PRO: Teachers’ union leader says Prop. 3 would help lock in hard-won resources for student well-being

By Gloria Martinez, EdSource.org – republished with permission

When I was a special education teacher, I learned that one of the cruelest questions you can ask an underfunded school is: What can you afford to go without? 

Before California voters passed Proposition 30 in 2012, this was not a hypothetical question. I saw firsthand how budget constraints affected students’ daily lives, especially in less affluent communities where resources were already stretched thin. Some schools lacked the counselors, school psychologists and social workers needed to recognize when a child was struggling. Teachers did what they could, but in classrooms of 30 or more students, we could not replace these trained professionals or meet every child’s needs alone. 

By raising taxes on California’s highest earners (currently, couples earning more than $742,000), Proposition 30 generated additional revenue for public schools and higher education. In the years that followed, teachers across the state used collective bargaining to advocate for improvements that directly affected students and school communities: smaller class sizes, art and music programs, and mental health professionals who helped schools better support students’ overall well-being. 

In Los Angeles, those resources also helped create conditions for educators to pursue further gains through common-good bargaining, including community schools, the Black Student Achievement Plan, and additional staffing. These were more than budget line items. They meant more readily available support for students, expanded opportunities for children from low-income backgrounds and from immigrant communities and communities of color, and greater capacity for schools to intervene when students and their families needed help. 

Today, as voters consider Proposition 3, which would make these existing tax rates permanent for California’s highest-income earners, we must remember what it took to build that stronger foundation and what we stand to lose if it erodes. 

If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue. This financial pitfall will make it harder for school districts to sustain the programs and staffing students rely on, including mental health and student support services. Counselors, school psychologists and social workers — positions we worked to expand in our schools — could be at risk. 

“If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue.“

Protecting that investment is especially urgent as students face increasingly complex mental health challenges. For young people experiencing depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts, school-based mental health services reach more than twice as many as primary care or child welfare services. For many students, school may be the most accessible place to find help. 

The need is not theoretical. Despite declines in youth suicide in California, serious mental health challenges persist. Schools need trained professionals who can recognize warning signs, respond to crises and connect students with appropriate care. 

Students also bring fears into school that originate far beyond campus. Immigration raids across California have exacerbated students’ anxieties about family separation, fears for parents’ safety, and difficulty concentrating in class. In moments like these, psychiatric social workers have provided students with weekly check-ins, psychological counseling and information about legal support services. They have also facilitated community circles where students can discuss unfolding events and how those events affect them. 

If schools lose these professionals, students and families will have fewer places to turn for help. Families with the means to do so may be able to pay for private counseling, but families without those means can lose access to critical support altogether. 

The gains made possible by Proposition 30 demonstrate what sustained public investment can achieve. Without continued funding that would come from Proposition 3, it’s hard to see how schools can maintain those hard-won gains, preserve mental health services and build the capacity they need to respond to students’ changing needs. 

Years from now, our students will have to live with the consequences of the choices we make during this election. Children need more than academic instruction to thrive. They need the stability and support that allow them to recover from setbacks, develop confidence and imagine a future beyond their immediate challenges. 

Proposition 3 will not magically fix California’s schools. But without this revenue, schools will struggle to maintain the staffing and programs our students deserve. The question we must ask is not simply what California can afford to fund, but what we are willing to risk going without.

Gloria Martinez is the president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

CON: Taxpayers leader says California doesn’t need another forever tax

As statewide student enrollment declines

By Robert Gutierrez, EdSource.org – republished with permission

Proposition 3 asks voters to approve a massive tax increase that would not take effect until 2031, when California’s finances may look completely different from how they do today. Voters should reject Proposition 3 and keep their options open.

In 2031, there will be a new president in the Oval Office, a new governor, and a different political landscape in California — especially if voters approve Proposition 40 to impose a wealth tax that could prompt an exodus of the taxpayers targeted by Proposition 3.

The state also will have significantly fewer students in our public schools. The Department of Finance projects a decline of 710,500 students from 2026 through 2036, and by the midpoint of this decline, we undoubtedly will see some major changes in the education structure.

This is only the beginning of the list of unknowns. Other questions include: 

• Will Californians still be paying billions of dollars per year for a nonfunctioning “high-speed” railroad system in 2031, rather than prioritizing schools for that spending?
• Will taxpayers still be paying for ineffective programs that haven’t solved homelessness? 
• Will startups launch in California, or take their jobs and economic benefits to states with more competitive tax rates?

In short, it makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.

What difference could five years make? 

California’s finances can change substantially in a short period. Total state revenue for the current fiscal year is projected to be $21.5 billion higher than the amount collected five years earlier. The Department of Finance also recently reported that general fund revenue was running $5.5 billion above the projection used to draft the 2026-27 budget just six months earlier. This means the education funding guarantee will go up, too.

“It makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.“

Timing is only one of the problems. While Proposition 3 is marketed as a “tax extension” that would only affect high-income residents, the truth is that it’s a major tax increase that would hit millions of small businesses as well as high-income individuals. The result: California’s affordability crisis gets worse.

The small-business aspect of Proposition 3 hasn’t received enough attention. California’s tax structure does not neatly separate business income from personal income, and many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations that report business earnings on personal income tax returns. 

This means the higher tax rates imposed by Proposition 3 would increase taxes on many small businesses, ultimately leading to higher prices for customers, fewer job opportunities for workers, or both.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in February that sole proprietorships accounted for more than 3 million California businesses in 2023. But the number of those businesses whose owners would be impacted by Proposition 3 depends on their taxable income. 

To the extent that Proposition 3 would hit high-income earners, it would make California more reliant on the most volatile source of revenue, while simultaneously making it even more volatile by giving high-income residents a new incentive to leave the state.

California already imposes the nation’s highest personal income taxes and would have a top personal income tax rate of 10.3% on income over $1 million without Proposition 3. The state also imposes a 1.3% State Disability Insurance tax on all income from salaries and wages, bringing the top tax rate to 11.6% on those forms of income, without Proposition 3.

As for the issue of an “extension” versus an “increase,” the fact is clear: If Proposition 3 is approved, Californians will pay $5 billion to $15 billion a year more in state income tax than if the initiative is defeated (according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst’s Office). That’s an increase — and a very large one, at that.

Finally, the measure would continue the trend in which “temporary” taxes in California never seem to go away. As the proponents of Proposition 40 are discovering, voters are extremely distrustful of taxes described as temporary. Why? In large part because of Proposition 3 and its predecessor, Proposition 55 of 2016, asking voters to renew a tax originally described as a temporary charge to cover an emergency.

The ballot argument for the original initiative, Proposition 30 of 2012, said the taxes “are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety” — one of the argument’s five mentions of the allegedly temporary nature.

With revenue arriving above projections and the state spending billions on questionable programs without proper controls or a review of effectiveness, it can no longer be said that California has a fiscal emergency.

The voters should give much-needed relief to small businesses and their customers, avoid making fiscal decisions prematurely, and let the “emergency tax” expire on schedule. Vote NO on Proposition 3.

Robert Gutierrez is president of the California Taxpayers Association, which is celebrating its 100th year of serving as the state’s largest and oldest association representing taxpayers in this state.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view.

By Daniel J. Willis, EdSource.org, republished with permission

The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union and one of the largest funders of California political campaigns, has spent more than $65.5 million this election cycle, campaign finance records show.

Most of that money — $58.3 million — has been spent in support of Proposition 3, a ballot initiative to make permanent a temporary tax on high earners that helps fund public schools and community colleges. CTA’s contributions account for 87% of the Yes on 3 campaign’s funding. Records show the No on 3 effort has raised a total of $5,500, meaning CTA alone has spent nearly $9,700 for every dollar spent opposing the proposition.

CTA is also a major source of independent support for State Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Richard Barrera, having spent $8.4 million as of Oct. 27. That includes spending in support of Barrera and spending in opposition to his opponent, Sonja Shaw. 

The union is by far the biggest Barrera supporter in terms of spending, with 96% of independent spending to support Barrera having come from CTA through various committees. The union also contributed $39,200 directly to Barrera’s campaign.

Other causes CTA has spent on include $1.5 million to oppose Prop. 39, an initiative to add stronger voter ID; $500,000 to oppose Prop. 43, which aims to require voter-proposed tax increases meet the two-thirds majority required for Legislature-proposed taxes; and $481,000 in support of local bond measures across the state.

Unlike in previous elections, CTA has mostly stayed out of the race for governor. Records show $39,200 in contributions to Xavier Becerra’s campaign or independent expenditure committees supporting him.

By AUSD

Antioch Unified School District is hosting a Winter Clothing Drive. We are looking for new or gently used coats, hats, gloves, blankets, umbrellas, scarves and socks. The donation dates will be from November 2nd through November 20th.

Drop off locations are the Mission Elementary School, Carmen Dragon Elementary School, Belshaw Elementary School, and Deer Valley High School Front Offices. You can also drop them off at Prospects High School with the counselor, Wanema Cornell.

Finally, you are more than welcome to drop them off at the District Office with Barbara Aguilar located in Portable D in the back.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Barbar directly at 925-779-7500 ext. 53402 or email her at barbaraaguilar@antiochschools.net.

Race pits independent long-timer against activist newcomer

Dawkins claims he’s running because Rocha encouraged him to, but she says she only said he should – someday but not against her

By Allen D. Payton

With a week to go in the Trustee Area 5 race for the Antioch Unified School District Board election, I’ve decided to endorse Mary Rocha for re-election for a third and most likely final term in a row. The long-time, local elected official, who first served on the school board, when she served as Board President, then on the Antioch City Council, including one term as mayor, and has been serving on the school board again since 2018.

She faces newcomer Brandon Dawkins as her only challenger.

Reasons for Rocha

I served with Mary for four years on the council. We worked together well during the final two years of my term and her first two as mayor and I know I can trust her as she does what she says she will.

More importantly, Rocha is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in even if it means being the odd person out when voting on major issues. For example, she was the only trustee to vote against hiring the current superintendent who has since been placed on paid leave and is now suing the District and Rocha. (See related article)

She voted against staff salary increases due to concerns about budget impacts this past year. Rocha also said no to painful cuts, but she did support some budget cuts. Because of her leadership in that area, two of the other trustees joined her to form a new board majority.

Rocha said no to painful cuts, but she did support some necessary staff and budget reductions. She said her efforts help win other board members to her side.

As previously reported, during their meeting on May 13, 2026, on a vote of 3-1-1 with Rocha voting “no”, the Trustees approved the Budget Reduction Plan including the concessions that saved several specific jobs. The Board then voted 3-1-1, again, on final layoffs of 78 Certificated employees which, were mainly teachers, also with Rocha voting against. Finally, after Rocha was able to get the other board members to agree to saving the jobs of the Behavior Support Specialists (3 FTE), Board Certified Behavior Analyst (1 FTE) and Bilingual Instructional Assistants – (12.4275 FTE), the Trustees voted 4-0-1 with Rocha voting in favor, on final layoffs of a little over 81 Full-Time Equivalent Classified Services employees.

Rocha has the backing of almost 20 current and former elected officials in or who represent Antioch, district and community leaders and also one union, the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council.

Dawkins’ Background

According to his website, Dawkins has worked for the City and County of San Francisco for the past 18 years, currently as a health worker with the San Francisco Department of Public Health. He is a member of SEIU Local 1021, where he previously served as Vice President of Organizing. Dawkins also holds a bachelor’s degree in Africana Studies with an emphasis in Behavioral Sciences from S.F. State.

He does have some experience with Antioch schools, having served on the AUSD Safety Committee and as a parent representative on the district’s Community Schools Steering Committee, according to his website which his good.

Challenges with Dawkins

But during the night of the NAACP Candidates forum on Sept. 24th, I met and spoke to Dawkins for the first and only time and I gave him my business card with my phone number and email address. But I’ve never heard from him. Plus, his campaign website does not include either his phone number or email address. In order to contact him, I completed a form on the website and provided my phone number and email address last Wednesday. Yet, I still haven’t heard from him, or anyone associated with his campaign in order to speak with Dawkins to ask him a few questions. That’s not good for someone who wants to serve in public office. Candidates and elected officials need to be accessible to the public they’re wanting to or do represent. I finally saw his email address on his campaign Facebook page late Sunday night and sent him a message. But as of Tuesday he still hasn’t responded or contacted the Herald.

Worse, in introducing himself during that forum Dawkins embellished a conversation he had with Rocha a few years ago when he said the reason he’s running is because she encouraged him to at that time. But when asked about it, Rocha said, “I only met him two years ago at the Democrat Central Committee dinner when Louie (her son) was running for city council. I told him, ‘You sound good. You would make a good school board member.’”

She never expected Dawkins would run this year or against her.

Plus, he or someone on his campaign posted on his campaign Facebook a photo from that forum taken by this reporter that had been posted on the Herald’s Facebook page without permission and without mentioning where it was obtained.

When informed of it, either he or someone from his claimed, “Actually, this photo was taken by another community member who was in attendance and it was posted on their page.” But it is the exact same photo and that person obviously obtained it from the Herald’s Facebook page and posted it on theirs. On Tuesday prior to publication time, I asked them to either give credit to the Herald or remove the photo.

Opposed to School Safety Officers on Antioch Campuses

Also, on Dawkins’ website, he claims to have “helped lead efforts to replace armed police officers in Oakland schools with unarmed school safety staff.” So, he’s against School Resource Officers like the six AUSD high school and middle schools could have had and Rocha supported in a 3-2 vote on August 6, 2020 after she endured being almost knocked to the ground the night before by protesters against the SRO’s who twice interrupted to the Board meeting. But the new council majority, which included District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, voted to rescind the federal grant that the previous council majority voted to accept after the hiring process had already begun. The councilwoman is the only local elected official or community leader who has endorsed Dawkins. Plus, a post on Torres-Walker’s Instagram account shows a photo of him standing between her and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson revealing with whom he’s politically aligned, especially since they’re all backed by many of the same groups.

He’s also endorsed, of course, by SEIU Local 1021, plus, the Contra Costa Central Labor Council, as well as by a variety of Democrat organizations, injecting partisan politics into what is supposed to be a non-partisan office.

Finally, in photos on his personal Facebook page, labeled “boutdatakshun”, Dawkins can be seen speaking at various union and political rallies and wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf posted on Sept. 14th. Then on the SEIU Local 1021 website, he can be seen at a Starbucks in Antioch in 2024 with union organized employees celebrating “Pride” month.

While Dawkins seems like a nice man and his campaign platform is good, being an advocate is one thing, but being an activist is another. The last thing the Antioch School District or Board needs right now is an activist, especially on international and other matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Antioch or our local students. Nor do we need a union organizer who would be torn between representing the taxpayers’ interest and those of the district’s unionized staff during salary negations.

Rocha’s the Right Trustee to Represent Us for Responsible Leadership

Plus, we need a trustee who has the experience, now and will continue leading on fiscal responsibility, not someone who will be learning on the job for the first six months to two years, along with the other new school board trustee who is running to replace Dr. Jag Lathan and without opposition will be automatically elected. Antioch also needs a trustee who will focus on helping the students who desperately need so much of it, especially in the areas of math and English, based on the information from the latest California School Dashboard that was released last week. Mary Rocha is the right trustee at the right time to represent us who will do just that.

On her campaign website she writes, “I remain committed to transparency, accountability, academic excellence, and working collaboratively with families, staff, and the community to prepare every student for a successful future.” That’s what Antioch needs.

So, please join the Herald in supporting her for re-election. Learn more about Rocha and her campaign at https://maryrocha4antiochschools.com/ and www.facebook.com/MaryRocha4Antioch.

To meet Nov. 30 deadline for 2027-28 Fiscal Year General Fund reductions

By Allen D. Payton

The Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees will hold a special meeting for a Budget Study Session on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. According to the meeting agenda, “The Board will review the District’s current fiscal status and discuss potential budget strategies.”

An overview entitled, “Fiscal Recovery & Financial Stability” will be provided by Rosa Ma Loza, the District’s Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations, which explains the purpose of the study session is to “Understand Where the revised General Fund budget is allocated; Prioritize What to protect and which unrestricted expenditures to evaluate first; and Direct Board to give staff a clear direction toward October 28 and November 18.”

After having made actual cuts of $10.28 million from the General Fund budget, the Board needs to make an additional $7.99 million in reductions previously reported as attained but as of Oct. 8, now updated as unattained.

Note: S&C refers to Standards and Contract dollars. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), in California school finance, “standard dollars” generally refer to the state’s per‑student Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and related budget standards, while “contract dollars” refer to the actual contractual amounts districts must spend or bid for services, often tied to specific agreements or procurement rules.

Standard Dollars — State Funding Standards

The CDE defines “standard” criteria in its Criteria and Standards for Fiscal Solvency for school district budgets. These are the benchmarks used to review and approve district budgets.

Contract Dollars — Procurement and Contractual Obligations

“Contract dollars” are the actual dollar amounts in contracts that districts must follow, often set by law or regulation.

Meetings with Parents, Community, District Leadership & Staff Oct. 26 & 27before Nov. 30 Deadline

The District must submit the detailed list of Board-approved budget reductions for 2027–28 to the Contra Costa County Office of Education by Nov. 30th. Prior to that the Board will hold meetings with parents and the community on October 26, in the morning and afternoon, and with District leadership and staff on October 27.

Meeting Details

The school board meeting will be held in the District Office Board Room at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the District’s website or the District’s YouTube channel.

Dear Editor:

AUSD is at a crisis point. This is no time to elect someone without the experience, financial or otherwise, to keep the district afloat while critical decisions are being made.

Mary Rocha voted:

• No on hiring the current embattled superintendent, 

• No on salary increases without budget impact information, 

• No on mass layoffs, without Explanation on how students would still be served with less staff.

Mary has pressed the superintendent to focus on students, parents, and the community, and she has been the voice of reason while the superintendent provided little to no information about the current fiscal crisis  

Experience matters. Mary has served on the board since 2018 and is the only trustee who brings experience and institutional understanding to the table. Two members (Cabos Smith and Brown) are in their first term. The current board president (Jag) is not running again and will be replaced in December by a new board member (Reese). The immediate past president (Hernandez) is in his sixth year, however he spent those years pursuing graduate work at Stanford and Davis toward becoming a physician, and in my view gives minimal attention to his role as trustee. 

The political practice of districting, implemented in 2022, brought four new members to the board who lacked the experience to make decisions with long-term consequences.

It was not always this way. Before districting, the board was made up of trustees with varied backgrounds and focus. Gary Hack, a former teacher and AEA president, brought understanding of and advocacy for employees. Claire Smith, who had children in the district for many years, was the voice of parents, families, and students. As a former corporate director and nonprofit executive director, I spent my 12 years focused on contracts and fiscal solvency. A diverse board with diverse opinions has always served this district best.

The results of the current board’s decisions are clear:

The superintendent’s hiring. She was hired by a 4-1 vote without fully vetting her background. A simple Google search shows she left Sequoia Union High School District in December 2022 with a $299,000 severance package under a mutual separation agreement, and that her later tenure at Pacifica School District drew backlash over budget deficits and job cuts. Her contract gave her the same number of workdays as a principal, which is unheard of. A new salary scale was created for her, far above those of former superintendents. A $12,000 relocation package was included, and the reimbursements approved only by the board president at the time (Hernandez) are questionable. 

Raises for all. The board approval was 4-1 based on a positive certification reported in 2025–26 First Interim Report (December 2025), which should have begun with “once upon a time…

Layoffs. After a deficit of more than $30 million was uncovered, layoffs were made without a solid plan from the superintendent. The scattershot approach, meant to save $18 million, did little to achieve fiscal solvency, and more layoffs are coming.

Special education. The department was reorganized to save $600,000. Directors were combined, left for other districts, or not rehired. That decision gutted the department and leaves the district open to lawsuits, as students may not be receiving their IEP-mandated services.

Today, the district faces a serious deficit, superintendent is on paid administrative leave and has filed a lawsuit naming AUSD, Mary Rocha as an individual, and Unnamed Individuals 1 through 50. In my opinion, that suit is a strategy to secure another package to quietly go away, as she did at Sequoia.

Now, is not time for change.

Re-elect Mary Rocha AUSD Area 5 Trustee

Diane Gibson-Gray

Former AUSD Trustee (2008-2022)

Antioch

See the results for your child’s school

By John Fensterwald for EdSource.org. Republished with permission

The California Department of Education this week released the annual California School Dashboard, the state’s multidimensional, multicolored look at student, school and district achievement. 

The dashboard was designed to offer parents a quick look at student results, as well as to provide data for guiding school improvement and for holding districts accountable. Trying to serve these different purposes has created a data system that’s complex and comprehensive, often useful, but also daunting for first-time parent users.

The California Department of Education has translated the dashboard into multiple languages and produced dozens of flyers, videos, and an annually updated Dashboard Communications Toolkit. This is a good place to start. 

Here are some answers and tips to help parents navigate the dashboard experience.

What’s the purpose of the state dashboard?

The dashboard gives an extensive look at every school, charter school and school district’s yearly performance as measured by ratings on eight state indicators. They are standardized test scores, of course — English Language Arts and math in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11, English learners’ progress, and, in 2026 for the first time, science.   

Along with high school graduation rates, there are ratings for chronic absences, though only through grade 8, and suspension rates; both measures underscore the importance of engagement and school climate to student success. 

There is also a measure of how well high schools prepare students for college and careers. It has expanded to include 14 measures. They include: 

• Satisfying the A-G course requirements for admissions to UC and CSU campuses
• Passing multiple AP and International Baccalaureate courses
• Successfully completing two semesters of credit-bearing college or CTE courses
• Attaining a seal of biliteracy or a seal of biliteracy
• Completing a CTE pathway or pre-apprenticeship program
• Passing the Leadership/Military Science and Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Test
• Demonstrating work-based learning. 

What’s the point of using colors?

Rating performance by color serves a double purpose. There are five: blue signaling the highest achievement, green, yellow, orange, and red signaling the lowest performance. Each color reflects a blend of two factors, evenly weighted: the current year’s test score or rate, and the change from the preceding year to credit improvement or signal a decline deserving attention.

A school’s goal is to achieve green or blue for any indicator, but a sharp change from the results of students the year before can elevate an otherwise yellow score to green or lower it to orange.

Clicking any indicator on a district or school’s overview page will lead to additional details.

For example, clicking the math score “odometer” for San Jose Unified reveals that students averaged 25.4 scale points below the threshold for proficiency or “meeting standard” in math in 2025-26 — a significant gap. Its students also gained 1.5 points from the year before. The combination is rated orange, two levels below green. The same template applies to other indicators. 

Why is there no overall rating for a school’s or district’s performance?

Unlike other states’ dashboards, the State Board of Education chose not to give a summative or top number or rating for a school or district, in order not to overemphasize test scores, at the expense of other important measures. It also wanted to draw attention to achievement gaps among student groups, which would be hidden by focusing on an average score for all students.

How do student groups factor into the dashboard?

Tracking achievement gaps among 15 different student groups, including eight racial and ethnic groups, drives the dashboard. Every student group with a statistically valid number (usually a minimum of 30) receives a color rating on every indicator in every school and district.

While five of San Jose Unified’s student groups scored in the orange range, English learners, foster youth, long-term English learners and students with disabilities scored in the red band. White students achieved a green rating, and Asian students and students with two or more races were rated blue.

Every district’s dashboard includes grids — the 5×5 Placement Reports — that lay out the color rating for every school in the district on every indicator. Here’s the 2025 math 5×5 grid for San Jose’s Unified, for example (The 2026 grid will be released Dec. 15). It shows that of the district’s 40 schools on the grid, 12 rated orange, 10 were yellow, seven were green, six were blue and five were red.

As with all districts with student groups receiving a red rating on an indicator, San Jose Unified must then address low achievement in its Local Control and Accountability Plan, better known as the LCAP.  That’s the three-year improvement plan in which districts must list, among other requirements, an action item, including funding, for every student group with a red rating.

Can you compare districts’ ratings on the state dashboard?

No, but you can compare schools within each district. 

Other organizations have included a comparison tool in modifying the state dashboard. 

What are local indicators?

The dashboard includes priorities for which there are no statistically valid comparable statewide data or assessments, but nonetheless are vital for successful schools. These include family engagement, school climate and access to a broad course of study. 

The State Board of Education requires that districts analyze each local priority and report back to the public annually. Examples are the results of local school climate surveys and the district’s actions to improve public engagement. For example, county offices of education must report on how well they are coordinating services for foster youths and expelled students.

How does dashboard information drive improvement?

Districts in which at least one student group is rated red on two or more priority areas, such as low reading scores and high chronic absenteeism, are designated eligible for “Differentiated Assistance.” They are encouraged to seek guidance from county offices of education or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, a small state agency, on how to improve. Differentiated Assistance is voluntary and applies only to districts.

Since the dashboard’s first year, in 2017-18, more than three-quarters of districts, charter schools and county offices have qualified for differentiated assistance, with more than 80% of those identified two or more times. 

In 2026, only 144 school districts will qualify for differentiated assistance, down from 418 last year. Recognizing a need to focus on fewer districts with more intensive, effective help, the State Board revised the criteria, and districts will receive assistance for three years, instead of one year. 

Districts are selected based on poorly performing subgroups as well as districts’ overall scores receiving red ratings. Most of those qualified because of the low ratings for students with disabilities and long-term English learners, and in some charter schools, for low ratings of Hispanic students, according to Department of Education analysis.

John Fensterwald writes about education policy and its impact in California.