What It Does

• Sets aside about 1% of the state’s K–12 education budge, roughly $1 billion annually and for arts and music programs.

• Requires at least 80% of funds to go toward staffing (teachers, teaching artists, program specialists).

• Allows up to 20% for supplies and resources (instruments, art materials, software, field trips).

• Allocates additional funds to schools serving more low-income students, English learners, and foster youth.

• Requires that 90% of funds be spent at the school site, with up to 1% for district administration.

Who Benefits

• All K–12 public schools receive funding, but high-need schools receive more per student to help close opportunity gaps.

• Example: A Los Angeles Unified school serving many low-income students will get more per pupil than a wealthier district like Palo Alto Unified.

• Funding must be used for arts and music programs—schools cannot redirect it to general budgets or unrelated programs.

Why Voters Supported Proposition 28

California voters approved Prop 28 for several reasons:

1. Equity and Access – Ensures all students, especially in low-income or under-resourced schools, have guaranteed arts and music opportunities.

2. Student Engagement and Achievement – Arts programs improve motivation, attendance, and academic performance while supporting social-emotional development.

3. Whole-Child Education – Provides balance to testing-focused curricula, signaling that creativity and expression matter alongside core academics.

4. Job Creation – Funds hiring of arts teachers, teaching artists, and program specialists.

5. Fiscal Appeal – Does not raise taxes; the funding comes from 1% of the existing Prop 98 K–12 budget, making it politically and economically accessible.

6. Broad Support – Endorsed by teachers’ unions, arts organizations, parent groups, and public figures.

Pros

• Guarantees every student access to arts and music programs.

• Creates stable, predictable funding each year.

• Supports equity-focused staffing in high-need schools.

• Expands job opportunities for arts educators and teaching artists.

• Boosts student engagement, creativity, and well-being.

Cons

• Does not bring in new revenue; funds come from the existing Prop 98 budget.

• Reduces district flexibility, especially in schools already facing deficits.

• Some districts may need to adjust staffing or cut other positions to meet the 80% staffing requirement.

• Teacher shortages may make it difficult to hire qualified arts staff.

  Subscribe now

Educator’s Perspective

For teachers, Prop 28 can mean a dedicated art or music teacher where there was none before. At the same time, districts with tight budgets may need to make trade-offs, potentially affecting aides, intervention teachers, or counselors. Prop 28 guarantees arts and music access, but it doesn’t solve broader funding challenges in literacy, STEM, or mental health.

Follow up Questions:

• How do we make sure guaranteed arts funding doesn’t come at the expense of other critical supports like literacy intervention, STEM, or counseling—especially when some districts just last year were laying off classroom teachers and increasing class sizes?

• What’s the best way to measure the real impact of Prop 28—are we looking at creativity and engagement, or more traditional outcomes like attendance and achievement?

• With teacher shortages already a challenge, how can schools realistically meet the 80% staffing requirement without stretching themselves too thin?

  Leave a comment

Last week we looked at Prop 51, the $9 billion bond that passed in 2016, and the week before that, Prop 2, California’s $10 billion facilities bond approved in 2024. Both focused on infrastructure how the state pays for buildings and upgrades that support student learning. Prop 2 also made a big shift toward more equitable distribution of those funds.

A lot of people I’ve spoken with assume Prop 2 and Prop 51 also cover instruction, class sizes, or day-to-day student programs. They don’t. Bonds are about buildings. Instruction, programs, and daily operations come from Proposition 98, which has been the foundation of California school funding since 1988.

The simplest way to think about it:

• Prop 98 pays for people and programs.

• Bonds pay for buildings.

Prop 98 keeps California classrooms running by guaranteeing a steady share of the state budget every year. Paired with bond measures like Prop 51 and Prop 2, it shows the full picture of how the state invests in education and funding both the spaces where kids learn and the programs that make learning possible.

How Prop 98 Works

Prop 98 guarantees a minimum level of funding for K–12 schools and community colleges each year. Instead of borrowing money, it’s built into the state budget formula. Key elements include:

• Per-student funding: Every student gets a baseline amount that adjusts with enrollment and inflation. (2022–23 fiscal year, California's per-pupil spending was approximately $18,020,)
  

• Supplemental grants: Extra funds go to districts serving more low-income students, English learners, and foster youth.
  

• Growth and cost-of-living adjustments: The formula adapts to population and economic shifts so schools aren’t left behind during tough years.
  

Why is Prop 98 important to have:

• For students: Stable funding ensures consistent access to curriculum, materials, and support services.

• For teachers: Predictable budgets help districts retain staff, offer professional development, and sustain programs that make a difference.

Prop 98 distributes funds automatically based on need and enrollment. This makes it a more dependable way to close gaps between higher- and lower-income communities.

• Universal Transitional Kindergarten will be funded under Prop 98. I’ll post separately on how those dollars are allocated.

Where Prop 98 Falls Short

• Tied to the economy: Because it relies on state tax revenues, especially from high earners and capital gains and funding can fluctuate with the stock market. Even with the funding guarantee, economic downturns still impacts the budget.

• Not always enough: Prop 98 sets a minimum, not a maximum. Critics argue it locks California into “minimum effort” funding rather than aiming for national top levels (it keeps schools running, but it doesn’t push them to the highest level)

• Complicated formulas: The technical “tests” (Test 1, Test 2, Test 3) make it hard for the public to hold lawmakers accountable. (That makes it hard for the public to see exactly how much money schools should get in a given year)

• Limited reserves: The Public School System Stabilization Account helps in downturns, but in big economic hits, schools still face cuts (ex. Great Recession (2008–2012)

(Note: PSSSA passed Prop 2 (2014) not to be confused with Prop 2 (2024 facilities bond): It’s a savings account for public schools to protect them from budget swings. Money is saved when times are good and used when times are tough)

• Budget shortfall: California currently faces a multi-billion-dollar gap, and Prop 98 funding has already been reduced.
  

California Compared to Other States

• Better than most: Few states have guarantees as strong as Prop 98. Some, like Vermont, New Mexico, and Utah, have constitutional guarantees or dedicated permanent funds, but not all explicitly secure K–12 funding.

• Not the top in dollars: California still spends less per pupil than New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts. While the guarantee protects schools, it hasn’t pushed the state to the very top in overall investment.

Final Thoughts:

Prop 98 isn’t perfect and it doesn’t promise the most funding or shield schools from every budget hit but it guarantees a baseline that public schools can count on. That predictability matters, especially when the economy is not doing well. In a future post, I’ll break down how Prop 98 compares to educational funding in other states.

https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/what-is-proposition-98-and-how-does-the-state-budget-shortfall-affect-it/

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/prop98.asp

Leave a comment

Last week, my post covered Proposition 2, California’s most recent $10 billion school facilities bond. This week, the focus shifts to Proposition 51, the $9 billion bond approved in 2016. Reviewing Prop 51 provides important context for understanding Prop 2 and highlights lessons in policy design, equity, and implementation that continue to shape school facilities funding today.

Prop 51 reopened the door for large-scale investment in school facilities after a decade without statewide funding, while Prop 2 introduced a sharper focus on equity, safety, and modern learning environments.

How Voters Were Convinced

2016 – Prop 51
Voters were presented with the state of California schools after years without investment. Messaging emphasized modernization of classrooms, science labs, and facilities for all schools, including charters, CTE, and community colleges. Equity considerations were not central to the campaign.

2024 – Prop 2
Messaging emphasized persistent disparities in facility conditions. Voters were reminded that some schools—often in low-income areas—still had unsafe water, poor air quality, and outdated buildings. Prop 2 included explicit criteria to prioritize funding for schools with the greatest needs, along with enhanced oversight following the rollout of Prop 51.

What Proposition 51 Did

Prop 51 authorized $9 billion in general obligation bonds for K–12 and community college facilities:

• $3 billion for new K–12 construction

• $3 billion for modernization of existing K–12 schools

• $500 million for charter facilities

• $500 million for career technical education (CTE) facilities

• $2 billion for California Community Colleges
  

• The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated total repayment at $17.6 billion over 35 years, including $8.6 billion in interest.

  Subscribe now

Remaining Debt from Prop 51 and Prop 2’s Impact

As of 2025, approximately $6 billion of Prop 51 bonds have been issued, with $11.6 billion remaining in principal and interest. Annual payments will continue for decades.

Prop 2, approved in 2024, authorizes an additional $10 billion in bonds. Factoring in interest, repayment will add billions more to taxpayers’ long-term obligations. California households are now supporting the combined cost of both Prop 51 and Prop 2.

This underscores the importance of efficient oversight, equity in distribution, and ensuring funds are used effectively, so investments benefit students statewide.

How Funds Were Allocated

Prop 51 used a “first come, first served” system. Districts with stronger financial resources and dedicated staff were often able to access funds faster, while under-resourced districts frequently faced challenges in meeting application requirements and matching fund obligations. Prop 2 addresses this by prioritizing older, unsafe, and overcrowded facilities in underserved communities.

Pros and Cons of Prop 51

Pros

• Restarted large-scale school facilities investment after a decade of stagnation

• Constructed new classrooms, science labs, and safer campuses

• Expanded support for CTE and charter schools

Cons

• Funding allocation favored wealthier districts

• Long-term taxpayer costs ($17.6 billion total)

• Slow disbursement; many projects took years to start
  

  Lessons Learned and Policy Recommendations

Prop 51 demonstrated the high demand for safe, modern schools but also highlighted inequities in access. To ensure Prop 2 addresses these challenges:

• Maintain transparent oversight for timely allocation of funds

• Provide technical assistance and capacity support to under-resourced districts

• Track and publish equity data to confirm funds reach schools with the greatest need

• Engage educators and communities to align projects with actual student and teacher needs

  Key Takeaway

Prop 51 reopened the door for investment in California school facilities, but its broad design left gaps. Prop 2 represents the next step, embedding equity into resource distribution. Oversight, transparency, and capacity-building are essential to ensure that students in the highest-need districts benefit fully from these investments.

Leave a comment

What Proposition 2 Does

• Repair unsafe and outdated school buildings (seismic safety, lead removal, HVAC upgrades)

• Build new classrooms, particularly for transitional kindergarten

• Upgrade career and technical education facilities

• Provide facility support for charter schools

Who Pays

• The bond’s $10 billion price is actually closer to $18 billion when interest is factored in, repaid over 35 years (That's almost double!)

• That comes out to about $500 million annually or roughly $36 per California household per year.

Subscribe now

How Funds Are Allocated

Most of the funding the $8.5 billion goes to K–12 schools, with $1.5 billion set aside for community colleges. Importantly, funding will not be distributed equally. Higher priority will be given to schools and colleges with:

• Larger populations of low-income students, English learners, and foster youth

• Older, unsafe, or overcrowded facilities

• Less ability to raise funds locally through property taxes

Side Note: Proposition 2 includes charter schools in its funding distribution, but not private schools. This distinction is important charters are public schools and eligible for state facility funds, while private schools remain outside of these bond allocations.

Ex. As an Orange County resident: high-need districts like Anaheim Unified will receive more support than wealthier districts with newer facilities, such as Irvine Unified.

The Pros

• Safer, more modern classrooms

• More space for transitional kindergarten and CTE programs

• Equity-focused distribution that directs resources where they are most needed

The Cons

• California is already stretched thin with high taxes and multiple bonds. While $10 billion may not sound overwhelming on its own, it compounds with other statewide debt.

• Interest: Bonds aren’t “free money.” The state must pay interest to investors, meaning taxpayers ultimately pay back much more than the $10 billion borrowed.

• Bonds bypass the regular budget process, which reduces oversight and accountability.

• Infrastructure improvements alone do not address class sizes, teaching quality, or curriculum gaps.

An Educator’s Perspective

As a teacher and a parent, I see firsthand how much environment matters. Students learn better in safe, updated, and well-designed spaces, which is why the California Teachers Association supported Proposition 2 as a critical investment in school infrastructure.

At the same time, I know that real student success depends on more than buildings; smaller class sizes, strong teacher instruction & PD, and meaningful support systems make the biggest difference. Prop 2 is a step forward on infrastructure, but it cannot replace the investments in teaching, programs, and relationships that truly drive real learning outcomes.

Ultimately, while safer and more modern classrooms are essential, ensuring that every child, regardless of zip code, has access to high-quality instruction and support in of upmost importance. Infrastructure is one piece of the puzzle; investing in students themselves is what makes the longterm difference.

Leave a comment

There’s a lot of talk right now about AI in education, how to use it, what to integrate, what the future of learning might look like. And that’s important. But lately, I’ve been thinking about something a little more human.

Are we giving students the space they need to actually focus?

We’re building smarter tools every day. But the school day? It’s still long. Still packed with back-to-back lessons. And for so many kids, there’s very little room to breathe. Little room to develop the kind of focus we expect from them.

This hit home for me recently when I started studying for an exam. It’s been a while since I’ve had to prep for a test, and honestly, it was a struggle. I’d sit down, start reading, and suddenly I was checking my phone, re-reading the same sentence, losing the thread completely.

Subscribe now

And I’m an adult with a fully developed brain and a decent understanding of how I work best.

So if I’m struggling to stay focused, what does that mean for students? Especially those navigating constant pressure to perform, engage, and keep up in a system that doesn’t always give their attention the time it needs to grow?

Here’s what we do know. Focus is a skill. One that develops over time and is deeply tied to executive function. According to research from Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child, skills like attention, self-regulation, working memory, and cognitive flexibility don’t just emerge on their own. They’re built through experience, routine, and supportive environments.

By age three, many children can begin directing their attention and following simple rules. By five, they’re developing the ability to hold multiple ideas in mind, shift between tasks, and manage their behavior. These are foundational learning tools. But they also take time to develop.

Yet in many classrooms, we expect kids to sit still and stay focused for long stretches without always giving them the space or tools to get there.

So what can we actually do?

One thing that’s helped me and that I think has real potential in schools is the

Pomodoro Technique. It’s not new. It’s not trendy. But it works. And it’s based on how our brains actually function, not how we wish they did.

The basic structure goes like this:

Focus for 25 minutes

Take a 5-minute break

After four rounds, take a longer break

It sounds simple, but it’s surprisingly effective. It respects our natural rhythm. Our brains need intervals of deep work and recovery. That’s true for adults. And it’s especially true for kids, whose executive function is still developing.

We’re already seeing pieces of this in classrooms, even if we don’t call it Pomodoro.

Teachers are Breaking lessons into smaller chunks Building in movement or mindfulness breaks Using centers or task cards with 20 to 25 minute rotations Helping students reflect, reset, and learn how to focus as a skill

This kind of structure doesn’t just support focus. It helps build attention, self-regulation, and executive functioning in ways that align with how kids actually grow and learn. Harvard’s research shows that these skills are strengthened through consistent routines, supportive environments, and opportunities to practice over time.

That’s why I’m encouraged by California’s Universal TK rollout. We’re finally starting to recognize that learning doesn’t begin with academics. It begins with readiness. Through play, kids are learning how to be in a classroom, how to share space, how to interact, and how to focus. That’s not just kindergarten prep. That’s life prep.

As we keep exploring AI, innovation, and new tools in education, I hope we’re also making space for this conversation. Tech can do a lot. But it can’t teach kids how to focus. That’s still our job.

And if we don’t give students the time to breathe, reset, and build the very skills we want them to have, no amount of AI is going to make up for that.

We need to be just as thoughtful about how students learn as we are about what they learn.

Leave a comment

We’re raising kids in a time that doesn’t look anything like the one we grew up in.

AI is already here. Tech is moving fast. The world is changing, and schools are struggling to keep up. Most classrooms still operate like it’s 1999—with a heavy focus on test prep, pacing guides, and checking boxes—while overlooking what’s actually going on with the kids in front of us.

But any educator or parent can tell you—kids don’t come to school as blank slates. They come with emotions, experiences, and stories. Learning isn’t just academic. It’s personal.

That’s why we can’t keep talking about student growth without talking about the whole child.

Subscribe now

So, what is Whole Child Development?

Whole child learning is about supporting every part of a child not just their test scores.

1. It’s how they think and solve problems. 2. It’s how they feel and manage stress. 3.It’s how they connect with others and build a sense of self. 4. It’s how they express themselves, and how safe and seen they feel in school.

This includes:

• Thinking skills like focus, memory, and problem-solving

• Emotional tools like empathy and self-awareness

• Healthy habits like sleep, movement, and nutrition

• Creative expression through art, music, and play

• A strong sense of identity and belonging

This isn’t extra. This is the work. Kids can’t learn if they don’t feel safe, supported, and connected.

Where is this already happening?

You see pieces of it in a lot of places—but not enough.

• In preschool programs that follow California’s Preschool Learning Foundations, where SEL, language, and identity are embedded

• In schools that use the CASEL framework to teach emotional intelligence alongside academics

• In community schools that wrap in mental health care, nutrition, and family support

• In international systems like Finland or Singapore, where wellbeing is a core part of education

• And in Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia classrooms, where creativity and curiosity drive learning

Here in Orange County, we’ve seen schools make incredible progress when whole child practices are part of the foundation—not just a side effort.

Why does this matter?

When we meet students where they are not just academically, but emotionally and developmentally everything improves.

Here’s what the research shows:

A meta-analysis of 213 SEL programs found that students had an 11-point gain in academic achievement, stronger emotional well-being, and fewer behavior issues. https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/meta-analysis-child-development-1.pdf

The CDC links early emotional regulation to higher graduation rates, fewer mental health issues, and stronger life outcomes.https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/protective.htm

 Kids in Head Start: which includes health, nutrition, and parent engagement show stronger gains in school readiness, especially in low-income communities.https://acf.gov/opre/report/head-start-impact-study-final-report-executive-summary

The Perry Preschool Study found that investing in early whole child education brought a 13-to-1 return over time. Better earnings, better outcomes, fewer issues later in life.https://cehd.uchicago.edu/?page_id=958

Theres so much data to back this up, so the real question is now:

Why isn’t every school doing this?

• The system still rewards test scores over long-term learning

• SEL, the arts, and mental health supports are the first to get cut when budgets shrink

• Many teachers don’t get the training or planning time they need to teach this way (also many teachers are not prepared in teaching program to teach this way…)

• It’s easier to track math scores than it is to measure confidence or belonging so those things often get pushed aside

And yet, those are the exact skills our kids need most—especially in a world shaped by tech, change, and uncertainty.

Where do we go from here?

We can’t keep preparing kids for yesterday’s world.

Being “college and career ready” doesn’t mean much if students don’t know how to manage stress, solve real-world problems, or connect with others.

If Orange County wants to lead—not follow—this is our moment. And it starts with shifting what we value.

We need to:

• Prioritize early childhood education that builds strong SEL and foundational thinking

• Train teachers in trauma-informed and inclusive practices, starting in credential programs

• Create systems that measure more than test scores—let’s track engagement, connection, and identity too

• Build real partnerships between schools, families, and communities so students feel supported in all areas of life

Final thought

If we want students to thrive..not just survive we can’t keep doing things the old way.

Let’s stop asking kids to adapt to outdated systems. Let’s build schools that actually reflect the kind of world they’re growing up in.

Leave a comment

Every few years, a new list comes out ranking the so-called “best” education systems in the world. It’s always based on PISA test scores results from 15-year-olds in reading, math, and science. Finland, Singapore, Japan are usually the countries always make the top. As of now the testing window for 2025 isnt completed and in 2022, Singapore had ranked the highest. 

But after teaching in classrooms around the world, I’ve learned those rankings barely scratch the surface and for my Master’s research, I looked at two places I had taught: an international school in Venezuela during a time of political and economic crisis (think Chavez passing away during my school year), and in the Middle East that had strong funding and was recruiting Western teachers. On paper, the school in the Middle East looked ideal with modern buildings, technology, free housing and high salaries, but the reality wasn’t so simple.

Subscribe now

In Venezuela, the country was falling apart. Families were fleeing, the economy was collapsing, and there were days we weren’t sure the school would stay open. But the students showed up. They still believed in education. Parents saw it as a way out, a lifeline. And even in the middle of all that instability, something powerful happened in those classrooms. Learning still mattered. 

That kind of urgency and trust can’t be measured by a test.

In the Middle East, the setup was totally different. Resources weren’t the issue. But as a teacher trained in student-led, inquiry-based approaches, I often found myself caught between two worlds. A lot of the Western strategies clashed with local expectations.

 Religion, culture, and tradition shaped the school in ways we couldn’t ignore. Sometimes, the curriculum didn’t quite fit. There were moments when it felt like we were imposing ideas that didn’t align with the values of the families or the community. It made me reflect deeply on what it really means to deliver international education and how important it is to truly understand the context you’re working in and also the importance of preparing teachers for these cultural shifts- something I will write about later..

Because…Culture matters. Family beliefs matter. And parental buy-in isn’t just about helping with homework. It’s about shared values, consistency, and trust. When families and schools aren’t aligned, no amount of funding or fancy programs will make a difference. That’s something no ranking system or standardized test is ever going to capture. Again, none of this would ever show up on a test score

And now here we are, standing at the edge of something even bigger. 

AI is changing education fast. There’s potential here. Huge potential. I’m not against tech. Tech is the future. I’ve seen how it can support students who are behind, students with learning differences, students who need something more personalized. But I also see how quickly it could go wrong.The schools with the most resources will have access to the best tools. The ones already struggling may be left with bareb bones versions, or none at all.

And this is where we have to pause. I know we’re on the cusp of AI reshaping our entire education system. But if we don’t stop to ask the right questions about equity, about purpose, about what kind of future we’re building, then we risk creating a system that looks innovative on the surface but still leaves the same kids behind.

That’s why I will always advocate for SEL, social-emotional learning, as central, not secondary. A test score doesn’t tell me if a student feels safe. It doesn’t show me if they’re hopeful. It doesn’t measure resilience, kindness, or confidence. But those are the things that often decide whether a student pushes forward or gives up.

So when we ask, what are the best schools in the world, we need to dig deeper. 

Best for who? 

Best by what definition? Because real success isn’t about being top-ranked on a global test. It’s about building schools where students feel seen, where they feel like they belong, and where they believe they have a future they can shape.

And if we’re not having those conversations now, then we’re not really ready for what’s coming next.

Leave a comment

This week is Mental Health Awareness Week, and if you’ve spent any time in a school, especially a Title I school, you know mental health is not just a one-week conversation. It’s part of the classroom. It walks in with our students each morning and lingers in the background of every lesson, every hallway exchange, every tough moment we work through.

So when we talk about student success, we have to go beyond grades and test scores. We need to talk about emotional safety, consistent systems, and the tools we give students to regulate, connect, and cope. That’s where Social Emotional Learning and PBIS come in. Not as extras. As essentials.

What is SEL

Social Emotional Learning is how we teach students to understand their emotions, build positive relationships, solve problems, and make responsible choices. It shows up when a student is frustrated but chooses to take a breath instead of yelling. It shows up when students apologize and work things out on their own. It shows up when a child who once shut down during group work starts raising their hand and contributing with confidence.

There are five main SEL competencies:

• Self-awareness

• Self-management

• Social awareness

• Relationship skills

• Responsible decision-making

In Title I schools, SEL is not a luxury. It’s necessary. Many of our students come in carrying stress, trauma, and uncertainty. SEL gives them a foundation to stand on.

Subscribe now

What is PBIS

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports is how we create the structure that makes SEL part of the daily school experience. PBIS is about being clear with expectations, teaching those expectations, and recognizing students when they follow through.

It’s not about punishment. It’s about consistency.

A strong PBIS system helps every student know what is expected of them, and it helps every adult respond the same way. That’s how schools feel safe and predictable. And for a lot of our students, predictability is the first step to trust.

What It Looks Like at My School

At our site, we use a schoolwide ticket system. Students earn tickets for showing respect, responsibility, and safety. These tickets can be used for small rewards, but more importantly, they give students a moment of recognition. They tell students we see them doing the right thing. And for some kids, that one moment can shift their whole day.

We reteach expectations after every long break. We hold student-led assemblies, share short lessons in class, and model what those expectations look like in real time. It helps reset the tone and reminds students that we’re all in this together.

We also send out student surveys to check in. We ask how they’re feeling, what’s working, and what needs to change. Student voice is central to what we do. If something isn’t working for them, we listen.

California’s Commitment to SEL and PBIS

California has made big moves to support this work. In 2018, the California Department of Education released statewide SEL Guiding Principles. These principles encourage schools to focus on equity, student voice, and relationship-based learning.

Today, more than 75 percent of districts in California report active efforts to implement SEL into school culture, instruction, and systems.

PBIS is also deeply rooted here. Through the California PBIS Coalition, more than 5,000 schools across all 58 counties are supported in building out systems that reach over 3 million students.

When PBIS is done well, we see big results:

• Up to 50 percent fewer behavior referrals

• Suspensions down by 35 percent

• More learning time and stronger school culture

In 2023, more than 2,000 California schools were recognized for their PBIS implementation. This isn’t just paperwork. It reflects real work happening across campuses every day.

Tools and Strategies That Make a Difference

Schools across the state are using practical strategies to make SEL and PBIS part of the daily experience.

These include:

• Behavior matrices posted in classrooms and common areas

• School stores or prize carts for positive behavior incentives

• Mystery student programs and voice level visuals

• Student of the Month recognitions tied to values

• Restorative circles to promote empathy and repair

• Positive office referrals to celebrate student growth

Many schools also use digital tools like ClassDojo, PBIS Rewards, LiveSchool, Kickboard, and Hero. Others use Google Forms for feedback, Padlet to share student shoutouts, and QR codes to gather data in real time.

These tools help schools stay consistent and allow students to feel acknowledged, supported, and part of something bigger.

Trauma-Informed, SEL-Aligned

Many of our students are carrying Adverse Childhood Experiences. These experiences—like witnessing violence, losing a parent, or experiencing chronic stress—don’t stay outside the school walls.

A trauma-informed school shifts its lens. It stops asking what’s wrong with a student and starts asking what they’ve been through and how we can help.

When we combine trauma-informed care with SEL and PBIS, we create systems that don’t just improve behavior. They support healing. They build trust. They create environments where students can feel safe enough to take academic risks and grow.

This Isn’t Work We Can Do Alone

SEL and PBIS aren’t quick fixes. They require buy-in from the whole school community.

That means:

• Teachers need to be trained and supported

• Admin needs to prioritize this work and follow through

• Parents need to be included and informed

• Community partners need to understand why this matters and be willing to help

It also means we need time to plan, space to reflect, and flexibility to adjust.

When every adult on campus is aligned and when families are brought in with clarity and respect, these systems become more than posters on the wall. They become culture.

Why It Matters

Most students in this country attend public schools. And most public schools serve communities facing real barriers.

This work matters because our kids need more than just content. They need connection. They need to feel emotionally safe before they can take in what we’re teaching.

The data backs this up:

• SEL programs are linked to improved academic performance

• PBIS schools see better attendance and lower staff turnover

• Schools that do both well see more engagement and less disruption

But most importantly, students in these schools feel like they matter. And when students feel safe and seen, they show up differently. They engage. They participate. They grow.

Let’s Keep Centering What Matters

Right now, there’s so much attention on AI and innovation in schools. And while tools can be helpful, they’re not the heart of what we do.

You can automate grading. You can personalize instruction. But you can’t automate relationships. You can’t replace the impact of a teacher who takes the time to know a student. You can’t replicate a classroom culture built on mutual respect and trust.

This week is about mental health awareness, but in schools, it’s never just a week. It’s every single day and every system we build with intention: the day to day connections with our students and peers. 

When we commit to SEL and PBIS with full hearts and full teams, we build schools where students feel safe enough to learn and confident enough to thrive.

Leave a comment

In 2012, I made a bold move and accepted a teaching position in Venezuela. I wasn’t just looking for adventure. I wanted to challenge myself as an educator and grow into the kind of leader who could thrive in complex, high-stakes environments.

What I stepped into was a country facing deep political instability. Schools shut down without warning. Resources were limited. Safety wasn’t guaranteed. And still, every day I led with calm, consistency, and care because students needed that kind of leadership.

That year wasn’t just about navigating uncertainty. I built routines that helped students feel safe. I created learning experiences with what little we had. I stayed grounded so my students could keep learning, no matter what was happening outside the classroom.

Here’s how that experience shaped the educator and leader I am today:

• Instructional leadership under pressure
I didn’t just adapt. I led. I redesigned lessons, kept students engaged, and supported my peers through transitions most educators never face.

• Cultural competence and relationship building
I led with empathy and built trust across language and cultural lines. That experience still guides how I build relationships with students, families, and staff today.

• Systems thinking in real time
I had to make fast, informed decisions to meet the needs of my students and community. That ability to think strategically and act quickly still informs how I approach program development and school-based leadership.

• A global lens on equity
Living and teaching abroad showed me how deeply politics can shape education. In Venezuela, I saw how instability directly affected students’ access to learning, safety, and opportunity. That lens helped me better understand how similar patterns show up in our own schools—how policy decisions, funding structures, and leadership gaps all play a role in equity. That experience gave me the clarity to lead with a stronger, more informed voice.

• Leading with vision and purpose
I stayed focused on what mattered most. Learning, connection, consistency. That mindset still drives everything I do.

I recently came across the original contract I signed for that position. It reminded me of just how bold that choice was. Today, due to safety concerns and State Department advisories, very few Americans teach in Venezuela. But that year gave me more than memories. It shaped my leadership. It gave me a global perspective, a deeper understanding of systems, and the confidence to lead in any environment.

Now whether I’m leading intervention programs, working in Title 1 schools, or designing after-school initiatives, I bring that same mindset. Clear, steady, student-focused, and always ready to lead with heart and perspective.

#InstructionalLeadership #GlobalEducator #EquityInEducation #ResilientLeadership #EducationSystems #K12Leadership #Title1Schools #SalihaBazmjow #TeacherLeader #EdLeadership #EducationalEquity #GlobalPerspective

Last winter, I took a chance on something different.

I brought a VEX Robotics challenge to our school—not during the school day, and not with a formal team. I offered it through our afterschool program, where most students had never even heard of VEX before. And honestly? That’s what made it meaningful.

This wasn’t about forming a competition team or chasing trophies. It was about exposure, access, and letting students see themselves in spaces they might not have imagined before.

Across Orange County, robotics programs are thriving. Schools like Crescent Elementary in Anaheim have built strong, well-established VEX IQ programs. Their students regularly compete at high levels—even qualifying for the VEX World Championships. And while that kind of support is incredible to see, it also raises the question: why isn’t this level of access the norm for all students?

In California, we’ve committed to standards that emphasize real-world application, deeper thinking, and STEAM integration. The Math Framework pushes for understanding over memorization and calls for students to engage in collaborative, complex problem-solving. Our STEAM standards focus on creativity, innovation, and connecting disciplines. But these goals only matter if they’re actually being brought to life in the classroom—or in this case, after school.

That’s exactly what we set out to do.

We had 25 students jump in—many with zero experience in coding or robotics. What they did have was curiosity. They named their bots, decorated them, and quickly started seeing themselves as engineers and designers. We used a simple rubric to guide the experience, focusing on teamwork, creative thinking, and perseverance.

By the end of the program, students were confidently using math concepts—measuring, adjusting angles, exploring cause and effect through gears and sensors. But it didn’t feel like a math lesson. It felt like solving real problems. That’s when the learning sticks.

This is what equity looks like in action: not just access to materials, but access to relevant, meaningful learning that reflects the world students are growing up in.

Because the truth is, we’re preparing students for a future where artificial intelligence, automation, and technology will touch every part of their lives. They’ll need more than content knowledge. They’ll need to be adaptive, empathetic, creative thinkers. And that’s why design thinking matters now more than ever.

Design thinking isn’t about getting the right answer—it’s about asking better questions, testing ideas, and learning through iteration. It mirrors the kind of mindset we need to cultivate if we want students to lead, not just follow, in tomorrow’s workforce.

You don’t need a huge budget or perfect setup to start. What matters is giving students the chance to engage, explore, and grow. When they start seeing themselves as capable of designing, solving, and building—they carry that with them long after the lesson ends.

Want to read more about project based learning click the link below:

Project based learning

This isn’t just about robotics.It’s about reimagining what learning can look like when we lead with curiosity, creativity, and high expectations for every learner.

Leave a comment

Teaching abroad was one of the best decisions I ever made. It gave me the rare privilege of combining two things I love—teaching and travel—while exposing me to different classrooms, cultures, and ways of thinking about education. I taught in South America, the Middle East, and Europe, all while paying off my student loans—something a lot of educators in the U.S. don’t realize is possible. While many of my peers were drowning in debt, I was earning, traveling, and pursuing my Master’s degree at the same time.

Subscribe now

But beyond financial freedom, teaching abroad completely changed the way I teach. It gave me a deeper appreciation for the different ways education is approached around the world and exposed me to systemic challenges that exist in the U.S.—especially in Title 1 schools.

One of my most memorable experiences—nearly a decade ago now—was teaching in Cambodia. At the time, I was on break from my teaching contract in the Middle East, and somewhat spontaneously, I decided to volunteer at a Cambodian school. I reached out to a nonprofit running a local program, and before I knew it, I was in a packed, open-air classroom teaching over 40 students, ranging from kindergarten to second grade.

For many of these students, school wasn’t just a place to learn—it was a lifeline. Some walked or biked from the most impoverished areas, not just for an education but for the free meals provided. They had almost no resources, yet they were some of the most eager, joyful learners I’ve ever met.

Cambodia itself was a place of sharp contrasts. Just beyond the tourist-packed temples of Angkor Wat were entire communities struggling with deep poverty, shaped by a history of war and genocide. And yet, amidst all of it, there was resilience—a determination to push forward. After teaching each day, I’d hop into a tuk-tuk and explore the ancient ruins, experiencing the weight of history alongside the beauty of human perseverance.

That experience—like so many others I had while teaching abroad—changed the way I teach today. Now, as an educator in the U.S., I recognize just how deeply trauma, poverty, and literacy are connected. Teaching in Cambodia prepared me in ways I never expected to work in Title 1 schools and trauma-informed environments here at home.

Why Literacy is a Lifeline

Literacy isn’t just about reading and writing—it’s about access, opportunity, and breaking cycles of poverty. For students in low-income communities, literacy is the difference between navigating the world with confidence or being shut out of it entirely.

Here’s how literacy directly impacts poverty:

• Economic Mobility – Strong literacy skills lead to better jobs and financial stability. Low literacy keeps people trapped in low-paying work.

• Access to Resources – People with limited literacy struggle to complete job applications, understand legal documents, or manage their healthcare—making daily life harder.

• Education for the Next Generation – Parents with low literacy often struggle to support their children’s learning, making it harder to break the cycle of poverty.

• Health Literacy – Understanding medical information directly impacts well-being. Limited literacy can lead to poorer health outcomes.

• Civic Engagement – Literacy empowers people to understand their rights, vote, and advocate for their communities.

• Psychological and Social Impact – Struggling with literacy can lead to shame, low self-esteem, and isolation, making it even harder to seek help or advance in life.

This is why literacy interventions can’t just be about academics—they have to be trauma-informed, culturally relevant, and supported by strong community systems.

What Cambodia Taught Me About Teaching in the U.S.

Cambodia’s literacy rate today is about 83.9% for individuals aged 15 and older, but there are still major gaps between urban and rural areas:

• Male literacy rate: ~88.5%

• Female literacy rate: ~79.2%

The country has made huge strides in education, but there are still challenges—limited access to quality schools, a lack of infrastructure, and the long-term impact of the Khmer Rouge regime, which targeted intellectuals and educators.

But what stuck with me the most? Despite having fewer resources, there was an immense value placed on education.Students walked miles to get to school, teachers made do with what little they had, and families prioritized learning despite financial struggles.

This is something I think about all the time as a teacher in the U.S. The challenges may look different, but the urgency of literacy remains the same. I see many of my students in Title 1 schools facing food insecurity, trauma, and unstable home environments—just like the students I worked with in Cambodia. The key difference? Here, we have more resources, more funding, more trained specialists—yet we still struggle to reach every student.

So, what’s the takeaway?

1. We need to rethink how we use the resources we already have. Standardized tests aren’t going to fix literacy gaps. We need systems that support literacy in ways that actually meet students where they are.

2. Trauma-informed teaching isn’t optional. Many of our students aren’t just struggling with literacy—they’re struggling with everything that comes with poverty, instability, and stress. Understanding this changes the way we teach.

3. Literacy is power. It’s not just an academic skill—it’s survival. It’s self-advocacy. It’s the ability to change the course of a student’s life.

Teaching abroad changed me, but teaching back home gave me perspective. No matter where in the world we are, literacy is one of the most powerful determinants of a student’s future. And as educators, we have the responsibility—and the privilege—to make sure every child gets that opportunity.

Leave a comment

Teaching at a Title 1 school comes with a lot of challenges—low test scores, limited resources, and a system that often prioritizes standardized testing over creativity. But I’ve always believed that project-based learning (PBL) isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.

When students learn through experience, something shifts. The lesson isn’t just words in a textbook; it becomes something real, something they can touch, build, and explore. But in schools like mine, where the focus is often on catching students up rather than pushing them forward, PBL gets pushed to the side.

That’s why I decided to shake things up. Instead of just talking about space, I turned my classroom into a galaxy of its own.

Subscribe now

The Space Room Project: Bringing the Universe to the Classroom

I’ve always been obsessed with space—the vastness, the mystery, the way it makes you feel both tiny and limitless at the same time. I wanted my students to feel that, too. Not just hear about it, but experience it.

So, we got to work.

Over the course of two months, my students and I transformed a plain classroom into a full-blown space exhibit. They painted planets, built Mars rovers out of recycled materials, and carefully speckled stars across giant sheets of black paper. The walls turned into the solar system, the floor became the surface of Mars, and by the end, you couldn’t step inside without feeling like you were drifting into deep space.

I watched students who normally struggled with focus get completely lost in the process—mixing paint, measuring planet sizes, debating which moons to include. Older students helped younger ones, guiding them through each step. Kids who weren’t even in my program would peek in and ask, “Can I help?”

And then came the big moment—the day the Space Room opened.

Class after class came in, eyes wide, whispering "whoa" under their breath. They took their seats on star-shaped stickers as I placed glow-in-the-dark stars on their hands. The instrumental version of A Sky Full of Stars played softly in the background.

Then, I guided them through a “Star Dance.” Their hands became rising stars, twinkling stars, falling stars, and finally imploding supernovas. In those few minutes, they weren’t just students in a classroom—they were part of something bigger.

Then, I asked one student to take a pinch of salt from our Mars corner and blow it into the air.

"Can you see it?"

They squinted, searching. "No."

I smiled. "That’s Earth compared to the universe."

Next, I played a video zooming out from Earth, past the planets, past the farthest reaches of our solar system. As the screen faded to black, I asked:

"Can you still see Earth?"

Heads shook. Earth—our home, everything we know—was just a tiny speck in the vastness of space.

That was the moment. The moment I saw it click.

Some students sat in silence, completely lost in thought. Some whispered, “That’s crazy.” A few asked questions—deep, thoughtful ones—about space, about black holes, about what else is out there.

And that’s when I knew—this is what learning should feel like.

Why This Matters

This wasn’t just about space. It was about curiosity. It was about giving students a chance to wonder, to ask questions, to see themselves as part of something bigger.

And here’s the thing—PBL isn’t just “fun.” It works.

• Research shows that students involved in hands-on space education projects see a 25% boost in critical thinking skills and score higher in science and math.

• Schools that integrate project-based learning see higher engagement and better academic outcomes—especially in underserved communities.

• Studies have found that when students learn about the vastness of space and the “Overview Effect” (the way astronauts see Earth from space), they show increased empathy and a stronger sense of global citizenship.

But beyond the numbers, I saw it firsthand. Students who normally sit in the back and barely participate were suddenly leading conversations. A Kindergartener student, usually quiet, couldn’t stop talking about Saturn’s rings. Sixth graders—too cool for everything—stuck around after the exhibit to ask more questions.

These kids, many of whom never saw themselves as "science kids," suddenly felt like scientists.

The reality is, project-based learning shouldn’t be a rare thing. It should be part of every classroom, in every school. But in places like Title 1 schools, where resources are stretched thin, PBL is often seen as an extra instead of an essential.

But what if we changed that?

What if we made space for more hands-on learning, more creativity, more opportunities for students to experience learning instead of just memorizing it?

The success of the Space Room Project showed me that it’s not just possible—it’s necessary. And while I pieced this project together on my own time, imagine what could happen if more schools had the funding, the flexibility, and the support to make PBL a priority.

What if more classrooms could be turned into space stations, rainforest ecosystems, or historical time machines?

What if we stopped thinking of project-based learning as a “nice-to-have” and started seeing it as what it really is—one of the most powerful ways to teach?

One Final Thought

As my students left the Space Room, I gave them one last message:

"Never stop reaching for the stars. Even if they seem just out of reach, you’ll still go further than if you never tried at all."

Because who knows? Maybe in 30 years, one of my students will be studying space, working at NASA, or engineering the next big discovery.

And maybe—just maybe—this was the moment their spark was ignited.

Leave a comment

Not all schools across the United States have the same proportion of Multilingual Learners (MLLs), and that’s why it’s so important to have consistent and effective supports in place for these students. Some states, like California, Texas, and Florida, have a high density of English Language Learners (ELLs) and more robust training requirements for teachers. However, this isn’t the case everywhere. Many states have fewer ELLs, and sometimes that means fewer resources and training for educators.

The Reality of MLL Populations Across States

As of the 2021–2022 school year, the states with the largest populations of MLLs in K-12 public schools include:1

• California: Approximately 1.1 million ELL students, accounting for 18.9% of the state's total student population.

• Texas: Approximately 1 million ELL students, representing 20.2% of the state's total student population.

• Florida: Approximately 300,000 ELL students, making up around 10% of the state's total student enrollment.

These numbers show just how important it is to provide tailored educational support that meets the diverse linguistic and academic needs of our students. For more in-depth data, check out the article "The English-Learner Student Population, in Charts" by Ileana Najarro on EdWeekly.

Why State Requirements Vary

In states with large populations of MLLs, teachers are often expected to have specialized training. For example, in California, educators must have a CLAD (Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development) certification to ensure they are equipped to scaffold instruction, promote academic language development, and bridge cultural gaps. Some states may offer similar certifications, but it’s not a given. Many states only require a basic ESL (English as a Second Language) or ELL endorsement, which might not offer the same depth of training.

Policy and Immigration: The Ever-Changing Landscape

Educational policies are constantly evolving, and shifts in immigration patterns often influence how schools approach ELL instruction. States like California, with high populations of immigrants and ELLs, tend to have more comprehensive support plans. But in states where the ELL population is smaller, educators might not receive the same level of training or resources, leading to inconsistent support for students.

The GO TO Strategies: A Practical Resource for All Educators

During a recent professional development session, a matrix from the GO TO Strategies toolkit was shared. Even as a credentialed educator in a state with a large MLL population, I found it to be a great reminder and an easy tool to reference when lesson planning. Developed through Project EXCELL, this resource offers practical instructional strategies to scaffold content and language input for ELLs. The strategies align with five key principles:

a. Focus on Academic Language and Vocabulary: Prioritize teaching the specific language needed for academic success.

b. Link Background Knowledge: Build connections between what students already know and new content.

c. Provide Comprehensible Input: Use visuals, modeling, and clear language to make content accessible.

d. Promote Student Interaction: Encourage structured opportunities for students to use language in meaningful ways.

e. Utilize Formative Assessment: Regularly assess understanding and adjust instruction as needed.

What I love about these strategies is that they’re not just for ELLs—they work for all students. They’re flexible and can be adapted to any teaching environment, whether you’re in a state with lots of resources for ELLs or you’re having to find your own.

Subscribe now

Whether your district offers robust support for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) or you find yourself seeking out resources independently, differentiation is key. All educators play a vital role in helping ELLs thrive academically and socially. By integrating proven strategies like the GO TO Strategies, we can create inclusive learning environments that honor diversity and promote equity in education.

What strategies have worked for you in supporting ELLs in your classroom? I’d love to hear your thoughts below!

Sources:

Levine, L. N., Lukens, L., & Smallwood, B. A. (2010). The GO TO Strategies Matrix: Scaffolding Options for Teachers of English Language Learners, K-12. Project EXCELL.

Najarro, I. (2024, June). The English-Learner student population, in charts. EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-english-learner-student-population-in-charts/2024/06

Leave a comment

In a previous post, I argued that classroom sizes need to be smaller—and I still stand by that. But as I keep writing, I want to make sure I’m not just sharing my own perspective, but also creating space for readers to think critically and form their own conclusions. My goal isn’t just to push for change; it’s to break down the policies, history, and research so people can educate themselves and engage in meaningful discussions about education reform.

That said, I won’t pretend to be neutral. I’m a public school educator, and I’ve seen firsthand how overcrowded classrooms impact both students and teachers. Whenever I talk to people outside of education about class sizes, I hear the same question: “Well, why can’t we just make them smaller?” On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer—fewer students per class means more individualized attention, better classroom management, and improved learning outcomes. But in reality, it’s not that simple.

This post takes a deeper look at the history of class size reduction, specifically California’s Class-Size Reduction (CSR) Program from the 1990s. The initiative was ambitious, aiming to shrink K-3 class sizes from 30 to 20 students. But despite its good intentions, it came with challenges—funding shortfalls, teacher shortages, and questions about its long-term sustainability.

Subscribe now

Fast Forward to Today

We’re still having the same debate. As we head into a new school year, my district has already cut 40 teaching positions due to budget constraints. And it’s not just us—this is happening in large districts across the country. Tenured teachers are being moved back into the classroom, while newer educators—especially in urban areas—are left scrambling for jobs.

So, the big question remains: Do smaller class sizes justify the cost? And if they do, how do we make them work in a way that’s financially sustainable?

Let’s dig into the research, the history, and the reality behind class size reduction. Because if we want better schools, we need to start by understanding what’s worked, what hasn’t, and what needs to change.

A Look Back: The Federal Class-Size Reduction Program

In the late 1990s, the federal government stepped in with a bold plan to shrink class sizes, funding efforts to cap K-3 classrooms at 18 students per teacher. By the 2000-2001 school year, around 25,000 teachers were hired using federal CSR funds, with $1.3 billion poured into the effort.

California was one of the first states to launch its own CSR plan in 1996, capping K-3 class sizes at 20 students per teacher. It sounded great on paper, but there were some big challenges:

• Not enough qualified teachers. Schools scrambled to fill positions, leading to the hiring of under qualified educators with emergency credentials.

• Nowhere to put the students. Schools had to convert libraries, multipurpose rooms, and bring in portable buildings just to fit the new classes.

• Upper grades took a hit. Since K-3 got priority, grades 4-12 saw class sizes balloon.

• It was expensive. California spent about $770 per student on CSR. When the budget crisis hit, funding got cut, and class sizes crept back up.

What the 2004 Federal Report Said

The 2004 Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program by the U.S. Department of Education looked at how the initiative played out. Here’s what they found:

Most of the funding went to hiring new teachers to reduce early-grade class sizes, though some schools that already had small classes used the money for teacher training instead. While the program did lower class sizes, many schools struggled with space limitations and a lack of fully certified teachers. High-need schools had the hardest time filling positions with qualified educators.

Schools that followed the program closely reached the target of 18 students per teacher. Reading scores improved slightly, but math scores showed little change. The biggest gains were seen in disadvantaged and minority student populations, making the case for targeted class size reductions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Is It Worth the Cost?

This is where things get complicated. The famous Tennessee Project STAR study from the 1980s found that smaller class sizes led to big academic gains, especially for students from low-income backgrounds. But more recent research has been mixed.

Some studies show small improvements in reading, but little change in math. A Center for American Progress analysis found that broad, one-size-fits-all class size policies aren’t the most cost-effective. The 2004 federal report backed that up—targeted class size reductions (especially for disadvantaged students) had the most impact.

How This Plays Out for Teachers and Schools

I’ve seen firsthand how tough big class sizes can be. Try managing 32 kindergarteners in one room and tell me smaller class sizes don’t matter. But I’ve also seen the effects of constant budget cuts.

Many of the teachers hired during the CSR push in the early 2000s still haven’t retired, which means in urban areas like Southern California, full-time credentialed teaching positions are still competitive. New teachers struggle to find stable jobs, and those who do walk into overcrowded classrooms with limited support. Schools want to hire more teachers—but the funding just isn’t there.

What Can We Learn from This?

Looking at past class size reduction efforts, here are some key takeaways:

• Shrinking class sizes overnight stretches schools too thin. A gradual approach works better.

• Long-term funding is a must. It’s not enough to fund CSR for a few years and then cut it when budgets tighten.

• Equity matters. Wealthier schools managed CSR better, while high-need schools struggled. Socioeconomic factors play a huge role. Check out my article on- How public school funding works

Where Do We Go from Here?

Class size isn’t just a policy debate—it’s the daily reality for teachers and students, shaping everything from learning outcomes to classroom dynamics. Research proves that smaller class sizes can make a difference, but only if we’re strategic about how we implement them. Blanket policies don’t work; the impact of class size reduction depends on where and how it’s applied. If we’re serious about making it effective, we need to stop treating all districts the same. Not every school requires the same level of funding, so why are we distributing resources as if they do?

What do you think? Should reducing class sizes still be a priority, or is there a better way to improve student outcomes? Let’s talk about it.

Leave a comment

Sources:
Millsap, M. A., Giancola, J., Smith, W. C., Hunt, D., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., & Riehl, L. M. (2004). A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program: Final Report. U.S. Department of Education. Read the full report.

On February 18, 2025, students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) were officially banned from using cell phones on campus. The goal? To create a more focused and engaging learning environment by limiting distractions from social media and texting during school hours.

Subscribe now

Why the Ban?

Research has long linked excessive cell phone use to anxiety, addiction, and attention issues among young people. "It is well known, based on medical research, that the levels of anxiety and young people’s addiction to cellular phones have increased," said LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho.

Before the ban, about half of LAUSD schools relied on an honor system—letting students keep their phones but trusting them to stay off them during class. Others had stricter rules. "Fifty percent of our schools obtained pouches that magnetically seal the phone during the day. The phone remains in the student’s possession but is secured inside a locked pouch," Carvalho explained.

The Science Behind the Ban: How Cell Phones Affect the Brain

Smartphones can be great tools when used wisely, but research shows that too much screen time can mess with key brain functions like attention, memory, and self-control. Wilmer, Sherman, and Chein reviewed studies on smartphone habits and found that while research is still evolving, excessive phone use is linked to shorter attention spans, weaker memory, and trouble delaying gratification (Wilmer et al.). They also noted that more studies are needed to fully understand how long-term phone use affects cognitive function (Wilmer et al.).

So why are students so glued to their phones? It all comes down to dopamine—the brain chemical that makes things feel rewarding. Social media apps, notifications, and texts create a cycle of dopamine surges that make it harder to put the phone down. Here’s why:

• Unpredictable Rewards – Notifications, likes, and messages hit at random, making phone use addictive—kind of like a slot machine.

• Instant Gratification – Quick bursts of entertainment from TikTok or Instagram train the brain to crave constant stimulation.

• Social Validation – Likes, comments, and reactions trigger dopamine, reinforcing the urge to check your phone over and over again.

The Problem: Dopamine Overload

Too much phone time overloads the brain’s reward system, making it harder to focus. Social media and texting move fast, so traditional learning—reading, writing, deep discussions—feels slow in comparison. Teachers are noticing that it’s harder to keep students engaged in anything that requires patience or deep thinking.

A Solution: Trying a Dopamine Detox in Schools

For schools that aren’t enforcing a full phone ban, a dopamine detox can be a game-changer. It helps students reset their attention spans and get used to focusing without constant phone interruptions.

How to Try a Dopamine Detox in the Classroom

Step 1: Set the Expectation

Let students know what’s happening:

"Today, we’re doing a dopamine detox. That means cutting distractions and focusing on deep learning. It might feel weird at first, but stick with it—you’ll notice a difference in how you think and focus."

Start with just one class period or an hour, then build up from there.

Step 2: Remove High-Dopamine Distractions

• Phones go away—out of sight, out of mind.

• Background noise is kept to a minimum.

• Students focus on one task at a time.

• If screens are needed, switch them to grayscale to make them less visually stimulating.

Step 3: Replace Distractions with Deep Engagement

Instead of jumping from one thing to another, encourage activities that require sustained focus:

• Silent or deep reading

• Group discussions that make students think

• Hands-on projects (science experiments, creative writing, problem-solving)

• Mindfulness exercises (deep breathing, quiet reflection)

Step 4: Try the Silent Focus Challenge

Set a timer for ten minutes and have students work in complete silence. At the end, ask them:

"What did you notice about your focus?"

Some might feel restless at first, but many will realize that they’re actually more focused once they get past the initial discomfort.

Step 5: Reflect and Reintroduce Tech with Balance

After the detox, have students reflect on their experience:

• What felt different?

• What was easier or harder than expected?

• How can this help when studying or doing homework?

Instead of banning technology completely, help students build better habits—like setting app limits or using study techniques like the Pomodoro Method (25 minutes of focus, 5-minute breaks).

Why This Works

A dopamine detox won’t magically fix attention issues overnight, but over time, it helps students reset their focus. It leads to:

• Stronger attention spans

• Less restlessness

• More meaningful class discussions

• Better self-control with technology

Most importantly, it teaches students how to manage their own focus, instead of just taking their phones away and hoping for the best.

Final Thought:

We blame kids for being distracted, but the truth is—we’ve built a world designed to keep them that way. Instead of just banning phones and expecting attention spans to improve, we should teach students how to rebuild their focus and show them why it matters.

A dopamine detox is one small step in the right direction.

Would you try this in your classroom? Have you already? Share what’s worked for you!

Leave a comment

Works Cited

Wilmer, Henry H., Lauren E. Sherman, and Jason M. Chein. “Smartphones and Cognition: A Review of Research Exploring the Links between Mobile Technology Habits and Cognitive Functioning.” Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, PMCID: PMC5403814, PMID: 28487665, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5403814/.

A few days ago, my sister sent me my nephew’s GATE CogAT pre- and post-screener results with a simple question:

“What in the world is a nonverbal assessment?”

She wasn’t the first parent to have questions about GATE testing terminology.

With all the different GATE tests given to 8- and 9-year-olds, she—like many parents—was just trying to make sense of what the results actually meant for her child.

As a GATE-certified teacher, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to support gifted students in the classroom—through differentiation, enrichment, and acceleration. But this conversation made me realize just how murky the identification process can be. Why do some kids qualify while others don’t? To be honest, even I was not too familiar with the testing process in other districts beyond my own. So I dug around to find out the answer to the questions,

1. Why does the process look so different from one district to another?

2. Is this system really identifying all the kids who need gifted support?

How GATE Testing Varies Across California

GATE identification in California is all over the place. There’s no statewide standard, so each district sets its own criteria—deciding who gets tested, what tests are used, and how students qualify.

Some districts rely almost entirely on standardized test scores, while others take a more flexible approach, considering teacher input, creativity, leadership, or student portfolios. A child who qualifies as “gifted” in one district might not qualify just a few miles away.

Here’s how the process varies depending on where you live:

Subscribe now

Orange County: High Cutoffs, Traditional Approach

In districts like Irvine Unified and Newport-Mesa Unified, GATE identification is highly competitive:

• Students typically take the CogAT (Cognitive Abilities Test) in 2nd or 3rd grade.

• The cutoff is usually the 97th percentile or higher—so even a student scoring in the 95th percentile (which is better than 95% of their peers!) wouldn’t qualify.

• Some districts allow teacher recommendations or academic performance to factor in, but test scores remain the deciding factor.

• Students who qualify are placed in self-contained GATE classrooms, meaning they learn in separate groups rather than in general education settings. These smaller class sizes are a plus!

• In high-achieving districts where many students test well, the bar is even higher, making GATE admission incredibly selective.

Los Angeles County: More Flexibility & Multiple Pathways

With so many school districts, LA County has a mix of approaches, but Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) stands out for offering multiple ways for students to qualify:

• Students can qualify through test scores, teacher recommendations, or demonstrated strengths in leadership, creativity, or the arts.

• Some schools still use the OLSAT, CogAT, or NNAT, but these aren’t the only deciding factors.

• LAUSD allows for different GATE models: self-contained classrooms, cluster groups (where GATE students are grouped within general ed), or differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

• Some districts adjust qualification cutoffs in underrepresented communities to improve equity in gifted identification.

• This model recognizes that giftedness isn’t just about test scores, giving more students a fair shot. However, unlike Irvine, classroom sizes can be much larger.

Riverside & San Bernardino Counties: Lower Cutoffs, More Inclusive Approach

Districts in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, like Corona-Norco Unified and Redlands Unified, take a broader approach to GATE identification:

• Instead of requiring a 97th percentile score, many districts allow students to qualify with a 90th percentile score.

• There’s a greater focus on cluster models, meaning students stay in general education but receive additional enrichment and differentiation.

• Multiple testing opportunities are available, so students who don’t qualify in 2nd grade might still be identified later on.

• This approach widens access to gifted education, ensuring that students who don’t test well in a single sitting still have a chance to be recognized.

San Francisco Bay Area: Equity-Based Adjustments

Many Bay Area districts, such as San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified, have shifted toward equity-focused GATE models:

• Some districts use local norms instead of national norms, meaning students are compared to peers within their own district rather than a national sample. This levels the playing field for students who haven’t had the same early academic advantages.

• Teacher recommendations and alternative assessments (such as classroom performance or creative problem-solving tasks) play a bigger role.

• Many schools have eliminated separate GATE classes, opting instead for differentiated instruction within general education.

• By expanding the definition of giftedness, these districts ensure a more diverse range of students have access to GATE services.

San Diego County: More Pathways to Identification

San Diego Unified and other districts take a flexible approach that doesn’t rely solely on standardized testing:

• Some schools use portfolios and performance-based assessments, allowing students to demonstrate critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity in non-traditional ways.

• Instead of identifying students in just one grade level, many districts allow for ongoing GATE identification, so students who don’t qualify in 2nd or 3rd grade can still be assessed in later years.

• Certain schools offer GATE magnet programs, where students can apply even if they weren’t initially identified through testing.

• This model gives students multiple opportunities to be recognized rather than making one test at age 7 or 8 the deciding factor.

Final Thoughts

GATE identification in California is anything but standardized. Some districts rely almost entirely on test scores, while others look beyond traditional testing to identify different types of giftedness. A student who qualifies for GATE in one district might not qualify just a few miles away.

This raises the question:
Should California adopt a standardized GATE process, or does district-level flexibility provide better opportunities for all students?

Right now, a student’s access to gifted education is largely determined by where they live—which doesn’t seem entirely fair.

So what do you think?

Should GATE identification be reformed?

Let’s discuss in the comments!

Leave a comment

In just a few weeks, one of my biggest projects of the year will finally come to life—an interactive space exhibition designed to ignite curiosity and excitement about the cosmos. But this isn’t just another classroom lesson. It’s a hands-on, immersive experience where students from TK through 6th grade will step into the wonders of space in a way that feels real and inspiring.

Subscribe now

On the final day of this month, over 800 students and parents will walk through our transformed classroom, experiencing space like never before. Teachers have been invited to bring their students for a 20-minute interactive journey, where they’ll engage with:

• An interactive light show simulating space travel

• Hands-on activities, including building models of Jupiter’s moons

• A classroom-turned-space-hub filled with student-created displays

Bringing Space to Life

This project has been a true labor of love. Over the past few weeks—often using my lunch breaks—I’ve worked to turn an ordinary classroom into a mini space exploration center. Students have:

• Created an asteroid belt

• Learned about planets and dwarf planets

• Designed rocket ship murals

• Engaged in space-themed activities that make learning fun and meaningful

And so much more.

For me, this exhibition isn’t just about teaching facts—it’s about sparking imagination, creativity, and a love for STEM. But as I got closer to the big day, I found myself wondering:

Was all of this effort really worth it?

I spent countless hours stapling murals to the walls, cutting out planets, and setting up interactive stations. Would the students actually feel the magic of space the way I hoped?

Then, last week, a few students gave me my answer.

Some proudly showed me space books they had checked out from the library. Others handed me drawings they had made just for me. And then, a kindergarten student, an English language learner who had only recently begun speaking English, tugged at my sleeve and held up her picture.

“Look, Mrs. B! I drew us in space together. You see the sun and Saturn?”

That’s when I knew: it was all worth it.

Why Should Students Learn About Space?

Space has always captivated human imagination—from ancient civilizations mapping the stars to today’s missions exploring Mars. But beyond its mystery and wonder, space education plays a critical role in shaping future innovators.

1. It Encourages Curiosity and Exploration

Space is filled with big questions:

• How did the universe begin?

• Is there life beyond Earth?

• What will future space travel look like?

When students learn about space, they’re encouraged to think beyond what they know, ask deep questions, and seek answers—skills that are valuable in any field.

2. It Develops Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

Space exploration is one giant problem-solving mission.

How do we design a rover that can survive on Mars? How can astronauts grow food in space? Every breakthrough in space science requires innovation, creativity, and critical thinking—the same skills students develop when they engage in space education.

3. It Connects to Real-World Applications

Space research isn’t just about rockets and astronauts. It has shaped everyday technology, including:

• Weather forecasting

• Medical advancements

• Even the cameras in our smartphones

Helping students see these connections makes science and engineering feel real, relevant, and exciting.

4. It Inspires the Next Generation of Scientists and Engineers

Many of today’s space pioneers—NASA scientists, SpaceX engineers, astrophysicists—were once kids who looked up at the stars in awe.

Introducing students to space early can ignite a lifelong passion and even lead them into STEM careers.

5. It Fosters a Global and Universal Perspective

Studying space reminds us that we are part of something bigger. It encourages students to think beyond themselves, beyond their town, beyond even our planet.

It helps them see the importance of:

• Global collaboration

• Sustainability

• Our shared responsibility for the future

The Future Starts with Curiosity

"The future of humanity is in the stars." – Stephen Hawking

When students explore space, they’re not just learning about planets and galaxies—they’re developing the curiosity, resilience, and problem-solving skills needed to tackle real-world challenges.

Whether they grow up to be scientists, engineers, teachers, or creators, space education lays a foundation for discovery, innovation, and imagination.

What do you think?

How has space education inspired you or your students?

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

When we hear about the “Teacher Shortage Crisis,” it often sounds urgent, but it’s crucial to ask: Where is this shortage actually happening?

The truth is, teacher shortages aren’t a nationwide problem—they’re regional. While some areas scramble to fill classrooms, others see experienced teachers competing for part-time positions.

A Teacher’s Reality: The Disconnect
Take a teacher who moved to Orange County, hoping to easily land a full-time role with several years of experience. Instead, she faced stiff competition for even part-time positions. Her story is a familiar one, especially in Southern California, where educators flock to urban areas but often find fewer opportunities than expected. It’s a competitive job market where the dream doesn’t always match the reality.

Regional Disparities:

• Southern California:

In cities like Los Angeles and Orange County, competition for teaching roles is fierce. There’s an oversupply of teachers, especially in elementary education and general subjects. When I graduated with my teaching credential, only one person in my cohort of 30 new teachers landed a full-time job—everyone else had to take part-time roles or relocate. For me, that meant teaching abroad.

• Northern and Rural California:

On the flip side, districts in rural areas—like those in the Central Valley and Northern California—face a completely different problem. Here, the shortage isn’t about having too many teachers; it’s about having too few. Geographic isolation, lower salaries, and limited resources make it difficult to recruit and retain qualified educators. Special education, math, and science roles are especially hard to fill.

The Real Issue: Distribution, Not a Shortage
So, what’s really happening? The teacher shortage isn’t so much a crisis as it is a distribution problem. Here’s the breakdown:

• Urban vs. Rural Divide: While urban districts struggle with too many teachers, rural areas are struggling to fill critical positions.

• Subject-Specific Shortages: Certain fields—like math, science, and special education—are especially affected. Why would a physics teacher, for example, choose a rural area with lower pay and fewer resources?

• Cost of Living & Pay Disparities: High-cost areas, like Northern California, may need teachers, but can’t offer competitive salaries. With soaring housing costs, these regions are financially inaccessible for many educators.

Policy Solutions: Tackling the Core of the Issue
The teacher shortage is deeply tied to policies around hiring, compensation, and retention. In large cities, the issue isn’t finding teachers—it’s creating more positions. Districts need more teachers to keep up with growing student populations, while simultaneously addressing the ongoing issue of overcrowded classrooms. It's not a shortage of qualified teachers; it’s a shortage of available roles and the support teachers need to thrive.

So, Is There Really a Teacher Shortage?
Yes, but not everywhere and not for every subject. To get to the root of the problem, we need to focus on:

1. Teacher Mobility: How can we encourage teachers to work in areas where they’re most needed?

2. Specialized Hiring: How do we recruit teachers for high-need fields like STEM and special education?

3. Cost of Living Solutions: Can we make it more affordable for teachers to work in areas that need them the most?

California’s Efforts to Address the Crisis
California has implemented several programs to target these disparities:

➡ Teacher Residency Grant Program: Supports teacher preparation in high-need fields and locations.
➡ Golden State Teacher Grant Program: Provides financial aid to teacher candidates in high-need subjects at priority schools.
➡ National Board Certified Teacher Incentive Program: Encourages teachers to pursue National Board Certification, leading to higher teacher effectiveness.

These programs are just part of a broader strategy to address staffing gaps and provide targeted solutions where they’re needed most.

The Bottom Line: Rethinking the Teacher Shortage
The next time you hear about a teacher shortage, ask: Where is this shortage happening, and which subjects are most affected?

It’s important to move beyond the headlines and focus on regional and subject-specific challenges. In places like Southern California, the issue is not a lack of teachers, but an oversupply in certain areas. In rural districts, the problem is the opposite—there simply aren’t enough teachers.

We need to shift the conversation from a nationwide crisis to one that focuses on targeted solutions. By addressing the real challenges teachers face—whether it’s mobility, subject shortages, or cost of living—we can ensure that every student has access to a qualified teacher.

What are your thoughts? How can we encourage more teachers to work where they’re needed the most?

Leave a comment

My Journey to Better Organization
As someone who has always leaned more toward the creative side, organization was never my strong suit. During a brief time I left teaching to explore project management, I learned a valuable skill: how to prioritize tasks and structure my to-do lists for increased productivity. Although I wouldn't label myself as a "Type A" personality (I'm definitely more of a Type B), the experience taught me how to juggle multiple tasks more effectively. While we used a more rigorous program at work (Jira), I quickly realized that Trello—created by the same company, Atlassian—offered a user-friendly option that could benefit everyone, especially educators.

There are many task management platforms out there—Asana, Todoist, and others—but for the purpose of this post, I’ll focus on Trello, since it’s the one I’ve used most extensively.

Subscribe now

The Psychology Behind Writing Things Down

How often do we find ourselves juggling mental to-do lists, replaying tasks over and over in our minds, constantly trying to remember every little thing? It’s easy to fall into the trap of mentally rehearsing what needs to be accomplished. Yet, cognitive psychology reveals a powerful insight: “offloading” tasks—whether by writing them down or organizing them visually—can drastically reduce our mental load.

This concept is at the heart of productivity systems like David Allen’s Getting Things Done (GTD), which emphasizes the importance of externalizing tasks. When we write things down or use a tool like Trello to organize our responsibilities, we free our brains from having to constantly track and retain those details. This simple act of externalization not only reduces mental clutter but also lowers stress, creating valuable cognitive space.

With less mental energy spent on remembering tasks, we are able to focus more deeply on what truly matters—whether that’s engaging in creative problem-solving or, in the case of educators, being fully present with students. By placing tasks into a system you can trust, you’re not just simplifying your workload—you’re granting yourself the mental freedom to be more intentional in everything you do.

Why Trello Works for Educators

Educators face a constant balancing act—lesson planning, grading, meetings, classroom management, and interventions. With so many responsibilities, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. That’s where Trello comes in. It’s a flexible, easy-to-use digital task management tool that offers organization, collaboration, and accessibility.

Here’s how it can transform your workflow as an educator:

• Lesson Planning & Curriculum Mapping
  Create boards for subjects or units and individual cards for each lesson. Attach lesson plans, standards, and resources all in one place, streamlining planning and reducing the clutter of papers or endless folders.

• Student Progress Tracking
  Create cards for individual students or intervention groups. You can document progress, track interventions, and monitor skill mastery, all while collaborating with support staff and identifying trends.

• Classroom & Behavior Management
  Dedicate a board to behavior tracking, where you can log observations, track interventions, and celebrate positive behavior. Share data with the behavior team or counselors to provide more effective student support.

• Professional Collaboration
  If you work in teams, Trello makes it easy to share meeting agendas, assign tasks, and follow up on action items. It’s perfect for Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), department meetings, or school-wide initiatives.

• Organizing After-School & Extracurricular Programs
  Whether you’re running a STEM club, like a robotics competition, or organizing an immersive space exhibit, Trello can help manage schedules, resources, and student participation.

Reducing Mental Clutter for More Student Engagement

The most important benefit of using a task management system like Trello is the mental space it frees up, allowing you to focus on your students. When you’re not juggling a dozen tasks in your head, you can be more present—delivering engaging lessons, responding to student needs, and fostering meaningful connections.

Final Thoughts

Educators give so much of themselves to their students, and managing the chaos of daily responsibilities shouldn’t come at the expense of your well-being. A task management system like Trello isn’t just about staying organized—it’s about reducing mental clutter, minimizing stress, and ultimately creating a better learning environment for both teachers and students.

Ready to give it a try? Start small by setting up a Trello board for your weekly lesson plans or a simple to-do list. Your brain—and your students—will thank you.

What are your thoughts? How do you manage your tasks and stay on top of everything in the classroom? Share your tips or thoughts in the comments—I’d love to hear how you stay organized and what tools work best for you! Let’s keep the conversation going.

Leave a comment

As educators, we understand that the classroom environment plays a key role in student success. But have you ever considered how your seating arrangements might be affecting your students' relationships, sense of belonging, and behavior? Research on social-emotional learning (casel.org) shows that a student's ability to learn is deeply connected to the environment around them.

Enter the sociogram: a visual representation that maps out the social connections within your class. By using this simple tool, you can unlock key insights into group dynamics and make more informed instructional decisions.

Subscribe now

What Can a Sociogram Tell You?

• Who interacts with whom: Which students work or socialize together most often?

• Social structure: Are certain students isolated, or are there group leaders influencing others?

• Social roles: Who takes charge in the group? Who is more withdrawn?

Why Seating Matters for Learning & Behavior

A supportive classroom environment is essential for student learning, especially when it comes to social-emotional development. Students need to feel safe and supported before they can take risks and master new skills.

A sociogram can provide a deeper understanding of how your seating chart might impact:

• Group dynamics: Where are the “popular” students sitting? Does this influence behavior or interactions?

• Behavioral insights: Are students with challenges isolated, or do they sit near more influential peers? Changing seating arrangements can shake things up in a positive way, encouraging fresh interactions.

The Sociogram Activity: Mapping Classroom Relationships

Start by identifying the students who are most connected in your class—these are the ones that other students tend to gravitate towards. Now, look at your seating chart:

• Are these “popular” students sitting near you or are they out of sight in the back?

• Does the seating arrangement highlight any patterns in behavior? Do students with challenges sit near more popular students, or are they isolated? This activity gives you a snapshot of the current social structure and can reveal potential opportunities to improve group dynamics.

Mixing Things Up: Why It’s Important

Once you have these insights, consider adjusting your seating arrangements. It’s important to mix things up, but don’t switch seats on a whim—students need time to adjust. Think of it like changing furniture in your home: it takes a little time to get used to the new arrangement. Likewise, students need time to adjust to new groupings.

Ask yourself:

• Are students interacting with a variety of peers throughout the day?

• How can you create more balanced seating arrangements to encourage positive interactions?

• Are students with behavioral challenges seated in ways that minimize distractions and maximize support?

Causation vs. Correlation: What’s the Difference?

Keep in mind that seating arrangements are not a cure-all. Just because a student is seated next to a popular peer doesn’t mean their behavior will automatically improve. However, seating decisions can encourage positive interactions, foster a sense of belonging, and provide the support students need to thrive.

Remember, sociograms provide a snapshot of group dynamics, but other factors like socioeconomic status, personality traits, and past experiences can also influence student behavior and interactions. A sociogram is just one piece of the puzzle.

Take Action

Next time you look at your seating chart, don’t just see rows of desks—see opportunities to foster stronger connections, better behavior outcomes, and a greater sense of belonging. Use the sociogram approach to better understand your classroom dynamics, mix things up, and make informed instructional decisions. The way you seat your students can have a profound impact on their success in and out of the classroom.

What do you think? Are your seating arrangements encouraging the classroom dynamics you want to see?

Let’s discuss in the comments!

CASEL. (n.d.). What is SEL? Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning. https://www.casel.org/what-is-sel/

Leave a comment