Billionaires are opposed to the wealth tax because it will hurt the ordinary taxpayer!

After you pull yourself off the floor from laughing at this incredible news, take a few moments to read this. They really are arguing this unbelievable story on the No on Prop. 40 web site.

You know that’s not true. I know that’s not true. The real reason the billionaires oppose a wealth tax is because they don’t want to pay 5% of their vast wealth in taxes. Period.

Here’s their pitch.

Below is a screen shot from the No on Prop. 40 web site.

Caught in the public anger over income inequality and the ability of billionaires to avoid taxes, they have adopted a Trumpian version of the truth.

Fact Check:

Is there really a HIDDEN provision that could allow politicians to expand this law to tax ALL Californians? Nope.

The Trumpian version can argue this is true but that’s not what the proposed law says.

The initiative text says:

50310. Legislative Authority.

The Legislature may amend the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, by statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, if the statute is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.

Let’s repeat that last phrase because it precisely states why the campaign claims are Trumpian.

Any future amendments to the statute must be consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.

The legislators can’t just willy nilly decide to change the law. Any amendments have to follow the purpose of the law.

What’s the purpose of the law? That’s easy. It’s written right in the law.

It is a one-time tax on the wealth of billionaires to pull California out of a sudden, acute healthcare crisis created by the federal government.

Want the fine print? Here you go:

Sec. 3. Purpose and Intent.

(a) The purpose of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, referred to herein as the “Act,” is to protect access to high quality, equitable health care, and to support funding for kindergarten through grade fourteen public education and food assistance programs, by raising revenue from a one-time tax on billionaire wealth.

(c) By designating billionaire wealth the source of this critical revenue, the Act confronts the fundamental unfairness that arises because a large percentage of billionaire wealth is never taxed by the State due to billionaires’ unique ability to control the timing, location, and amount of income tax that they pay.

(d) The Act raises funding for health care, education, and food assistance by imposing a narrowly applicable, one-time tax that is administratively feasible and efficient to enforce against all billionaires in the State.

(e) The Act is intended to treat similarly situated taxpayers and assets similarly, except to the extent that sound tax policy requires otherwise.

There is no provision that allows nefarious legislators to expand the Billionaire tax to everyone and tax your pensions and retirement accounts. Baloney.

Trumpian version of the truth

Using the applicable legal definition and the smell test, this is the tried and true Trumpian version of the truth.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose Prop. 40, you should be outraged that this type of political hype continues.

Leave a comment

Share

Lately I have been feeling anxious, suffering a loss of domestic tranquility. I have nightmares that my rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness have disappeared.

More specifically, just this week I had night sweats after learning of :

• Obstruction of the Administration of Justice*,

• Standing Armies without our Consent*

• Cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world*

• Depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.*

• Exciting domestic insurrections amongst us.*

• Imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.*

• Sending hither swarms of Officers to harass our people.*

The latest incident has taken me over the top: ignoring the advice of medical professionals and threatening the health and welfare of children with your recommendations on vaccines.

I am submitting my prescription order to refill:

• Justice **

• Domestic Tranquility, **

• the General Welfare, **

• Blessings of Liberty **

• A pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.*

You can send this postage pre-paid to my home address or to my neighborhood pharmacy.

I understand this may take at least three days .

Please don’t make me wait.

Yours truly,

Carol

Source Notes:

* Declaration of Independence

** US Constitution

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

California’s budget for public education is strongly influenced by economic conditions, including the fortunes of the stock market. In January, Ed100 summarized those conditions and the process ahead for the governor’s 2026-27 education budget proposal. So what happened?

This post explains where the money goes, what has changed from prior years, and why it matters.

In the enacted budget for 2026-27, a massive increase in state revenue – generated by the boom in artificial intelligence stocks – boosted funding for TK-12 schools to a record $151.4 billion. That’s a big number, about $2 billion higher than the governor proposed in January.

In the Ed100 blog
Funding squeeze: Why California school funding isn’t keeping up with rising costs

Even so, many districts remain in a funding squeeze as expenses have grown faster than revenues. Some education advocates argue that the budget fails to deliver funds that are guaranteed under state law. The California Teachers Association contends that the budget violates the state constitution by delaying payment to school districts.

Education victory lap for Governor Newsom

For the Newsom administration, this education budget can be seen as a victory lap — assuming the stock market holds. It tops off nearly seven years of growth despite significant structural challenges that squeeze investment and divert funds from the classroom. Education investments have moved California from near the bottom in the nation in funding to above average.

California has also expanded special education, community schools,before- and after-school programs, summer learning, teacher support, dual enrollment, bilingual education, universal school meals, and arts education.

California’s students face many challenges. The share of students who are English learners is nearly twice the national average. The rate of child poverty is the fourth highest in the nation and well above the national average. Under Newsom’s watch, academic performance has recovered somewhat better than in other states, but California still lags the national average:

Share

Historic investments

Special Education:

For years, California schools have struggled to meet the needs of children with disabilities. The federal government has been part of the challenge — it routinely fails to deliver on its funding commitments for special education.

In the Ed100 blog
Special education costs flood school budgets

In the 2026-27 budget, California stepped up to this challenge with a $2.4 billion increase in special education funding — a 43% nominal increase from the 2025 Budget Act. Under the 2026-27 budget, school districts and county offices of education will receive special education funding at the same rate, and the state will increase the per-student rate to $1,340. This will help fill the federal gap.

“I’ve heard directly from parents across California: their kids need more, and they deserve better. These actions answer that call. Today, we are making record investments in special education, to build a stronger system that gives every child the opportunity to succeed and leaves California’s schools better than we found them.”
—Governor Gavin Newsom

Community schools:

As explained in Ed100 Lesson 5.7, community schools expand the role of school sites bringing in services and expertise from community partners.

Ed100 Lesson 5.7
Community Schools

Examples include health services, tutoring, counseling, case management, or other supports to address local needs. Research has found that community schools can improve academic outcomes for historically underserved students. Building on those findings, the 2026-27 Budget Act provides $1 billion in ongoing funding. It expands the model to 3,700 additional school sites that have large concentrations of students from low-income families, English learners, and youth in foster care.

Literacy:

In the Ed100 blog:
How parents changed reading instruction in California

The budget makes a significant investment of $350 million for literacy coaches and reading specialists to help students become stronger readers.

Another $40 million is committed to universal screening for reading difficulties for K-2 students. This will help teachers identify struggling readers so they can support them more effectively.

Quick budget explainer

Each year, California’s state constitution requires the state budget to set aside money specifically for TK-14 education (that is, grades TK-12 and public community colleges). The protected funds, known as the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, come to about 40% of the General Fund of the state budget. (See Ed100 Lesson 8.4.)

Most of the money in the Prop. 98 education budget goes to school districts through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), explained in Ed100 Lesson 8.5. This money pays for operating costslike salaries for educators, administrators, and counselors in virtually all California public schools. Costs for transportation and building maintenance fall in this category, too.

To protect ongoing programs like public education from being eroded by inflation, each year the state calculates a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) based on economic data. In the 2026-27 budget, the statutory COLA was 2.87%. The legislature allocated additional discretionary funds to create what has been called a “super COLA” of 4.31%. This additional funding is expected to cover the cost of a new (and unrelated) requirement: Beginning January 1, 2027, TK-14 local educational agencies must provide all employees with up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave.

Even with these investments, the Proposition 98 budget for next year is slightly lower than in past years on an inflation-adjusted basis:

The budget also includes restricted money that must be spent on specific educational programs. These include, for example, American Indian programs, Child Nutrition, Foster Youth, Special Education and arts education.

Want even more nitty-gritty details? Revel in the entire education budget. (See page EDU-24 for the totals.)

A note of caution

Budgets are built on predictions. Will Californians actually earn income and pay taxes at the levels the state Department of Finance has predicted in the budget?

“The budget is overextended… at highs last seen at the peak of the dot-com bubble” —LAO

No one knows for certain. The state Department of Finance tracks key indicators monthly, relying on information like incoming taxes.

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), a nonpartisan agency independent from the Department of Finance, warns that the three years ahead could be rough sledding:

“The state’s current fiscal situation is genuinely unprecedented. Despite booming revenues, the budget position is overextended, reflecting: a structurally higher spending base, diminished reserves, an already accumulated wall of debt, and an operating deficit. Meanwhile, a revenue shock could be coming, as the state’s revenue outlook rests disproportionately on AI‑driven equity valuations that are trading at highs last seen at the peak of the dot‑com bubble.”
— California Legislative Analyst

Specific education investments

How does California pay for schools?

As explained in Ed100 Lesson 8.3, funding for public K-12 education in California comes from three main sources: state income taxes, local property taxes, and the federal budget, in that order. The portion from each source has varied over time.

State income taxes that go toward education are strongly influenced by the economy, the stock market, and the terms of Proposition 98. Property taxes that go toward education (and which are included in calculation of the Prop. 98 guarantee) were more or less set in stone by voters who passed Proposition 13 in 1978.

The schematic below, produced each year as part of the state budget process, helps make an important point: education is a one of the state government’s largest responsibilities. We pay taxes so that kids can learn.

This article is from

Ed100, a free web resource to help you understand California education.

Jeff Camp contributed to this post.

Share A write to an education

Leave a comment

Well, it depends

Every year several lists tout the “best” high schools in California. Be wary when you look at these rankings. It’s good to ask a basic question: the best at what?

• The best at getting students into elite colleges?

• The best at educating kids who are poor?

• The best at educating kids with special needs?

• The best at educating kids whose parents went to college?

• The best at preparing kids in the arts?

• The best for kids with athletic aspirations?

• The best at educating students for a specific vocation?

• The best at spending money effectively?

Students from affluent, educated families begin school with a head start and fewer distractions. They learn to read earlier. They learn numbers earlier. They attend preschool and learn the norms of school earlier.

There are thousands of high schools in California. If a high school enrolls many students with these advantages, it will tend to score well on tests even if its teachers are unremarkable or the learning environment is uninspiring. It’s not so much that the school is great, necessarily, if all it needs to do is serve as an effective filter. Can or should a school or district be considered the “best” if it starts with these advantages and merely maintains its lead?

Another way to consider greatness in a school is to consider context. When schools score well in exclusive neighborhoods with lots of advantages, well, that’s expected. By contrast, when schools score well in ordinary neighborhoods, that’s Hollywood.

The California Department of Education doesn’t rank schools, but it recognizes hundreds of them as distinguished schoolsbased on state tests.

GreatSchools is useful for comparing schools

GreatSchools, a national nonprofit organization, rates schools on several ten-point scales, but stops short of ranking them. If you are looking to make a decision that involves a choice of schools, this is an excellent place to start.

Several organizations DO rank California high schools including US News & World Report, Niche, Money, Inc., Public School Review, and the SF Chronicle (behind a paywall).

The five best public high schools in California, according to three sources (2026)

Subscribe now

Share

Clearly, the authors of these lists have different filters. What do the lists have in common?

• Selective: On all of the lists, the top schools have selective admission.

• Academic theme: Many of them have a curricular emphasis such as math and science, or the arts.

• Asian students: In many of these schools, the student body is primarily Asian.

• Wealth: Some of the top schools serve relatively affluent communities. All of the schools served fewer students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged than the state average of 63.6%.

• Attendance: Many of the top schools have excellent attendance rates.

School funding and rankings

Schools in wealthy areas feature strongly in these lists. Some of these school communities are so rich that their basic school funding from local property taxes is higher than the state’s guaranteed funding level.

For example, Money, Inc. features two schools on its top-five list from Palo Alto Unified School District: Palo Alto High School and Gunn High. This district in the high-income Silicon Valley area receives only basic funding from the state under the Local Control Funding Formula, but it has excellent funding through local property taxes, and it raises even more. Overall, it spends about twice as much per student as the average school district gets from the state.

School attendance and rankings

In virtually all of the schools on these lists, students show up to school at rates much higher than typical schools. The chronic absence rate in the state is 19.4%. Half of these top schools have chronic absence rates below 10%. The research is clear: students who show up for school do better academically.

Does your school defy the odds?

As the lists above suggest, privilege and excellence are related in schools. In 2026, a set of research reports, Getting Down to Facts III, compared the typical academic achievement of wealthier students with lower-income students. The findings provide insight into why it’s important to recognize the success of schools with larger numbers of low income students. Their academic success defies the odds and reflects the hard work of these school communities. According to the report:

Wealthy communities: Higher test scores. “ Students in districts at the 90th percentile of socioeconomic status score, on average, 2.7 grade levels higher in math and 2.5 grade levels higher in reading than those in districts at the 10th percentile. These large disparities result from the vastly different sets of educational opportunities available to children growing up in families and communities with different levels of economics.

Opportunity gap evident in early grades. “The study shows that the disparity between high- and low-SES districts is already large by third grade. This suggests that some of the forces that shape patterns and trends in educational opportunity operate relatively early in children’s lives and schooling careers.”

Academic Growth Disparity. “The test scores of economically advantaged, Asian, and White students in California have grown, on average, faster than those of economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and Black students. In addition, the test scores of female students have declined more since 2019 than boys’ scores.”

A school is not “bad” because its students start out from behind. The corollary: a school is not the “best” just because its students start out ahead.

What is success in a school?

Rankings of top schools have a certain appeal. They name winners. They crown a school as best. They also imply, intentionally or not, that if a school is not ranked well on their list, the school is not so good.

But we can see just from looking at samples from these three “best” lists that there really is not a number one school. These lists disagree even about the top five. And they leave out schools with other measures of success. If there is one takeaway, it is that there are many, many ways to look at success.

So what should you do the next time someone talks about how well a school is ranked? First, congratulate the students, teachers and parents. It takes a lot of effort to achieve academic excellence, and endless ways to blow it. But then take it a step further. Use it as an opportunity to discuss the many ways of measuring success, what these lists reveal and what they miss.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

This article is from Ed100, a free web resource to help you understand California’s education system. Subscribe below;

Schools and national identity

Each July 4, we celebrate America’s audacious declaration of independence from the British crown. In picnics, rallies, and parades, we ritually confirm the symbols of our national identity, only sometimes pausing to appreciate how that identity has evolved and broadened beyond its origin story.

What does it mean to be American?

America remembers itself on this day as a great nation with an inspiring and expanding vision. We are one, woven from many — a nation of immigrants and underdogs from the get-go. What unites us is not allegiance to a crown or creed, but to democratic principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence— worth re-reading in today’s context.

Universal public education was not mentioned in our founding documents, but it plays an essential role in America’s unity and vitality. Education is a tremendous investment, and one of the major functions of government. It’s a big part of what we pay taxes for. Day by day, school by school, teacher by teacher, we invest in the future of each and every young person. With each generation, we have built a thriving democratic republic, striving toward a more perfect union that includes and supports everyone.

The great question now is whether this consensus can be sustained. Political forces threaten to undermine public education and the civic values embedded in it.

Excluding and Including

As we explore in Ed100 Lesson 1.3, America’s economy has grown as both a cause and effect of making public education universal. Over the long term, the education system has gradually challenged habits of exclusion so that public schools increasingly serve all children.

In the Ed100 blog
Should teaching about July 4 be banned?

We have made great progress since the days when public school systems could exclude girls, or discriminate by race. In today’s America, all kids must attend school no matter who their parents are or their documentation status. Public schools today include children learning English and children struggling with learning disabilities. Every day, schools serve children who are hungry, in foster care, who have no clear place to call home, or who are otherwise at risk.

There is still plenty of work to be done. For example, today about a tenth of teens in middle school and high school identify as LGBTQ+, rising to about a fifth of young people their twenties. Our society currently lacks unity about how schools should support their path to adulthood, but access to public education is clearly part of that path.

Unity through education

In the Ed100 blog
January 6 vs. July 4

Collectively, America has bet big on educating its children. Over time, the bet has paid off handsomely, though unequally, in the form of national prosperity.

And it’s not just an American idea, either. The benefits of a public education system that includes everyone are so great that essentially all the major countries of the world have decided to commit big sums to it. Check out the summary report of education across the OECD, and similar reports for China and Japan.

America’s bet on public education is at risk

In the Ed100 blog
Trump plan slashes education

Our nation seems so intent on inventing new ways to divide itself politically that the national consensus for support of public education can no longer be taken for granted. The Trump administration has already redirected some funds for the work of education to religious institutions and private schools through tax policies, and has inflicted deep cuts on federal programs that support our schools and our children.

• Those most harmed: Our most needy children, English learners, and children with disabilities.

• Those most favored: Students from wealthy families who attend private and religious schools.

Public education plays a crucial role in society by educating children to become responsible participants in our democracy. This unifying function is precious, and we shouldn’t take it for granted.

Especially in a fast-changing, uncertain world, the wealth of nations is found in its teachers and students. Let’s be united on their side.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I don’t know about you but I am fed up with the federal government trying to dictate what kids can and cannot read. Where do they get off cleansing history so that our children will only be taught what certain people think.

We don’t live in a City where history is learned only from the perspective of White Christian nationalists. Luckily, we live with diverse perspectives and open discussion.

With that in mind, I think we should all send a letter to President Trump asking that he turn off Fox news and spend a few minutes a day reading from a San Francisco suggested summer reading list.

So here goes:

Dear President Trump,

I am so glad you to hear of your interest in what our children should read. Here is a suggested summer reading list from the San francisco public library to bring you into the real world.

Elementary School

“A Banquet for Cecilia

How Cecilia Chiang Revolutionized Chinese Food in America

Leung, Julie,

Follow Cecilia Chiang’s journey from her childhood in Beijing to opening her own SF restaurant showcasing regional flavors and authentic Chinese cuisine. “

“Frizzy

Ortega, Claribel A.,

Why does everyone want Marlene to straighten her naturally curly hair? She really doesn’t want to do it anymore and asks for help from her friends and family.”

“Merci Suarez Changes Gears

Medina, Meg

Sixth-grader Merci Suárez navigates life as a scholarship student at an expensive private school, while also dealing with her grandfather’s failing memory, in this 2019 Newbery Award medal winner.”

Middle School

“As You Wish

Jones, Nashae,

Getting your wishes granted is never quite as simple as it seems--especially when a West African trickster god gets involved!”

“Danilo Was Here

Burgess, Tamika,

After his apartment in Panama is bombed by the U.S. army, Danilo is not sure he wants to go play Little League in the U.S., even if it’s an opportunity to track down his missing dad.”

High School

“Ban This!

How One School Fought Two Book Bans and Won (and How You Can Too)

Ellis, Christina,

The story of how a group of students fought back against a book ban at a Pennsylvania school, with advice for others to speak out about censorship in their communities.”

“Call Me Iggy

Aguirre, Jorge Augusto,

In this graphic novel, Latine high schoolers struggle with cultural identity, racism, immigration challenges and truly terrible love advice from the older generation.”

Hope you enjoy this. If you finish these, here is where you can get some more great books. Summer Stride 2026

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Best,

Carol

Here is the plot. The state budget is tight. Legislators are bombarded with pleas to protect pet projects. There is no easy solution.

What does the hero do?

Right answer: Protect our children and our future.

Here is the background.

California voters wrote Proposition 98 into the state Constitution in 1988 to do one thing: guarantee that public school funding could never be traded away during a tough budget year. This year, that guarantee is being treated as optional — again.

To help balance the budget, the Governor proposes withholding $3.9 billion from California’s public schools.

That’s a bucket load of money: About $643 less per student. What will our schools be forced to cut? Counselors? Nurses? Librarians. Time for teacher preparation?

The clock is running. A decision is due by June 15.

Luckily, there is just enough time for you to say, “Stop this! Fund our schools!”

Quick. Send a message to the Governor and your legislators. Just click the blue box below.

From my kids to your kids: Thank you!

Leave a comment

Share

• Abduction of children.

• Arrests of parents without due process

• Election interference

• Cuts to food for young children

• Elimination of resources for public education.

• Threats to children and families at school and in their homes.

Through statewide advocacy, the PTA has taken the gloves off.  Enough is enough.

Historic advocacy for children and Families.

Speaking up for children is nothing new. The PTA stood up for the rights of children more than a century ago when it campaigned for child labor laws, for public education for all children, for vaccinations for all children, regardless of background.

Immigration enforcement near schools

PTA members throughout California now have clear guidelines on protecting the rights of immigrants. They also have an important PTA declaration supporting the constitution and Bill of Rights.

The recent CA PTA annual convention featured workshops on state and federal advocacy to reinforce the PTA commitment to protect children and families.

Proposed laws to protect children and families 

In the California legislature, the PTA has drawn a clear line that supports the rights of children and families.

Let’s take a look at the legislation the PTA supports:

Make sure federal agents don’t get away with blatant violations of constitutional rights.

SB 747 (Weiner) ensures that all Californians have an effective remedy when their constitutional rights are violated and that no officer—federal, state, or local—is above the law.

Rein in politicians who use their power to target citizens for disagreeing with them. 

AB 1538 (Krell) makes it unlawful for any elected or appointed official, under color of authority, to retaliate, or exert political retribution against any person for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Protect election integrity

SB 1164  (Cervantes) prohibits a political subdivision or state agency from implementing, imposing, or enforcing any election policy or practice that results in, is likely to result in, or is motivated by the intent to result in, voter suppression.

Say No to efforts of ICE agents to willy-nilly enter our schools, child care facilities and voting places

AB 2230 (Avila Farias) expands the crime of a uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel being stationed in the immediate vicinity of a polling place without written authorization to include an officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency. It also prohibits an employee of a licensed child daycare facility from allowing an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement to enter a nonpublic area without being presented with a valid judicial warrant or judicial subpoena or a court.

Translate election information

SB 1360 (Cervantes) increases language access services and translated election-related materials for voters. 

Failure to respond to these threats would be an abrogation of PTAs  historic purpose: to secure adequate laws for the care and  protection of children and families.

Next time you see a mom or dad volunteering in your local school, thank them for standing up for our children and our future.

Just in case you want to lend your support, you can join a PTA right here. 

It’s Teacher Appreciation Week

Until a few years ago, a majority of parents in the US indicated that they would like their children to become public school teachers. That’s not true anymore. According to a long-term poll by PDK, in 2022, the figure was down to 37%.

More than flowers

America observes Teacher Appreciation Week each year in the first full week of May. Thank you notes and presents are wonderful, of course, but gestures aren’t enough. Over a period of generations, the teaching profession has become less attractive relative to other jobs. This post unpacks some of the reasons why this has happened, what might change it, and what parents and students can do about it.

Few high school students dream of becoming teachers. Can you blame them? It’s a hard job, it requires years of college preparation, the pay isn’t great, and the job feels insecure for new teachers. In a 2023 study, McKinsey found that teachers in the US are leaving the profession in favor of other career choices, but it isn’t really true that teachers are quitting in droves — turnover rates as of 2024 are basically normal — but there’s certainly a lot of negative energy. In 2026 many teachers in California felt sufficiently unsupported to threaten coordinated strikes.

Teacher compensation

Money is certainly part of the problem. In many parts of the country, teacher wages have not even kept pace with inflation. A big pay gaphas developed between how much college graduates earn if they become teachers versus if they choose another profession. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) calls this gap the Teaching Penalty. The gap is big, and it’s growing.

According to the NEA report, the average teacher’s starting salary is less than a living wage. Salaries aren’t the whole picture, of course. Teachers tend to have pretty good health plans through their employers, which counts when you need it. In California, those who work a full career as teachers also have the promise of a strong pension in retirement, a subject we unpack in Ed100 Lesson 8.11. Still, these benefits haven’t offset the growing wage penalty.

Nationally, EPI reports, “The teacher total compensation penalty in 2024 was 17.1% (a 26.9% wage penalty offset by a 9.7% benefits advantage)”. California’s figures are better than those in most other states, according to NEA, but the average teacher in this state still starts their career with less than a living wage. Aides and other education support personnel (ESP) earn far less than credentialed teachers.

What would it take to pay teachers well?

Pay isn’t the only thing that matters to a talented person making a career choice, but it does matter. College debt doesn’t just go away on its own, and rent can be gut-wrenching. About 60% of teachers borrow to attend college, and more than a third of all teachers currently owe some or all of their student loan balance.

Teachers in California are paid more than teachers in other states, but context counts. As we explore in Ed100 lesson 8.2, the cost of living in California is much higher than in other states, and it varies within the state.

Over time, market forces affect employment choices. Low average pay for teachers affects the reputation of the profession, which further damages its appeal. This is an issue that threatens the future of the United States as a whole.

Based on global research by the OECD, the selectivity of the teaching profession varies from country to country and from place to place. In the countries with the world’s best education systems, teachers live well and enjoy public respect. In the US, by contrast, teachers make a little over half as much as graduates in other lines of work.

It’s a vicious circle, and a national problem.

Funding for public education is an effort problem

America’s public schools have a complex history. The US Constitution makes no mention of education — the tradition of free public education as a universal right emerged gradually and locally. Each state constitution has its own provisions, and most implementation decisions are local. Most funding for public education comes from state funds, with the federal governmentproviding a relatively small, routine portion.

States vary significantly in the dollars that they invest in public education. The differences are largely driven by cost of living, but they also reflect varying levels of economic effort. In 2024, spending on public K-12 education accounted for about 3.4% of the economy in the average state, a big decline from a decade earlier, when the national average effort was 4.0%. California has historically been a low-effort state, but other states have decreased their spending effort.

Subscribe now

The Shanker Institute has consistently advocated for state education systems to be evaluated in context.

Districts in high-poverty states like Mississippi face enormous challenges to fund high-quality schools. California, by contrast, is a higher-wealth state. It could afford to spend more on public education, but doesn’t. It’s a political choice. Although Mississippi schools have lower absolute funding, they fund schools at a level that represents relatively high economic effort. Context matters. Exceptional educational results in Mississippi partly reflect a statewide commitment to economic effort in support of schools.

In order to boost funding effort and support equitable access to education across the states, the Shanker Institute has suggested the creation of federal matching funds. The proposal would provide additional federal funding to help states and local school districts reach a national level of adequate funding in context. To be eligible for this additional money, states would be required to spend a reasonable fair share of their economy on educating children.

Meanwhile

Short of a reinvention of federal funding for education, Linda Darling Hammond, Stanford Professor and long-time President of the California Board of Education, has suggested some targeted ideas to increase teacher salaries.

• Give teachers a significant refundable tax credit to work in high-needs schools and in early education. Other teachers could receive tax credits based on how many students from low income homes attend their schools.

• The federal government could offer matching grants for National Board certified teachers to work in high-needs schools. Right now, California offers $5,000 annually.

Let’s appreciate California’s K-12 educators

We live in a state where voters have generally supported teachers. The collective voice of teachers is relatively powerful here. Thanks to initiatives, state funding for public education has held up better than it might have otherwise.

Still, unfortunate circumstances have created a funding squeeze for school districts. They can’t print money. To find more money for education, schools need public support.

This Teacher Appreciation Week, please say “thank you” to teachers personally. But also remember teachers when you go to the ballot box.

Leave a comment

This blog is from Ed100.

• Should SFUSD require one semester of ethnic studies as suggested by the State and adopted by most other school districts or one year as required by SFUSD?

• Should ethnic studies be based on a theory of “oppressed vs oppressor” or should it be taught to encourage more divergent perspectives?

Here is the background:

Ethnic studies grew out of a movement in the 1960s based on the premise that public schools were not teaching about the cultures of marginalized students. Black, Asian, Native American and Latino students were left out. It was Eurocentric.

All of this was true. But it isn’t true anymore.

California has stepped up to remedy these past education inequities. In fact, California schools now have strict marching orders to ensure all students feel included.

Unlike other states that have reduced access to diverse instruction under political pressure, California has doubled down to ensure that history and social science curriculum accurately portrays the cultural and racial diversity of our society.

California’s Education Code requires that instruction in social sciences in public schools must reflect the diversity of the state. Not only does state education law require this, the California content standards, which describe what must be taught at each grade level, very specifically include multiethnic learning in history-social science, English and the arts.

In 2021, California developed a model ethnic studies curriculum “to encourage cultural understanding of how different groups have struggled and worked together, highlighting core ethnic studies concepts such as equality and equity, justice, race. ethnicity, Indigeneity, etc.” However, there is no state mandate that high school students take a course in ethnic studies.

San Francisco Unified school district was an early adopter of ethnic studies, starting way before other districts. A controversial home grown curriculum was discarded due to parent complaints about teaching ideology and replaced this past year with an off-the-shelf curriculum.

What’s the big deal?

Below are contrasting views summarized by ED100.org of how ethnic studies should be taught:

Share

Both sides of the ethnic studies controversy are in full mobilization mode getting ready for the April 28th school board meeting.

One semester or One Year Course?

• The United Educators of San Francisco supports a year-long course. Link to their mobilization toolkit.

• The Neighbors for a Better San Francisco takes an opposite view in a petition: “Prioritize Core Academics and Fiscal Responsibility in SFUSD. San Francisco students deserve a rigorous, well-rounded education. SFUSD’s two-semester Ethnic Studies graduation requirement restricts student choice, diverts millions in local funds during a budget crisis, and prioritizes a local mandate over core instruction.”

  Voices curriculum and ethnic studies theory of oppression

  There are divergent views on the ideology in the Voices curriculum. Voices is an improvement over the original SFUSD homegrown curriculum. The SFUSD Ethic Studies Curriculum Committee report reflects the important disagreement over the extent of “oppressed vs oppressor” ideology in Voices.

  School Board Vote on Ethnic Studies?

  On the San Francisco school board Tuesday, April 28 agenda is a simple question. But…it’s not so simple.

  The school board agenda calls for the approval of a new history/social studies curriculum. But its formal recommended action lacks any reference to ethnic studies. Period!

  My bet: This will be challenged.

  Leave a comment

  Share

The District’s latest assessment of how well SFUSD is reducing chronic absences makes me see RED…..lots of it. RED is the color we use for stop signs. Red is the color on emergency vehicles. And in the world of education, red is the color schools use to indicate something is not working.

SFUSD Chronic Absences

State-wide Chronic Absences

Red warnings on chronic absences have been frantically waving at SFUSD for way too long. Below is the official 2025 report on how well SFUSD is doing. That long vertical red column below under the heading “Chronic Absenteeism says that in nearly every student group SFUSD is flunking.

Are you starting to see RED?

Let’s see…if students are not attending school, they won’t be able to do well in meeting their math and literacy goals.

Look again at the table above. Move your eye from the long red chronic absence indicator on the left to the red tables on the right that show how well kids are doing in English and math. RED. RED. RED for lots of kids who are chronically absent.

It’s not as though there is a highly confidential list of which groups of kids and schools are struggling. It’s publicly available to anyone who cares to check. Here is the link for schools.

And for those who want the latest data, it shows that things are getting worse, not better. The chart below shows the trend of SFUSD’s increased chronic absences.

SO WHAT’S THE PLAN?

I won’t put words in the district’s mouth. Here is an exact quote from SFUSD:

“SFUSD’s chronic absenteeism rate increased from 2023-24 to 2024-25, from 23% to 24%, missing the 20% target….The loss of progress followed an significant drop in the preceding year, from 26% to 23%, and likely resulted from a substantial reduction in staff and resources devoted to improving attendance. The resources have not been restored for the current school year.

That’s not a plan. That’s waving a white flag of surrender and giving up.

Confused by this approach? I called it ‘puzzling’ just to gain your attention. But what would you call it?

In the 2024–25 school year, SFUSD students lost an estimated 4.4 million hours of learning, resulting in over $60 million in lost state funding due to student absences. In California, school funding is based on attendance. If a student does not show up, the district loses money.

If San Francisco could cut the chronic absence rate in half, it could be about $30 million ahead. That’s not small change for a district struggling to balance its budget.

We must not give up on these kids and these schools.

Share

Share A write to an education

Leave a comment

California’s voter initiatives: Power to the people

For more than a century, California’s state constitution has empowered citizens to bypass the formal legislative process through initiatives. With enough valid signatures, California voters can directly place measures on the ballot to change or create laws, and even change the constitution itself.

The initiative process was enshrined in the California Constitution in 1911 under then-governor Hiram Johnson.

Some of the most significant laws affecting education were passed this way.

Key voter initiatives that shaped California’s education system.

• Prop 13 (1978) Shifted the main source of education funding from local property taxes to statewide personal income taxes. Ed100 Lesson 8.4

• Prop 4 (1979) Unintentionally undermined state collection of data from schools and districts. Ed100 Lesson 7.3

• Prop 98 (1988) Established a minimum guaranteed level of funding for public education in the state budget. (About 40 per cent of revenues from the state general fund.) Ed100 Lesson 8.4

• Prop 39 (2000) Reduced the threshold to pass a local school bond from two-thirds of voters to 55% of voters. Ed100 Lesson 5.9

• Prop 49 (2002) Provides funding for after school programs. Ed100 Lesson 4.7

• Prop 58 (2016) Allows languages other than English in public educational instruction. With this initiative, the voters of 2016 overturned the voters of 1998, who in Prop 227 (1998) had required instruction in English only. Ed100 Lesson 6.3

• Prop 55 (2016) Provides funding for K-14 education with taxes on California highest incomes, extending Prop 30 (2012). Ed100 Blog

• Prop 28 (2022) Provides dedicated funding for arts education. Ed100 Lesson 6.8 Department of Education

In election years, initiative frenzy hits its high point in the spring. That’s because an initiative must gather enough signatures to be qualified by the Secretary of State on the 131st day before a statewide general election. Ed100 Lesson 7.6 Ballot initiatives and education

Count backward from November and you can see why so many paid signature gatherers are smiling sweetly and asking you to sign a petition. The Secretary of State provides suggested deadlines to qualify for the November ballot.

Getting on the ballot is not easy and it’s not cheap. Below is the average cost of statewide initiatives in California in 2024 as well as the cost per required signature (CPRS) according to data from Ballotpedia:

In 2024, how much did it cost to gather enough signatures to get an initiative on the ballot?

Total average signature costs $8,463,664

Average cost per registered signature $15.08

The number of required signatures is based on the turnout at the last Governor’s election. In 2026, the number needed is 546,651 for a new law (5 per cent of the last vote) and 874,641 for a Constitutional Amendment (8 per cent of the last vote).

Each year, many proposals begin the trek to the ballot. Most of them have a snowball’s chance of getting through the process.

Subscribe now

Share

Many battles over taxes

There are many initiative proposals in the works in 2026. It’s possible that this year could be another milestone in the history of how California’s voters shaped the state’s education system.

In true Ed100 fashion, we take a look at three significant issues (across four proposed initiatives) that matter for education and give you some perspective on them.

As of this writing, three of these measures haven’t yet been assigned numbers. If approved, the others will be assigned a number — even if the number has been used in prior years. (For example, there have been many Proposition 13s over the years — the one that matters to most people is Proposition 13 of 1978.)

In this post, we look at three important issues:

1. Should California make permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high-income Californians?

2. Should California fund private and religious schools?

3. How easy or hard should it be to pass a tax initiative?

1 Sustain funding for public education

One proposition is certain to make the ballot: a measure to extend existing taxes for education that voters put in place in 2012 and renewed in 2016. A coalition of major education-related organizations and unions will work to ensure that the public understands the stakes, with active help from the California Teachers Association (CTA).

Click image to view a multi-page presentation about the initiative.

Official key facts and resources

Title: Initiative Constitutional Amendment “Provides permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending existing tax on high incomes.”

Summary from Attorney General Title and summary

Fiscal Impact Read background from the California Legislative Analyst.

Full Text Read full text of the proposed initiative.

Signatures required 874,641

Ed100 summary

In years when the economy is strong and the stock market is growing, the top 2 percent of California taxpayers pay about half of all state income taxes, which are the largest revenue source for public education in the state. As with the existing policy, most of the education-related money in this initiative goes to K-12 schools and community colleges. Following the pattern of Proposition 98, about 89% of anticipated revenue will go to K-12 schools. Local school boards decide how the revenues are spent, but may not use them to pay for administrative costs.

Ed100 bottom line

If this measure fails, it will blow a big hole in every public school’s budget, triggering cuts to schools, children’s healthcare, and other essential services. School districts throughout the state are already struggling to meet students’ needs for a variety of reasons, including chronic absences, the high costs of special education and health benefits, and the high cost of living in California. Making this tax ongoing, rather than temporary, reflects consistent needs of schools. The loss of an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion in annual revenue would be devastating to students and educators.

Learn more:

Ten ways to improve school attendance

The funding squeeze behind California’s teacher strikes

2 Redirect funds to private and religious schools

Public education in California is funded by taxes. A small percentage of families, at their own expense, forgo public education and enroll their child at a religious school or other private school. This measure would amend the state constitution, redirecting public tax revenue to pay for private education.

Click to view website promoting the initiative

Official key facts and resources

Title: Initiative Constitutional Amendment and statute “Requires state provide annual payments to students attending religious and other private schools.”

Summary from Attorney General Title and summary

Fiscal Impact Read background from the California Legislative Analyst.

Full Text Read full text of the proposed initiative.

Signatures required 874,641

Ed100 summary

According to the summary by the state Attorney General, the proposed initiative “requires the state to deposit yearly voucher payments ($17,000 initially, adjusted annually) into Education Savings Accounts for California residents in grades TK-12 attending religious and other private schools anywhere in the United States.”

The sponsors of the initiative object to the use of the word “voucher” in the description of their proposed program. California voters have soundly rejected past proposals to fund religious and private education using voucher mechanisms, and the sponsors do not use that term in describing their measure. Under the proposal, deposits would come from General Fund and property tax revenues that currently fund public schools.

Among the significant provisions of the proposal, it “eliminates constitutional prohibition on state funding of religious and other private schools”, “prohibits state regulation of private school curriculum”, and “prohibits building, safety, or health standards for home schools that are stricter than standards applied to homes or similar businesses.”

The office of the state non-partisan Legislative Analyst (LAO) estimates that the proposal would lead to “increased costs, likely ranging from several billion dollars to more than $10 billion per year, primarily driven by payments for students enrolled in private schools (or homeschooling). The state could pay for these costs using revenues it currently spends on public schools or other state programs.”

Additionally, the LAO estimates that the proposal would lead to reductions in state funding because some would leave public schools. “This reduction could range from a few billion dollars to more than $16 billion per year and is separate from any reduction the state might make to pay for its own costs. Public schools would likely respond by spending less on staff, supplies, services, and other activities.”

Ed100 bottom line:

This proposed initiative presents its core idea as “Education Savings Accounts” for students. In practice, it is similar to religious and private school voucher programs that California voters have rejected twice before: Prop. 174 (1993) and Prop. 38 (2000). Another ballot attempt in 2022 was withdrawn. Rebranding the proposal and tweaking the payment mechanisms doesn’t change the core impact: it would subsidize religious and private schools, redirecting tax revenue away from public education.

There are better policy options to provide families with expanded school choices.

Learn more:

Ed100 blog: Vouchers: A Dangerous Choice?
Ed100 blog: Religion and Public Schools
The Century Foundation: A Backdoor School Voucher Scheme

How easy – or hard – should it be to raise taxes?

There will probably be two dueling choices on the 2026 ballot

California’s constitution blends representative democracy(elected officials propose and pass measures) with direct democracy (voters propose and pass them). Under California’s constitution, voters have broad constitutional power to place measures on ballots — including the state ballot. In 2021, the state Supreme Court ruled that such citizen initiatives can pass with a majority vote.

This is an important change in understanding. According to a summary from Justicia (emphasis and links added):

“Proposition 13 and Proposition 218 require that any special tax adopted by a local government entity take effect only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. The court of appeal has recently interpreted these constitutional provisions ‘as coexisting with, not displacing, the people’s power to enact initiatives by majority vote’ and held that a measure placed on the ballot as a local citizens’ initiative requires a majority, not a supermajority, vote to pass.”

A ballot fight over this issue could have a big impact on local funding of schools as well as for other local services provided by cities and other local authorities. Voters might be faced with at least two conflicting measures on the November ballot, one sponsored by anti-tax groups and the other referred to voters by the legislature.

Let’s take a look at what’s brewing. (Read Ed100 blog California Supreme Court grants a wish to school communities for a full analysis.)

3A Let a majority raise the bar to 2/3

Click image to view website promoting the initiative

Official key facts and resources

Title Initiative Constitutional Amendment “Limits ability of voters to raise revenues for local government services.”

Summary from Attorney General Title and Summary

Fiscal Impact Read background from the California Legislative Analyst.

Full Text Read full text of the proposed initiative.

Signatures required 874,641

Ed100 summary

This proposed initiative aims to eliminate or constrain the capacity for communities to fund schools and other local agencies through direct democracy. Under this measure, a majority would not suffice:

“Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the vote approval threshold requirement for such ballot measures from a simple majority (over 50%) to two-thirds.”

According to the LAO, passage of this initiative would result in lost revenues to local governments totaling up to a couple of billion dollars annually, predominantly affecting certain charter cities. “Potential future reduction in what local governments would otherwise collect in revenues due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes and fewer types of taxes that local governments can adopt.”

Ed100 bottom line:

This initiative would make it significantly harder for communities to fund local services through voter-approved taxation. It is a contradictory standard for a majority vote to suffice for creating a requirement that requires a supermajority.

Read on for another alternative, ACA 13 (2026), that aims to resolve the contradiction.

3B Only a supermajority can require a supermajority

Click to view website

Official key facts and resources

ACA 13 (2026) Assembly Constitutional Amendment

Requires an initiative constitutional amendment to comply with any increased voter approval threshold that it seeks to impose on future ballot measures. Guarantees in the state constitution the ability of local governments to submit advisory questions to voters.

Legislative analysis Read the Assembly Floor Analysis

Fiscal Impact Read the Assembly Floor Analysis

Full Text Read full text of the proposed initiative.

Signatures required None. The legislature has already placed this measure on the ballot. It will require a majority to pass.

Ed100 Summary

In anticipation of an initiative like the one described above, the California legislature has crafted an alternative and qualified it for the ballot for November, 2026.

The measure provides that “an initiative measure that includes one or more provisions that would amend the Constitution to increase the voter approval requirement can be approved by the voters only if the proportion of votes cast in favor of the initiative measure is equal to or greater than the highest voter approval requirement that the initiative measure would impose.”

A measure can set a higher bar — if it can pass it.

That is, a measure can’t set a bar higher than it can pass. Want to set the pass requirement to 55%? You need a vote of at least 55% to set the bar. Want to set it to two-thirds, like Proposition 13 (1978)? You need at least two-thirds of voters to agree to it. Historical note: In 1978, Proposition 13 passed with almost ⅔ of the vote.

The measure applies only to voter approval thresholds, not other legislation: “This applies only to initiatives that seek to make it more difficult for voters to take action by approving a ballot measure. It does not affect the vote requirement for initiative constitutional amendments that seek only to make it harder for a governmental body to approve an action by increasing the vote by which that body must approve an action.”

The Ed100 bottom line:

There’s an inherent unfairness in a system that sets a different rule for future voters than today’s voters can muster. ACA 13 protects the democratic process at the state level and in local communities by setting the bars consistently. It ensures that a simple majority of voters cannot disenfranchise future voters.

What happens next?

California’s initiative system gives voters unusual power — not just to choose leaders, but to write the rules that shape schools and taxes. That power comes with tradeoffs. Initiatives can solve problems that lawmakers avoid, but they can also lock in decisions that are hard to change.

As the 2026 ballot takes shape, the stakes are real. The outcomes will influence funding, priorities, and opportunities for students across California. Understanding the choices is the first step toward making them wisely.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

San Francisco’s dramatic about face on offering algebra in the 8th grade was not serendipity.

It was the result of outrage in the parent community. And the quick thoughtful response by Supt. Maria Su.

Here is what happened.

In March, the San Francisco school district– with much fanfare—announced it would bring back algebra to the 8th grade. Cheers, shrieks of joy, a mariachi band dancing through the streets. Not even close.

Parents read the fine print and were pissed. Instead of respecting the will of the people and offering algebra instead of 8th grade math for qualified students, SFUSD took a different route.

The school district proposal: Backed by extensive research by Stanford, high achieving students must take both 8th grade math AND algebra in the 8th grade.

Here is the visual of how the math sequence would work:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UXLzO44Pq7OOj7ErzOUnFND-aDGmrykv/view

Way to go!

Yes. Technically, it was offering algebra in the 8th grade. But it tied the proposal into such a convoluted process that parents immediately started an opposition campaign.

Instead of allowing qualified 8th graders to take algebra instead of 8th grade math, the proposal required students to take two math classes in grade 8 –exactly what the community voted AGAINST in 2024.

And there was troubling uncertainty as to whether students who wanted to take language classes or the arts as an elective would have that choice.

The San Francisco district PTA and SF Parents started extensive outreach, urging parents to share their thoughts with the school district. Activist groups throughout the City chimed in.

( In 2014, in the name of equity, SFUSD stopped requiring algebra for all in the 8th grade. A decade later, the community voted to offer algebra in the 8th grade for qualified students. The March 2026 proposal was the district’s formal response.)

Drum roll please. San Francisco Superintendent Maria Su reacted sensibly and carefully to heed the will of the community and adjusted the policy to reflect parent concerns.

On March 24, the school board voted 4 to 3 to bring algebra back and let high achieving qualified 8th graders take this course without doubling up on math.

Here is how it works.

• At most middle and K-8 schools, Algebra I will be offered as Expanded Math, where eligible students will be automatically enrolled in both Math 8 and Algebra I. Students who do not meet the criteria for automatic enrollment can choose to take Algebra I as an elective.

• Families can request to opt out of Math 8 and take Algebra I as their sole math class, if they meet additional academic eligibility criteria. This requires a meeting with the school counselor and formal written consent from parents or guardians.

• SFUSD will pilot Braided Compression at two schools (Alice Fong Yu K-8 School and Hoover Middle School), where students take an accelerated pathway covering Math 6-8 and Algebra I over three years. All students at compression school sites will be enrolled in a compression math course in sixth, seventh and eighth grades.

The four school board members supporting the proposal heard the message loud and clear. Equity includes being equitable to everyone, including students who are ready for more challenging math courses. The others: No so much.

Leave a comment

Share

High schools should lead voter registration efforts

Each generation has a duty to prepare young people for their responsibilities as adults. Through universal education, students learn to read and calculate. They learn about science and history. Public education also has a vital civic purpose: preparing each student to participate in society.

California High School Voter Education Weeks: April 13-24, 2026

Voting is the basic act of participation in a democracy. Votes determine how schools are funded, how public safety is maintained, and how governments at every level respond to issues that shape the future. The future is at stake. All voices should be heard, including the voices of teens. Registering each teen to vote should be routine and normal, not the exception. In California, registration can happen anytime after a student’s 16th birthday… but it rarely does.

Compared to other states, California has a weak record of youth voter participation. The numbers are dreadful. If this surprises you, you aren’t alone.

High schools prepare future voters. They are the natural place to make voter registration a normal part of becoming an adult. This post explains specific steps you can take in your community to help address low youth voter participation. It also explores some policy changes that could help.

Let’s start with the big picture.

Other states do better than California at registering young people to vote

Most California students graduate high school without registering to vote. Despite California’s reputation as a civic-minded state, less than half of 18-year-olds in the state are registered to vote. According to research by CIRCLE at Tufts University, many states do better at engaging young voters:

These states show that it’s possible to dramatically increase youth voter registration rates. The Civics Center, an organization that focuses on democratic participation, evaluated each state’s policies for voters up to age 29. The takeaway: while good policies for registration and voting matter, the biggest obstacle to voting is inaction. Voting for the first time can feel intimidating. Minnesota, which has among the nation’s highest youth participation rates in elections, overcomes inaction through a statewide constellation of organizations that work with individuals directly.

California counties have varied levels of success when it comes to registering young voters. Even the best counties fall far short:

Subscribe now

Policy changes could help lift these low rates, and we’ll review some options in a moment. But before we go there, let’s stay with the big finding: voter registration is a one-by-one process. Systems that boost youth voter participation have to engage each new voter directly. One effective approach is to meet students where they are — in high school.

How to run a registration drive for new voters

The Civics Center, a California-based non-partisan organization, is on a mission to make voter registration part of every high school, in partnership with the California State PTA. The key to success for a registration drive is for students to run it, but PTAs, educators, and advocates can provide support to help make it happen.

You don’t have to start from scratch. Here are some of the resourcesthe Civics Center provides to help you build a voter registration drive in your school community:

Students who want to run voter registration drives get free online training with sessions available throughout the school year. Democracy-in-a-Box gives you the materials you need to get started. More information here.

Put this logo on your school and PTA websites, linked to registertovote.ca.gov.

PTA leaders and school staffcan get free training from The Civics Center for their roles as advisors and supporters, including the option of conversations with experts. A toolkit provides an overview of California voter registration laws. Run a Drive Workshops include a checklist of the tasks for students to manage, with worksheets to help keep track of laws, deadlines, and your to-do list when organizing. The California Secretary of State explains the state rules for a voter registration drive.

Advocates who want to raise awareness and get support from school district officials receive customized letter templates to spread the word to students, teachers, school principals, and school district officials. There is a sample school district resolution to encourage administrators and board members to set explicit voter education policy. More information here.

Outreach materials. Check the Civics Center’s substantial library of useful graphics.

Schools develop citizens. Counties register voters. Alas, the process runs through DMVs.

High schools run processes that routinely involve each student. They check attendance. They issue school IDs, report cards and diplomas. Yet, when it comes to ensuring that each California student registers to vote schools haven’t played the central role. Why? Because the system focuses on drivers, not on citizenship.

California created the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in 1915. Then, as now, the department served as an important revenue sourceby collecting fees on registration of vehicles and issuance of licenses.

In the past, it was common for Californians to get their driver’s license as teens. To promote responsible driving, many high schools routinely offered a driver’s education course as an elective. In 1990, federal funding for driver’s education was discontinued, contributing to the decline in teen driving.

The DMV’s role in elections grew out of county registrars’ need to authenticate voters effectively and efficiently. Proof of age and identity are central requirements for voting, and also for obtaining a driver’s license or Real ID card. These verification responsibilities have been centralized in the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as an outgrowth of motor voter laws. In many states, a government-issued ID (in practice, usually a driver’s license) is required as a condition to vote.

In California, the paperwork required to prove residency and identity for the purpose of voting is somewhat less restrictive than that for driving, but in practice the DMV has become the primary gateway to voting.

As fewer teens became drivers, fewer became voters.

The logistical connection between driving and voting has always been a barrier to youth participation in elections. For a licence, you have to make an appointment with the DMV or wait in line. You need to get there in person with the right paperwork in hand, accompanied by a parent. Even just to register for a state-recognized REAL ID involves a bit of hassle and costs some money. Getting a driver’s license involves multiple steps including a vision test, written test, road test, fees, proof of insurance, access to a car, and a Social Security Number.

The minimum driving age in the state starts with a learning permit as early as age 15 1⁄2. Over time, fewer teens are driving, so many choose to put off getting a license or state ID. If you need to board a flight or appear at a courthouse, you need a REAL ID or driver’s license, but not until you turn 18.

To be clear: It is easiest to vote in California if you have a driver’s license or REAL ID, but as of 2026 it’s possible to vote without one. At no cost, you can cast a provisional ballot in person by presenting essentially the same documents you would need for a REAL ID, including your name, address and signature. Provisional votes are verified before they are counted, a process that can take time.

States vary significantly in their ID rules for voting. As of this writing in March, 2026, it appears that California voters might be asked to weigh in on a ballot initiative about whether to change the state’s rules for voting in person.

Register at 16 to vote at 18. No car required.

The DMV is the wrong gateway to civic adulthood

The systems that transition young people into life as voters aren’t working. Writing for the Civics Center, Laura Brill points out that “our current registration systems miss high school students in the millions, year after year.”

Should this surprise us? Does anyone really love a visit to the DMV? Somehow, the formal transition to civic adulthood has become mixed up with joyless paperwork at the desk of an unfamiliar bureaucrat.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Pre-registering to vote could be a celebrated milestone in high schools, where students already learn about civics and government.

Notice the word could in the previous sentence. Unfortunately, few schools are in the habit of getting students to pre-register to vote.

The chart below, from the 2024 annual report of the California Secretary of State, shows the low level of pre-registrations among 16 and 17-year-olds in the state.

Share

How bad is it? In 2024 the combined volume of pre-registrations for 16- and 17-year-olds in the state amounted to about 123,000 individuals — a rate of about 12%. Even among those 16- and 17-year-olds who do get their driver’s license, about 40% opt out of registering as voters in the process.

Relying on driving as the trigger to register to vote isn’t working.

Ideas for reform: Time for a task force

Focus on humans, not cars

The onramp to formal civic adulthood needs to be redesigned with humans at the center, not cars. Youth civic disengagement is bad for democracy, and should be seen as a crisis. Suppose a state task force were charged with developing ideas for reform — here are a few themes such a group might consider:

• Reduce costs for students to pre-register. For example, waive the REAL ID registration fees for students who pre-register before their 18th birthday.

• Reduce practical barriers. For example, create “mobile DMV” capabilities to hold REAL ID registration events at high schools. Alternatively, create a process to authorize high schools or school districts to issue REAL IDs, like DMVs do, in compliance with federal law.

• Involve high schools in the process. California already requires high school students to take a course in U.S. government. It’s a graduation requirement. The class covers the basics of voting, but strangely omits the practical act of registering. Make it part of the class.

• Increase transparency and accountability. For example, add pre-registration data and benchmarks to the California School Dashboard for counties and state Assembly districts. At present, this public data is not made public, though there is said to be a way to request it through the office of the Secretary of State.

• Celebrate success. For example, provide state recognition for high schools with the highest rates of student voter registration. Within districts, recognize high schools with the highest rates of voter pre-registration. Conduct a “sweet 16” campaign to reward high schools that achieve high pre-registration rates among students before their 17th birthday.

How to build youth civic knowledge and engagement

Elections aren’t the end goal. Think bigger.

Reforms like the ones suggested here will take time to be enacted. Meanwhile, teen participation in elections is a measurable part of a larger goal: building a continuous pipeline of informed, participating citizens. What is your high school doing to promote civic learning?

• Are students participating in Mock Elections?

• Has the school applied for the Civic Learning Award?

• Is it participating in the State Seal of Civic Engagementprogram?

• Are students volunteering to be poll workers?

Many students in California have an interest in leadership. Two inspiring student-run organizations worth knowing about include GENup and CASC. Both offer summer leadership programs.

In the context of elections, one notable program from GENup is its toolkit for a School Board Town Hall, where students invite school board candidates to speak to students to answer their questions and learn their priorities. Another is its toolkit for establishing student board members in your school district, which is easier than you might imagine.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

This article is from Ed100, a free web site to help you understand the education system.

Questions & Comments

The San Francisco school district just released its latest proposal on how to provide algebra in the 8th grade. Backed by fancy research from Stanford, the school district unveiled a plan that offers exactly the opposite of what voters want.

That mumbling you hear in the diverse households throughout the City is not “Eureka”. Simply translated, the reaction of many parents is “Are you ef…ing kidding me?”

The school district’s latest foray into the math wars is the result of a voter revolt in 2024.

For more than a decade, San Francisco REFUSED to offer algebra in the 8th grade. REFUSED. The rationale: Offering courses designed to meet the needs of high achieving students was not equitable.

By 2024, San Francisco voters had had enough. They overwhelmingly voted that San Francisco schools must offer algebra! Among the arguments in the ballot book:

“we want all of San Francisco’s 8th graders to have access to algebra, just like the vast majority of 8th graders in the Bay Area - without having to take two math classes at the same time or being forced into summer school”.

Ignoring the mandate of the voters, the school district went on its merry way and created pilot studies to determine next steps. They brought in the crack Sanford research team to give the research gravitas. Here are the main two questions they researched:

1. Do kids who are behind in math do well if put into an algebra class?

2. Do kids who get intensive math instruction do better in math?

I submit you don’t need to be a fancy researcher to answer these simple questions. Ignoring the obvious answers, the researchers subjected kids to these math experiments.

The answer, please:

Kids who are not prepared in math do not do well in algebra. Students who get lots of math time do better in math. All hail the findings.

Based on this evidence: The school district is suggesting students do exactly the opposite of what the voters demanded.

SFUSD proposal: Students who want to take algebra in the 8th grade must take two math courses at the same time: 8th grade math and algebra.

What happened to that third alternative that folks voted for: allow students to take one math course (algebra) the 8th grade? Oh goodness. The district and the crack researchers failed to do a comprehensive pilot study on this obvious issue.

It’s not over until it’s over.

On Tuesday, March 24, the School Board will consider the Board Policy on Math Placement and its commitment to offering Algebra in the 8th grade.

You can send comments to the school board here: boardoffice@sfusd.edu

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Teacher strikes throughout California are a scary symptom of an education funding system that has not kept pace with the real costs of providing a quality education for every child. Trimming a budget is one thing — slashing programs to pay for salary increases and other rising costs is quite another.

This is a complex problem. Solving it will require guts and creativity. This post unpacks the elements of the challenge to examine them individually, then reviews some of the possible options.

The overall news is rough. Increases in California education funding are not keeping up with the combined rising costs of special education, pensions, health benefits, liability insurance, and teacher compensation.

California’s proposed budget for 2026-27 calls for a small cost of living adjustment (COLA) of just 2.41%. This isn’t a random number — it’s based on a measure of inflation that is established in law and consistently applied — but it’s lower than the familiar Consumer Price Index and out of step with the growth of housing costs in California. Teacher unions and school districts will struggle to reach local agreements in this context.

Teacher strikes

The California Teachers Association has organized a campaign across 32 school districts to demand changes under the slogan We Can’t Wait. It calls on school districts to improve educator pay and address staffing shortages. In many districts, unions are threatening to strike.

The campaign is disrupting school communities intentionally in an effort to raise the profile of these issues. Unfortunately, the campaign cannot achieve its real objectives. Districts don’t have the power to address the root issue at stake: money.

Neither the educators nor the districts are the bad guys.

California school districts don’t control how much money they get from the state, and they can’t control how much money they get from local property taxes. Short term wins on the picket line might lead to local teacher raises, but at the expense of something else. The wins are zero-sum. They may even add risk to school district financial stability in the long term.

Strikes are costly. School districts lose funding when students are absent. Larger districts may lose millions of dollars a day, putting their ability to make payroll at risk. Strikes involve additional costs for districts, unions, and families alike.

These dollars don’t come from a magic well — they are diverted from classrooms and from the work of improving student success.

Why school funding is low

1. High cost of living

Just like everyone else, teachers pay for housing, transportation, food, and child care.

California school funding per student is about average compared to other states, but the cost of living isn’t. As we explain in Ed100 lesson 8.2, money is only good for what it can buy. The Public Policy Institute of California reports that, when differences in labor costs across states are accounted for, California funding per student ranks 31st in the nation. Not the best, not the worst — somewhere between.

2. Special education

Each public school is obligated to educate all of its students, including those who need extra help. Both federal and state laws enforce this obligation. Unfortunately, the federal government has never come close to meeting its financial expectations. State funding has increased but not enough, leaving districts to fill in the gap. The charts below show the dramatic increase.

The bottom line: to pay for the costs of special education, districts have to use money from their general funds, reducing funding for all the other children. This also means there is less money for teacher raises.

The chart above compares 2018-19, and there’s little reason to believe that the problem has gotten better, according to this EdSource report in 2026. The governor’s budget proposal for 2026-27 calls for $6.016 billion in state funding for special education. Perhaps that sounds like a lot, but that amount wouldn’t have filled the gap ten years ago, and it certainly won’t come close now.

While the number of students in California is declining, the proportion of students who are identified as needing special education services is increasing, particularly among students who require higher levels of support.

3. The high cost of pensions

Once upon a time, California’s pension system for teacherswas largely funded by teachers and their employers, with steady investment gains in the state’s rock-solid pension fund, CalSTRS. At the turn of the millennium, the system seemed so secure that lawmakers judged it to be overfunded. The dot-com boom would go on forever, right? Confident that the good times would roll on, California lawmakers voted almost unanimously to change the system, taking in less and paying out more. It was a disaster.

For more than a decade, the amounts paid into the pension system didn’t keep up with rising costs. To paraphrase Cory Koedel, who wrote an influential analysis of the situation, the pension fund worked like a credit card account. Teachers and school districts made minimum payments, but didn’t pay the full bill. As time went by, shortfalls expanded into a debt spiral.

In 2014, the state legislature finally committed to a long-term recovery plan. It rescued the system for future retirees, but at a withering cost to current and future school budgets.

As shown in the chart above, payments into the pension system (contributions) come from current teachers (about 10% of their salaries), school districts (about 20% of teacher salaries), and the state (about 10% of salaries). It’s become a huge diversion of funds away from today’s schools, teachers, and other needs of the state. In San Francisco, for example, the shortfall led to a strike in 2026.

Learn a lot more about California’s teacher pension system in Ed100 Lesson 3.11.

4. Health care costs

Good health insurance has long been a traditional part of compensation for teachers and their families. As the costs of health care have skyrocketed, teachers and school systems have felt the pinch.

According to Shelly Ehrke, a member of Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association, “Ever-increasing insurance premiums are siphoning billions of public education dollars away from our schools.”

The National Council on Teacher Quality echoed this conclusion in a 2024 report: “the skyrocketing price of health insurance means that this coverage comes at an increasing cost for both teachers and school districts. Since 2018, the average monthly premium that teachers pay for health insurance has increased at a faster pace than the rate of their average salary increase.”

5. Absences

With few exceptions, funding for California schools is based on attendance. When students show up for school, funding flows. When they don’t, it doesn’t. Immigration enforcement raids have made this a scary time for school districts that serve immigrant populations. When families don’t feel safe, they stay away.

As an example of the financial impact of absences, in the 2024–25 school year alone, San Francisco Unified School District students lost an estimated 4.4 million hours of learning and SFUSD lost over $60 million in funding for teachers and staff due to student absence.

6. Declining enrollment

Schools throughout California are experiencing declining enrollment probably driven in large part by declining birth rates. Fewer kids means less attendance, which in turn means less money for schools that are funded through the Local Control Funding Formula.

7. Billions in funding will expire

Voters in 2016 overwhelmingly passed Proposition 55, a tax on California’s highest-income filers for the benefit of public K-12 schools and community colleges. The tax, which generates significant but highly varying amounts each year (for example, about $7.7 billion in 2019) has a built-in sunset clause — it needs voter renewal before it expires in 2030.

The California Teachers Association has developed campaign materials to help communicate the amount of educational funding at stake for each school district.

Share

What can be done for education funding?

÷ Slice the pie differently

California school districts need funding streams that respond to costs as they grow. As explored in Ed100 Lesson 8.9, there are a variety of possible solutions, all of which would require at least substantial change in laws — and probably amendment of the California constitution, with approval of voters.

Here are some policy ideas that would prioritize funding for education, generally at the expense of other government programs and services:

1. Adopt an additional funding mechanism that responds to California education costs beyond the existing COLA.

For many years, cost of living adjustments (COLAs) have been tied by law to increases in costs as measured by the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government, a national statistic developed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Increases to the COLA are set during the state budgeting process using economic data from the prior three fiscal quarters. Because the adjustment relies on historical price indexes, and is finalized before a school’s academic year, it can lag behind the cost pressures districts face.

The state legislative process could extend additional funds separate from the COLA in anticipation of higher future rates. Such a process could take into account cost factors that exceed those captured by the Fed series. For example, in California many cost pressures are driven by expansion in the costs of special education and health care.

2. Identify low-income students through direct certification rather than Free and Reduced Priced Meals (FRPM).

California allocates education funds to districts based on the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF — see Ed100 Lesson 8.5). Under this formula, districts receive additional funds for students from poor families. To be counted as poor, students must be enrolled in the federal free and reduced-price meals program.

Now that there is universal free lunch for all, families in low-wealth communities no longer have an incentive to complete the application for free and reduced lunch, leaving districts with the time-consuming task of chasing down families for paperwork. The result is that many low income students are not counted as poor for purposes of LCFF.

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) suggests that enrollment in programs such as CalFresh, CalWORKS, and Medi-Cal may be better indicators of student and community need. Preliminary results indicate that this direct certification method might shift about 2.4% of funding to higher-need schools.

3. Fund school districts according to their regional costs.

California state funding per student is consistent regardless of where students live. Districts in high-cost areas don’t get extra money from the state. Should they?

Here’s an example: the average teacher salary in Fresno is about the same as in San Francisco: roughly $103,000. But the cost of living in the two cities differs massively. According to the MIT Wage Calculator, whereas the average annual salary needed before taxes for a family of four with two working adults living in Fresno is $118,751, a family of four living in higher-cost San Francisco needs $178,000.

To shift more state funding to teachers in San Francisco, the Public Policy Institute recommends considering Comparable Wage Index for Teachers (CWIFT). Created by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), this experimental index measures regional differences in wages and salaries of college graduates who are not PK-12 educators and allows for adjustments to school district compensation using geographic comparisons.

4. Fund schools based on enrollment, not attendance.

As explained in Ed100 Lesson 4.8, California is one of only a handful of states that funds schools on the basis of attendance, not enrollment. Because there are stark patterns in absenteeism, the results are predictable. The chart below shows absence rates by ethnicity.

The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) notes that basing funding on enrollment could make school district funding more predictable, avoiding revenue swings caused by short-term drops in attendance. It would also reduce the risk of penalizing districts that serve higher need communities where absenteeism rates may be higher due to health or economic factors. The risk of ICE enforcement is a new factor that affects attendance rates in some communities more than others.

The LAO stops short of recommending this change, cautioning that a shift to enrollment-based funding could weaken incentives to improve attendance. If the LCFF system were simply funded as if every child attended, the statewide cost would amount to more than $5.7 billion.

5. Change the funding system that allows some high wealth districts to provide their schools with high levels of local funding.

A small percentage of California students attend a public school in a basic aid district. In these districts, local property taxes raise funds at a level that exceeds the minimum level guaranteed by the state’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). A major study of basic aid districts by Policy Analysis of California Education (PACE) found that in 2023-24, 139 districts serving just 5.5% of California’s TK-12 students received $1.3 billion in “excess” property taxes above what they would have gotten through LCFF.

As Fair Funding CA reports, the differences can be large. Certain districts receive thousands more per student than their neighbors, even within the same county. Edsource reports that in some of these districts teachers earn an average of $27,000 more than in state funded districts. The PACE analysis suggests policy options, including taking funds from these lucky districts and redistributing them to other schools. Other options include sharing services, inter-district transfers, establishing regional COLAs, and providing more state aid to less affluent districts.

6. Increase funding for special education in a new fund.

To help the state to fund special education appropriately, create a new fund — within the General Fund but outside of Prop 98 — to pay for rising special education needs.

This approach, already used for dedicated funding for arts education, could reduce the encroachment of special education obligations into local LCFF funds. Separately, pressure federal legislators to increase federal funding for special education.

7. Don’t cut the state education funding guarantee when K-12 enrollment declines.

When statewide enrollment drops, maintain the prior year’s student count to calculate the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee. This would mean that Prop. 98 funding would not drop because of lost enrollment/attendance and there would be more money per student.

+ Solutions: A Bigger Pie

The sources of revenue for California’s public K-12 education have been consistent for many years. In total, revenue from federal, state and local sources generate funding at a level equivalent to between three and four percent of the state’s economy, a relatively low level of economic effort compared to other states and countries.

In order to materially improve the capacity to hire teachers and run programs that make the future better for kids in California, a higher level of effort is required. That means not just maintaining existing sources of revenue, but finding new ones that can earn the support of California voters and legislators.

Here are some possible approaches.

8. Regularly assess the taxable value of commercial property.

Many large commercial properties in California are taxed on the basis of values assessed long, long ago. This protection gives incumbent businesses an anti-competitive edge over new ones, distorting market forces. Over time, this has chilled property tax revenues in the state and shifted the tax burden to residential properties and homeowners. Evolve California, an advocacy organization, describes this as closing a corporate loophole.

9. Tax service transactions

Long ago, the economy was built mostly on sales of stuff, not of services. The tax system was designed to generate revenue through these transactions. Today, most of the economy is driven by selling services, not physical products — but the tax system hasn’t caught up. A few states have implemented taxes on service revenues, and California could join them. The California Legislative Analyst has noted the long-term economic shift from sale of products (taxed) to sale of services (untaxed). The California Chamber of Commerce studied options in a 2019 report in 2019. In 2024 The Tax Foundation reported that 101 countries around the world tax services through a Value Added Tax (VAT) or General Service Tax (GST), but it recommends extension of consumption taxes to include services as an approach to broaden the tax base more neutrally.

10. Tax social media

In contrast to broad taxes on services, social media platforms could be taxed on the sale of user data. Since the inception of social media, collecting and selling data to third-party buyers has been a crucial part of their business model. The 2026 proposed budget (p. 72) in Illinois includes a social media platform tax based on the number of monthly active users in the state about whom the company collects data. In 2026 a related bill in California died in committee.

11. Tax wealth

The income tax system that fuels America’s state and local governments has been built on the expectation that growth in the value of assets can be taxed when they are sold, generating a taxable capital gain. But what if the asset isn’t sold? When does society participate in the economic gain?

In 2026, California unions led by SEIU announced a plan for a ballot initiative known as the Billionaire Tax Act. The initiative calls for a one-time tax on the wealth of the state’s richest taxpayers for the benefit of health care in the state. As CalMatters reports, although there are many precedents for such taxes in Europe, most have been rescinded.

12. Tax inheritance

When wealthy people die, their estates may owe the federal estate tax, which is a version of a wealth tax. According to the Tax Foundation, like most states, California doesn’t have an estate tax. The Center for Policy and Budget Priorities (CBPP) has collected data about the historical effect of the estate tax, which currently applies to very few, very large cases. As ProPublica reports, there are lots of loopholes that could be addressed. The DC Fiscal Policy Institute describes one common tax-avoidance strategy as Buy, Borrow, Die.

California follows the federal tax code’s generous treatment of stepped-up basis for inherited property, which allows heirs to sell inherited assets without paying taxes on the gains that built up during the original owner’s lifetime. California can’t easily change federal income-tax rules, but voters did tighten a related inheritance benefit in property taxes through passage of Proposition 19 (2020). A measure to repeal this initiative might appear again on the November 2026 ballot. If passed, it would reduce funding for education.

13. Reduce or reform tax expenditures

California forgoes tens of billions annually through tax credits, exclusions, rebates, and exemptions. These tax expenditures have the same budget impact as ordinary spending, but they are not routinely questioned during the budget process. As explained in this post from Jason Sisney, policymakers should scrutinize these expenditures with the same intensity as other recurring budget items.

Prune or grow?

As this post has explained, districts and teachers unions have found themselves in a difficult position. There isn’t a single villain here — and there isn’t a single fix. California’s school finance system is being squeezed from all sides: rising special education obligations, pension and health costs, a high cost of living, and enrollment declines that reduce revenue faster than expenses can fall.

If we want schools that can attract and retain great educators and deliver the programs kids need, California has to make deliberate choices. That could mean changing formulas to better match real costs, distributing resources more fairly, and/or raising new revenue that voters will support.

When money runs short, the instinct is to cut back — trim programs here, cut staff there — and hope for the best. Some pruning is healthy, right? Perhaps, but California’s education system is already lean by any reasonable comparison. We have an obligation to do right by each student. Do we want to keep trimming our schools back, or are we ready to provide what they need for all students to thrive?

Thanks to Leslie Reckler, who contributed to this post.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

This article is from Ed100, a free web resource to help you understand education.

Questions & Comments

Add Your Comment

Share

A proposal that can cut funding for sports, libraries, arts, and music in the San Francisco schools is working its way through the City bureaucracy. It must be stopped in its tracks.

When I first read this proposal, I was astonished. Are you kidding me? You want to eliminate the funding guarantee for sports, libraries, arts, and music? The community overwhelmingly voted for this.

This proposal is unintended consequences on steroids.

Let me explain:

The City gives money to the school district through the voter approved Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF). The fund pays for three things:

1. One-third goes to the City of San Francisco’s Office of Early Care and Education for preschool support.

2. One-third pays for Sports, Libraries, Arts, and Music (SLAM).

3. One third goes for Other General Uses (OGU) programs that promote general education purposes.

The portion of the money SFUSD gets for SLAM MUST be used for this specific purpose. “Must” means “Must”.

What’s proposed: San Francisco Charter Reform Working Group for Education wants to erase “must” and provide “flexibility” so that this money can essentially be used for practically anything.

What’s the result: Duh. Cut funding for sports, libraries, arts, and music (SLAM).

We’ve been here before. When my children were in elementary school, parents had to reach deep into their pockets to pay for arts, music, librarians, and sports.

Education budgets were tight. The first things cut out of school budgets were these precise programs. It was unfair and inequitable. All schools must provide these. It should not depend on whether the students’ families have enough money to pay for them.

Parents know that these services are essential, not frills to be abandoned in tough economic times.

Working with several City supervisors, specifically Tom Ammiano and Mable Teng, I helped write the provision in PEEF that guarantees funding for arts, music, libraries, and sports. We were very intentional. The money MUST be used for those specified purposes.

That PEEF guarantee solved the problem. Arts, music, libraries, and sports are funded in schools throughout San Francisco.

This funding guarantee gives San Francisco a competitive advantage. Throughout the state, there is a shortage of teachers qualified to teach these programs. Teachers want a commitment that there will be funding each year. SFUSD currently can make that promise. Most other school districts can’t.

San Francisco is yet again going through tough economic times. Through the wisdom of the voters, children are guaranteed to have arts, music, librarians and sports.

Let’s keep that promise. Let’s not turn our backs on children.

Take Action

• Send public comments sent to CharterReform@sfgov.org. They will be shared with the Controller’s Office, the Mayor’s Office, and Supervisor Mandelman’s Office.

The message is simple:

“Continue to guarantee funding for arts, music, libraries and sports in SFUSD.”

Attach a link to this article

• Call your supervisor with the same message.

• Call the board of education with the same message.

UPCOMING CALENDAR

March 4, 2026 Charter Reform Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, March 04, 2026 3:00 pm

How to participate: In-person

City Hall Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Room 201 San Francisco, CA 94102

Leave a comment

But San Francisco is both a city and a county, and it has a unified school district (SFUSD) sharing the same boundaries. SFUSD administers both the school district and the San Francisco County Office of Education (COE).

Since the school and county boards of education are the same people, they report to themselves. This is hardly a recipe for careful and independent review.

SFUSD’s on-going money challenges have not gone unnoticed in Sacramento. Right now, the district’s budget is under state oversight because, using a technical term, it has been a “financial mess”. Finance 101: don’t spend more money than you have.

To help avoid this situation in the future, the Governor’s proposed budget bill tightens the reins.

Here is how:

New Independent County oversight.

The SFUSD county superintendent must contract with a different county’s office of education to review disbursements of the school district. San Francisco’s district and county superintendent are the same one person. (Wisely, they figured out it is not a good idea to oversee yourself.)

New state oversight.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction may audit the expenditures and internal controls of the SFUSD budget.

New School Board obligation

The SFUSD board must notify the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of its proposed actions on the recommendation.

State can say “No” to an SFUSD expenditure.

State can review of financial management and internal controls

State may withhold payments to the superintendent and school board for failure to comply with state review of financial management.

This proposal in the budget bill is the first step in creating greater accountability. The budget must be approved by the legislature by June 15.

You might want to let your elected officials know that you think this is a good idea.

Leave a comment

Share

“Just read to your child more at home.”

This advice might sound familiar to parents who have expressed concerns about a child’s reading progress. Teachers mean well with this counsel, of course, but surprisingly, many have not been trained to identify or address reading difficulties.

Parents are often the first to notice that their child is struggling with written material. Teachers may see signs, too, but lack the training to recognize and address the underlying conditions. I too was left unprepared by my teacher training.

About 10–20% of the population struggles to read and write because of dyslexia, a common learning disability. For too long, the condition has been ignored or misunderstood. In California, parent advocacy has spurred the passage of laws that have already begun to improve reading instruction for millions of children. There’s more work to be done.

The changes now underway will seem obvious or inevitable in retrospect. Of course we train teachers about dyslexia, right? Of course we screen all kids to notice the ones that are secretly struggling to read, right? Well, it wasn’t always so, and the story of how we got here is worth understanding. Here is that story.

Decoding Dyslexia CA

Parents founded the organization Decoding Dyslexia CA (DDCA) around 2012. I joined in 2017. Our mission is to raise awareness of dyslexia and improve literacy outcomes for all struggling readers. We are determined not to let other children experience the same systemic failures our families endured. Over the years, we’ve partnered with researchers, educators, other advocacy groups, and lawmakers to translate our experiences into concrete policies.

Why parents matter when addressing dyslexia

Good ideas don’t automatically become laws, even when kids are at stake. Parents bring three things that policymakers need:

• Urgency (real-life stories of kids whose dyslexia went unrecognized and unaddressed),

• A playbook for success (a solid evidence base supporting proven policy models), and

• Sustained pressure at the grassroots level.

Parents of kids with dyslexia frequently witness their children struggle for years and have to fight for the structured literacyinstruction they need. If parents have the resources, they pay for outside help. If not, kids often fail to learn to read. As school becomes increasingly frustrating, doors to opportunity close. The implicationsof illiteracy are lifelong.

In the Ed100 blog
Too many students can’t read

To address illiteracy effectively, California schools have to bridge the gap between the science of reading and the systems of instruction and support in schools. Reading is a widely researched aspect of human cognition and learning, but teacher training has historically lagged behind this knowledge base.

Shining a light on bad reading instruction

Kids with dyslexia don’t need especially unique teaching, it turns out, but they do need more of it and with greater intensity. Students with dyslexia suffer severe consequences from poor literacy instruction.

The movement to address dyslexia, elevated by groundbreaking reporting from Emily Hanford, helped expose popular teaching practices that are out of sync with how children learn to read. Bringing attention to flawed and potentially harmful reading instruction has helped ignite change.

The arc from a parent conversation to statewide law

The first bill that DDCA sponsored was AB 1369 (2015). This got started when, at a local town hall meeting, Assemblymember Jim Frazier publicly declared that he would author dyslexia legislation after hearing Tobie Meyer, the DDCA leader, explain her own story. In tears, Tobie spoke about how her son was denied the dyslexia services he deserved. Tobie’s family hired a lawyer, but the knowledge that many families don’t have this privilege spurred action. From there, parent advocates organized, embraced the research, and brought expertise to policymakers. Their advocacy led to a fundamental shift in how California thinks about reading instruction.

Parent advocates helped turn family frustration into statewide policy. As a result, California now has clearer state-adopted dyslexia guidance, stronger teacher preparation, required early screening, and, most recently, laws that help to align instructional materials and teacher training with the science of reading.

For my son, and for millions of kids like him, explicit reading instruction was critical to his success. Thanks to the laws we helped pass, educators will now learn the skills to explicitly teach kids literacy foundations. See this video of my son, who has overcome his dyslexia, demonstrating one technique that was integral for him to learn to read:

Let me tell you: Passing legislation is not a walk in the park. I am proud that our coalition, including The California State PTA and EdVoice, succeeded in a way that might seem obvious now. But it was not easy. One story illustrates the challenge:

In the Ed100 blog
When California’s legislators blew a chance to help kids with dyslexia

We worked closely with Senator Anthony Portantino to write a bill to help teachers determine why students struggle to read. It’s a quick screener to identify reading skills. A no-brainer, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

When the bill got to the Assembly, the head of the education committee refused to hold a hearing. The result? No further action on the bill that year. Senator Portantino, the author of the bill, SB 237, blasted the delay in a press release.

“Despite unprecedented public support for dyslexia screening, the Assembly Education Committee has refused to set the bill for consideration. Clearly, California should be doing more to better serve our students in need. Tabling this bill is not just out of touch with the needs of our families and the overwhelming support of Californians, it also does a disservice to the legislative and deliberative process.”

Explanation: The California Teachers Association and advocates for English learners opposed the bill.

This was devastating, but what happened next proved that after more than ten years of pushing for screening, our momentum was unstoppable. People were shocked to learn that California was out of step — one of only ten states that didn’t already require early reading screening, a common-sense expectation not unlike screening for issues with hearing or vision.

Here’s a glimpse of our boisterous rally, held March 29, 2022, on the steps of San Francisco City Hall. It was attended by Senator Portantino, civic leaders, parents, busloads of children, and even Golden State Warrior Gary Payton II, an NBA star with dyslexia.

From kids writing letters to state legislators to parents and educators waiting hours to provide public comments in Sacramento, passing the universal screening law was a testament to grassroots organizing.

The next year, Governor Newsom, who has spoken publicly about having dyslexia, added funding and a requirement for reading screening to the state budget. Advocates for the bill later worked with the opposition to address their concerns.

Share

Legislative successes for children

We are so proud of these California laws:

California laws to improve reading instruction

Develop California Dyslexia Guidelines (2015)

AB 1369 (2015) launched the official state process that produced the California Dyslexia Guidelines used by teachers, special education staff, and parents.

California Dyslexia Guidelines.

Published in 2017 and updated later.

Guidelines were released to help educators identify, assess, and support students with dyslexia.

Improving teacher preparation (2021)

SB 488 (2021) requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to update its literacy and reading standards for the preparation of teaching candidates. Programs now include dyslexia and its characteristics, how to screen for risk of dyslexia and how to teach using a structured literacy approach.

Universal screening for reading difficulties (2023).

SB 114 (2023) and SB 691 established early, universal risk-identification for reading difficulties — including dyslexia — so students can receive interventions before they fall behind. The State Board’s panel approved a set of instruments in 2024. Guidance from the state Department of Education supports districts in implementing the requirement.

Updated instructional materials (2025).

AB 1454 (2025) aligns instructional materials and credential/leadership standards with evidence-based literacy instruction and requires updates to credential program standards for school administrators and reading specialists.

Money in the budget

California put money in the budget to support literacy:

$250 million in 2023-24

$480 million in 2025-26

$40 million proposed in 2026-27 for reading screenings.

What this means in classrooms today

Teacher training. Current teachers have access to training. Future teachers will enroll in retooled credential programs where they will learn structured, systematic approaches to teaching foundational reading skills.

Screening for reading risks. Schools now screen every K–2 child for risk of reading difficulties. Educators use the screening results to target early interventions — a major shift from waiting for failure.

Improved curriculum. Over time, curricula and materials adopted at the state and local levels will be required (or certified) to meet evidence-based criteria for teaching foundational skills.

More is needed to follow through on these successes

Funding, implementation, and monitoring for success

There is a big disconnect between passing laws and making sure they are implemented. The success of these initiatives requires leadership at every level.

We can’t just hope that districts purchase effective curriculum, that schools use approved reading screeners, or that educators, including administrators, change outdated instructional strategies.

We need to make sure our laws are funded properly, implemented consistently, and monitored for effectiveness. Teaching our children to read is essential. It can’t be left to chance.

Megan Potente is the state director of Decoding Dyslexia CA (“DDCA”), a grassroots movement made up of parents, educators and other professionals dedicated to raising awareness and improving access to resources for students with dyslexia in California public schools. A former elementary educator, she has decades of experience as a classroom teacher, literacy specialist, literacy coach, special education teacher, and educational therapist in private practice. She earned her BA from University of Michigan and her MEd from DePaul University. A graduate of University of California Berkeley’s Educational Therapy program, Megan has been featured on KQED and also moderates the California: Science of Reading–What I Should Have Learned in College Facebook group. She has a son, a brother, and a nephew with dyslexia.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

If I told you that not only is ICE storming the streets of Minneapolis but public education is also on the hit list, would you listen?

In Germany in 1933, very few would listen. Little by little, good people looked the other way. Allegiance to the values of good vs evil eroded. And it was only the righteous, the brave, who stood up and said no.

The goal of the Trump administration is to expand private education, cut funding for public schools, and change what is taught.

Here are some examples of what is already happening. Funding cuts for:

• English learners

• School lunches

• Health services in school

• Teacher preparation

• The needs of minority communities

In comparison, there is increased funding for private and religious schools .

Are you seeing a pattern here?

The chart below shows Trump’s proposed deep cuts to education.

Luckily, Congress has traditionally rejected the deep cuts the Trump administration has proposed.

Do you take the oath?

Here is a powerful lesson from Facing History that I urge every school to teach. And I urge those reading this to discuss this with your family.

Students consider the choices and reasoning of individual Germans who stayed quiet or spoke up during the first few years of Nazi rule.

History can repeat itself. In the 1930s, the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy took over the schools. That was one smart move. Determining what children are taught determines the future of our nation.

The best defense against tyranny is education.

Trading in critical thinking skills for “group think” is how you seize and retain power.

We are facing choices that will affect the future of our children and the future of democracy.

Democracy does not live in our DNA. It is the responsibility of each generation to teach our children to be responsible citizens in a democracy.

Decisions on how our schools are funded and what is taught are being made right now… by your local school board, in your state legislature, and at the federal level.

Regardless of your political affiliation, remember that who you elect and how they vote counts. This is serious stuff.

• It will determine whether we continue to support funding for high quality public schools.

• It will determine what is taught in history class.

• It will determine whether kids get healthy meals at school.

• It will determine what books are in the school library or if there is a library at all.

• It will determine whether there is a school bus or will kids have to walk miles through two feet of snow? (Ok, that’s what grandpa always claimed.)

Share

What can you do?

Vow that you will not be silent when politicians propose to cut funding for our children and our public schools.

Pay attention to proposals across the wide political spectrum.

Stay informed. In California, subscribe to EdSource and Ed100 to keep informed and learn how the education system works.

Join the parent group at your school. If that is a PTA school you get an added benefit. It advocates at the state and national level for high quality public schools.

Contact your elected officials Find my elected officials.

Pass this on.

Optional reading.

“In the garden of the righteous.”’

“For those many who claimed to sympathize with the victims, who secretly opposed the Nazis, but powerless to act, the evidence of the righteous was an inconvenient fact.

By their actions and their courage, the rescuers showed what others might have done to help prevent the Holocaust.”

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share