. I realized I had to force myself to integrate my experiences in France with my life back in California.
Here are some ways I worked through my reverse culture shock:
Journaling: Writing about my time away helped me remember all the core memories and experiences that helped me grow. Putting pen to paper helped me to process all the events I had experienced.
Sharing stories with friends: Telling anecdotes from your travels brings old memories to light. Sharing these stories with friends and loved ones made me feel more understood.
Joining a reentry group or finding friends who are also returning from studying abroad: Connecting with others in the same situation as I made me more comfortable opening up and reflecting on my time abroad. It was also a great way to hear about other people’s experiences with the phenomenon of reverse culture shock.
Taking time to reflect on experiences abroad gives students the opportunity to piece together their time away. It can help students identify the qualities and growth that they experienced abroad, and incorporate these aspects throughout their journey in their home country.
It is easy to fall back into old habits when surrounded by old environments, but reminding myself of the lessons I learned helped bring the glow back.
•••
Layla Bakhshandeh is a senior journalism and graphic communication student at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.
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.
Ending several months of uncertainty, the California State Board of Education on Wednesday chose new labels to describe how students perform on the four levels of achievement on its standardized tests.
The decision was difficult. The 90 minutes of presentations and discussions offered lessons in the subtleties of language and the inferences of words.
Board members said they were aware of the need to send the right messages to many parents, who had criticized the California Department of Education’s previous choices for labeling low test scores as vague euphemisms for bad news.
“Labels matter,” said board member Francisco Escobedo, executive director of the National Center for Urban Transformation at San Diego State. “Knowledge is a continuum, and how we describe students in different levels has a powerful impact.”’
Researchers have warned that parents are getting confusing messages, with inflated grades on courses and declining scores on standardized tests of how well their children are doing in recovering from Covid setbacks in learning. The new labels will apply to scoring levels for the state science assessments and for the Smarter Balanced English language arts and math tests.
Board members quickly agreed on “Advanced” for Level 4 and “Proficient” for Level 3 labels, the top two levels of scores. But their selection of “Developing” for Level 2 and “Minimal” for Level 1 differed from the consensus of parents, students and teachers who had been offered various options during focus groups in December and January.
They had preferred “Basic” for Level 2 and “Below Basic” for Level 1. The terms are clear, simple and familiar, a summary of the discussions said. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) classifies Basic as the lowest of its three levels, and California’s old state tests, which the state abandoned a decade ago to switch to Smarter Balanced, used Basic and Below Basic for scoring criteria as well.
But for some veteran educators on the board, familiarity has bred contempt, or at least bad memories, of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal law under the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Schools were under heavy pressure to increase their math and English language arts scores, or potentially face sanctions.
“I had a visceral reaction to the word Basic,” said board member and veteran teacher Haydee Rodriguez. “I remember NCLB and how finite that felt for students.” The feedback should be encouraging, not a label that discourages growth, as Basic did under NCLB, she said.
She and Kim Patillo Brownson, a parent of two teenagers who served as a policy director at the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization, also pointed out that “basic” has a different connotation for students in 2025. It’s slang for a boring and uninteresting person.
“Calling a student Basic is an absolute insult in 2025,” said Rodriguez. “It could shut a child down.”
Board President Linda Darling-Hammond agreed. “If Basic is being used derogatorily, one can only imagine how Below Basic will be used. It is a real consideration; the meaning is different for adults.”
Board members turned to other words that had been presented to the focus groups. They agreed the choices should be frank, not Pollyannaish or dispiriting.
With Level 2, the purpose should be “trying to light a fire under parents to realize there is work to do,” said Patillo Brownson.
Stating that “Below Basic” says a student is failing, Escobedo preferred “Developing” for Level 1 and “Emerging” for Level 2. These terms are consistent with labels used for scoring the progress of English learners.
Patillo Brownson called Emerging “vague” and supported “Basic.”
Board Vice President Cynthia Glover Woods, who was chief academic officer of the Riverside County Office of Education before her retirement, favored “Minimum” for Level 1 because “it is important we are clear for students and parents that students scoring at the level have a minimal understanding of grade-level knowledge.”
Sharing the perspective of her peers, the student board member on the board, Julia Clauson, a senior at Bella Vista High School in Sacramento, recommended substituting “Approaching” for “Basic,” so as not to deter students from trying challenging courses. “Older students make academic decisions (based on what signals they get), so language matters,” she said.
The County Superintendents association also endorsed “Approaching” for Level 2 and “Developing” or “Emerging” for Level 1.
The board initiated what turned into a multi-month decision because of growing dissatisfaction with the labels that had been used since the first Smarter Balanced testing in 2015. They were Standard Not Met for Level 1, Standard Nearly Met for Level 2, Standard Met for Level 3 and Standard Exceeded for Level 4. Focus groups by the California Department of Education found that parents were confused about what “standard” meant. They found Standard Not Met as discouraging and Standard Nearly Met as unclear.
But a coalition of student advocacy groups, including Teach Plus, Children Now and Innovate Public Schools, along with the County Superintendents association and the Association of California School Administrators, criticized the labels for Levels 1 and 2 that the California Department of Education recommended as their replacements as soft-pedaling euphemisms for poor scorers. The department had proposed Inconsistent for Level 1 and Foundational for Level 2.
At its December meeting, the board told the department to try again with more focus groups.
Changing the labels to Advanced, Proficient, Developing and Minimal won’t change how scores are determined; the individual scores within each achievement band have remained the same in all the 18 member states that take all or some of the Smarter Balanced tests, which are given to students in grades three through eight and once in high school, usually in 11th grade.
However, additional work is needed to communicate the changes to parents and students. The department and its testing contractor, ETS, will spell out the differences between performing at the various levels in each subject and grade and the level of improvement needed to raise scores.
Tony Alpert, executive director of Smarter Balanced, pointed out that performance differences are a continuum with students showing gaps in some grade-level skills but not others. A student scoring at Level 1 may have answered some questions showing knowledge at grade level. As scores progress from Levels 2 to 4, students demonstrate increasing accuracy and complexity in their knowledge and skills.
Students who reach Level 3 have the knowledge to succeed in future coursework. Research has determined that for California high school students, Level 3 correlates with preparation for first-year courses at California State University.
The state board hoped that the label changes and new explanations would be ready for this spring’s testing results. Instead, they will take effect in 2026.
The Local Control Funding Formula must be more responsive to enrollment trends to ensure funds serve the high-needs students for whom they are targeted, rather than filling gaps in the district budget.
Policymakers must create incentives for districts to improve coordination and merging of services for students with multiple needs.
In making adjustments to the formula, policymakers must avoid introducing too many new, disparate factors that can further burden school systems.
California has an opportunity to ensure that its school funding formula fully delivers on its goals to improve student outcomes, especially for those who need the most support. The key to success will be accounting for shifts in enrollment and creating incentives for districts to blend student programs.
The 2013 Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, represented a dramatic shift from a complicated morass of centralized funding requirements that often resulted in large variations in per-pupil funds delivered in and across districts.
Under LCFF, higher overall student outcomes have resulted, thanks to localized decision-making and additional funding to ensure that high-needs students also have the opportunity to succeed in schools. However, progress to close achievement gaps — a central intention of the funding formula — remains slow.
Last year, the California State Assembly held a series of LCFF panels with researchers and educators from across the state. Though divergent views were expressed, multiple experts recommended improving the distribution of supplemental grant funds to the highest-needs students and factoring in geographic cost differences — points underscored by WestEd’s evidence-based review of the funding system.
However, two significant dynamics, which we have frequently seen, received little airtime during the hearing. They may hold clues for further optimizing the use of taxpayer dollars.
First, funding formula updates must meaningfully account for future enrollment declines that could cause changes in the proportions of high-needs students to be served as well as the mix of funding available to school systems.
California’s public schools have lost a substantial number of students, and forecasts project further declines ranging from half a million to nearly 1 million students by 2032-33.
Because many students leaving California public schools — often due to the high cost of living — are English learners, economically disadvantaged and white students, the total and mix of available revenues for school systems is changing, and changing differently by region.
The math is clear: As each student leaves, so does a fraction of the base revenue available to the school system to cover foundational expenses, including teachers, secretaries, utilities and the like. Meanwhile, concentrations of high-needs students, like English learners and students requiring special education services, continue to rise where they are left in greater proportions than their peers, requiring more resources per student to provide equitable opportunities and access.
Reducing expenses for school systems proportional to revenue loss is difficult. School systems often make small, marginal changes that don’t lower expenditures to meet available revenues. This may undercut more meaningful, necessary steps — whole system re-evaluation of resource investments that match student need to the skills and expertise of educators. As a result, resources that should be dedicated to additional supports for students may instead get redirected to support basic school costs. This could leave high-needs students out in the cold instead of achieving the state’s intention to equitably allocate funds.
To avoid this, policymakers must ensure that any future LCFF adjustments include triggers that reconcile the base, supplemental and concentration grants to ensure proper alignment with enrollment and shifts in student need. School systems will also need guidance and support to analyze, design and manage these larger shifts. The formula for special education should be re-evaluated, given that funds are tied to overall student enrollment and not students with individualized education plans (IEPs).
Second, following any further LCFF adjustments, school systems will need policy, regulatory and funding incentives to seamlessly blend student programs like special education and English learner programs where such services are needed for the same multidimensional students.
When supports are smartly combined — such as when English learner development support is integrated into a general education classroom — the result is the simultaneous delivery of good instruction and scaffolding for English learners in all general education classrooms. Directing funding to support one identified student need or a specific program sends a message to local school systems about where to direct resources. However, it can go too far. Unchecked, the system begins to look more like what we set out to get away from in the first place: layers of “categorical” programs funded with money that could only be spent in very restricted ways.
Policymakers must write policy that incentivizes and supports local educators to build programs that work together to address the multiple needs of students simultaneously. This includes reevaluating existing education funding to reduce its complexity, which would then allow local school systems to achieve coherent programs that seamlessly support the needs of the array of students being served on school campuses — from learning and instruction to collaborating with other agencies to provide supports such as food, health care and more.
Panelists at the Assembly hearing also noted the need to account for missing factors like geographic cost and economies of scale. While these factors are meaningful adjustments to account for school systems’ costs, introducing too many new, disparate factors can further burden school systems when they are required to track how each of those funding streams is being used. In fact, the governor just signed a bill to conduct a comprehensive review of the overwhelming amount of district reporting already required. Accountability and transparency are important, but too much will limit school systems’ ability to wisely blend and braid funding sources to construct coherent programs that support a wide range of student needs.
The Local Control Funding Formula has already helped California make significant headway to improve public education. By paying attention to changes in the student population and meaningfully accounting for them in funding and policy, the state will be better poised to deliver on its promise to close achievement gaps.
•••
Jason Willis is with the strategic resource allocation and systems planning team at WestEd, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research, development, and service agency that works to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults.
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.
Anand Giridhadaras is a brilliant thinker and writer. He did all of us a service by seeing a therapist to get advice about how to survive the return of Trump, the Abuser-in-Chief. His blog is called “The Ink,” where this post appeared.
We’ve gotten ourselves into an abusive relationship, and it’s one we can’t escape.
The abuser in question is Donald Trump. And by abuse, we’re not talking about abuse of power, real as that may be. We’re talking about emotional abuse, doled out by a narcissist with an unstoppable need to rebuild the world in his image and to use the most powerful office in human history as a treatment center for his wounded ego.
Whether Trump suffers from a real disorder — malignant or traumatic narcissism has been floated — is a matter of debate among psychiatrists and psychologists. Most professionals have refused to make a diagnosis without a clinical interview (the so-called “Goldwater rule”), though before the 2024 election 225 experts felt Trump presented clear enough signs that they published an open letterwarning of his threat to the nation since, in their estimation, if it quacked like a duck, it was a duck:
Trump exhibits behavior that tracks with the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’s (DSM V) diagnostic criteria for “narcissistic personality disorder,” “antisocial personality disorder,” and “paranoid personality disorder,” all made worse by his intense sadism, which is a symptom of malignant narcissism. This psychological type was first identified by German psychologist Erich Fromm to explain the psychology of history’s most “evil” dictators.
We’ve talked often in the newsletter about the way autocrats can build support even without offering anything to their supporters by way of real material improvements, playing on the same deep emotional needs exploited by abusers within relationships and families.
Earlier this year we also looked back to Erich Fromm’s work to understand how Trump’s cultlike appeal depended on a bond of mutual emotional dependence between abuser and abused and against a threatening world — a bond Fromm called “group narcissism.”
“Even if one is the most miserable, the poorest, the least respected member of a group, there is compensation for one’s miserable condition in feeling ‘I am a part of the most wonderful group in the world. I, who in reality am a worm, become a giant through belonging to the group,”
The situation today is even more complex — and dire — than most expected early in the campaign, as Trump competes for power and attention with fellow narcissists: the oligarchs. And chief among them is the shadow president, Elon Musk, whose sense of his own omnipotence and importance is even stronger than Trump’s, and his vision of the future far more dystopian, and his disregard for humanity even more total.
To better understand the situation facing Americans (and, to be honest, everyone around the world) our Nastaran Tavakoli-Far talked to therapist Daniel Shaw about how we can use the techniques that have helped people survive cults, abusive relationships, and toxic families to face and process and maybe even transcend the second Trump administration.
As someone who’s done a lot of reporting on topics involving narcissists and cults, something that’s really striking to me is that the advice given to the people suffering is to get out, go “no contact,” or have as little contact as possible. If you need to speak to this problematic individual do it via a lawyer, you know that kind of thing of just staying as emotionless as possible and not getting involved.
Now, what I always wonder is, because I think a lot of people when they look at Trump and MAGA, I mean a lot of people have said to me, “This is similar to what happened in my family.” A lot of these dynamics, if you’ve been exposed to narcissism, it’s actually very relatable to a lot of people.
But this isn’t a situation where you can go “no contact” because these are the people in power. You’re in a situation where you actually have to engage with these people. You can’t just leave the cult and try and heal. So what is your advice in this sort of scenario?
Stay sane, stay humane, and don’t isolate, would be the three phrases I would use.
Going “no contact” is sometimes a very good idea, but not always. And it’s also an idea that’s been turned around by abusive narcissists who isolate victims from their own families. You know, it’s the same thing that happens in Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you criticize the community, you are disfellowshipped and nobody, not your children, your spouse, your parents, or anybody is allowed to ever talk to you.
In terms of going “no contact” in a political situation, well, you don’t have that option. What are you going to do if, for example, the government benefits that you’ve paid into the system are suddenly turned off and there’s no more Social Security? Are you just going to say “Well, I’m not going to have anything to do with that bad president who just did that to me?” Or are you going to get involved in whatever way possible to fight against it?
Going “no contact” in this situation could be enabling the perpetrator, enabling the autocrat and I think that’s important to understand. If we’re enabling the autocrat, we’re complicit in the autocrat’s abuse.
So what can we do right now? If I wanted to ask for some practical advice?
One of the things that I’ve taken to heart about the current situation is the advice of Timothy Snyder, the historian who has studied the rise and fall of democracies and autocracies in Eastern Europe. One of the things he says is to not submit in advance.
Now, in the case of traumatizing narcissists, having managed a successful seduction they will begin to then create more dependence and they do that paradoxically through becoming more belligerent and belittling and more humiliating or shaming. What that does is create a state of constant intimidation at the same time increasing the sense of dependence the victim has on the narcissist.
In the current situation, it’s clear that everyone who is an opponent of the Trump administration is meant to feel horrified, shocked, belittled, and intimidated. That is what I believe is important: not to submit to the intention to terrify, intimidate, and make people feel powerless and small. So not to submit to that means that I don’t allow myself to be paralyzed with fear. I don’t allow myself to be boiling with rage, and I don’t isolate myself. I remember and connect to what I love about being in the world, about being a person, what I love about other people, and to the people who love me. Staying connected, not isolating, and not allowing yourself to drown in fear or rage is not submitting in advance.
So that’s my sense of what’s important right now.
You mentioned staying sane and about keeping connections. This time around it seems a lot of people are either kind of checking out or not checking the news every day. A lot of people are saying “I just want to do something positive in my community or be there for my family.” and things like that. What do you think about that? Why aren’t people protesting?
Right. I think everybody got exhausted, those who voted against Trump were exhausted by the amount of energy and effort spent hoping to elect Harris. I do limit my exposure so that I can keep my sanity for the time being. I don’t think that’s wrong and I encourage people who need to do that to do it.
So staying sane and humane, having those connections, and speaking up, speaking to our political representatives and pushing them.
People who care about these issues, who do not want to enable autocracy in this country or in general, exist at every level of society, and each of us has a certain amount of power.
I speak primarily to other psychotherapists but some of my ideas can be useful in thinking about the political, so I try to speak where possible within my community. Each of us has a community, and if we can be vocal within our communities at least we can hope to make an impact, even on one person.
Groups will form that we may want to lend our support to, either financial support or volunteer support. I’m currently supporting Democracy Docket, for example, where Mark Elias has been conducting so many successful lawsuits against a lot of abuses of government. I am not a millionaire elite, so I make small donations on a regular basis. People can do that.
People can volunteer, they can protest and demonstrate. All of these things are happening. They will happen, I believe, to a greater extent.
We may be under the threat of martial law in Trump’s world. We’re under the threat of having the National Guard tear-gas us if we take to the streets. He’s already demonstrated that he will do that and he’s saying he’ll do it again. But to whatever extent possible we need to speak, whatever our community might be, no matter how small. If you hold beliefs about injustice, it’s worth speaking out.
So what, exactly, is a traumatizing narcissist?
The traumatizing narcissist is a person who — for various reasons, based on their developmental history — has developed what starts out as a fantasy of omnipotence.
Did you ever buy a lottery ticket? That’s a fantasy of omnipotence. We all have them. It was said by Freud that we start out as babies with a sense of omnipotence because everybody adores us. And that we have to grow up and lose that sense of omnipotence so that we don’t become narcissists.
A traumatizing narcissist doesn’t lose that infantile omnipotence. They go through some kind of traumatic humiliation growing up, and that leads them to the fantasy that they can be the most powerful person in the world and nobody can hurt them or humiliate them or make them feel small or weak. As that fantasy becomes a delusion, they start to be absolutely convinced of their superiority, of their infinite entitlement, and of their greatness.
Some traumatizing narcissists focus on an individual or a family. There they can exercise their delusion of omnipotence over a small group of people or over just one person. But their delusion can be so powerful that it invites others to join in. Often the delusion makes them charismatic and persuasive. They can become, in some cases, autocratic politicians. In other cases, they can become gurus, or they can become internet influencers. They have so much conviction in their own delusion of their own omnipotence that they persuade others to join.
Could you briefly describe the kind of people who join in? Who get into these kinds of relationships?
When people speak to me about having been in this kind of a relationship, they’re often full of shame and trying to understand what’s wrong with them. What I’ll say is, “Well, you were being vulnerable, which is very human.”
There is nobody who volunteers to be groomed and the traumatizing narcissist grooms people. We don’t volunteer for that. Some people may be more vulnerable to grooming than others but I’ve seen some very together, high-functioning people who got groomed by traumatizing narcissists, it’s not about being weak or unstable as a person. Look at Bernie Madoff, who convinced some of the most wealthy, creative, high-functioning people in the world that they should give him all their money.
I was very inspired when I left the cult I had been part of when I was younger by Erich Fromm’s book Escape from Freedom. He tried to understand what was happening in Germany which led people to believe that Hitler was a savior.
I think in a similar vein, people believe that Donald Trump is a savior, and part of the problem is that they are only being exposed to the information that Donald Trump wants them to have, which is the propaganda that is funded by millions and millions and millions of dollars by fossil fuel oligarchs and digital oligarchs. There is extraordinary support for Trump as the CEO and them as the board of directors of the new world they think they’re creating. It’s frightening because it is like they read Orwell’s 1984 and decided the hero was Big Brother.
I would call these people malignant narcissists rather than traumatizing narcissists because they’re not just narcissistic, they’re also sociopathic and they believe that there is no law that they should have to obey, that they make the laws.
Sorry, when you say these people, do you mean Trump, or do you mean Trump and the tech bros and fossil fuel bros?
The group of elites who support autocrats. The autocrat and the elites that support the autocrat are people who see themselves as a superior race of people, entitled to rule over everyone else. Their solution for poor people is to create a jail system.
One of the major thinkers in the tech world has proposed that poor people be made into biofuel, that the prison system could become a factory for creating biofuel out of human beings. These things sound unbelievable. But they are being said publicly.
Yes, that’s the person. He’s extremely influential over Vice President JD Vance, and Peter Thiel is a big disciple of his, as are quite a few other billionaires in the tech world.
So we have an elite oligarchy in support of an autocrat. But why do people view Donald Trump as a savior?
There are a lot of reasons. But what Erich Fromm said is that people are afraid of freedom. They are uncertain of how to be free. And when they feel that there is a powerful leader, it’s like that becomes a magical person who they can feel safe and protected by. The allure of somebody promising absolute total protection, who seems very strong and very powerful and very certain, that is a very powerful allure.
To be a free person means that you have to provide yourself with a sense of safety and you have to create safety in your community.
As parents, one of our greatest desires is to see our children thrive in every aspect of life. A key ingredient to this success is fostering a genuine love for learning in them. But in a world filled with distractions and pressures, how do we motivate your child to embrace this love for learning? Let’s explore some practical and effective strategies that can help spark and sustain your child’s enthusiasm for learning.
1. Make Learning Fun and Engaging
Children are naturally curious. They love to explore, ask questions, and discover new things. To motivate your child, try to make learning an enjoyable experience. Use games, hands-on activities, and creative projects that align with your child’s interests. For example, if your child loves dinosaurs, incorporate them into reading activities or visit a natural history museum. When learning feels like play, children are more likely to develop a positive attitude toward it.
2.Create a Positive Learning Environment
A supportive and nurturing environment at home can significantly motivate your child’s attitude toward learning. Set up a dedicated space for study, free from distractions, where your child can focus on their tasks. Ensure that this space is well-lit, comfortable, and stocked with all the necessary supplies. A well-organized learning area can help children feel more motivated and less stressed, making learning a more enjoyable experience.
3.Be an Enthusiastic Role Model
Children learn by observing the adults around them. If they see you engaged in reading, exploring new hobbies, or discussing interesting topics, they’re likely to mirror that behavior. To motivate your child, share your excitement about learning something new with them. Discuss books, documentaries, or interesting articles at the dinner table. Your enthusiasm for knowledge will be contagious and inspire your child to develop a similar passion.
4. Encourage Questions and Curiosity
Encourage your child to ask questions and explore their interests. Instead of giving them direct answers, guide them in finding the information themselves. This could involve looking things up together online, visiting the library, or conducting simple experiments at home. When children are actively involved in the learning process, it helps motivate your child to develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
5.Celebrate Effort, Not Just Results
It’s essential to emphasize the importance of effort over achievement. Praise your child for the hard work they put into learning something new, regardless of the outcome. This approach helps motivate your child by making them understand that learning is a process and that mistakes are a natural part of it. Celebrating effort encourages resilience, persistence, and a growth mindset, which are crucial for lifelong learning.
6.Connect Learning to Real Life
Help your child see the relevance of what they’re learning by connecting it to real-life situations. Show them how math is used in cooking, how science explains the world around them, or how history shapes the present. When children see the practical applications of what they’re learning, it’s easier to motivate your child to value and enjoy the process.
Motivating your child to love learning is a gradual process that requires time, patience, and a lot of encouragement. By creating a positive and engaging learning environment, being an enthusiastic role model, and celebrating their efforts, you can help motivate your child to develop a lifelong love for learning. Remember, the goal is not just academic success but fostering a curious, confident, and resilient learner who is excited about discovering the world around them.
