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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

I was chatting with some friends recently when one of them asked, “How exactly is public school funding set up?” Given my background in education, I assumed most people knew the answer—but then I realized it’s not as widely understood as I thought.

This post is a great opportunity to break it down.

The Basics: Where Does Public School Funding Come From?

In the U.S., public schools receive funding from a mix of local, state, and federal sources. While this system is meant to create balanced educational opportunities, the reality is that how funds are distributed often leads to major disparities between school districts.

The Orange County, California Example:

Pop culture often portrays Orange County—through shows like The O.C. and Laguna Beach—as a hub of wealth and privilege. But in reality, the county is far more economically diverse.

• Cities like Irvine, Laguna Beach, and San Juan Capistrano have significantly higher property values.

• Cities like Santa Ana, Anaheim, Lake Forest, and parts of Mission Viejo have lower property values and more mixed-income populations.

For example, in 2022, Laguna Beach had a median household income of $141,000, while Santa Ana’s was $80,000—a figure that doesn’t account for the many households where multiple families live together. These differences have a direct impact on school funding and the resources available to students.

Local Funding: Property Taxes Drive School Budgets

The biggest source of school funding comes from local property taxes—meaning the wealth of a community directly affects the resources available to its schools.

• Irvine: Higher property values generate more revenue for schools. The city also benefits from Mello-Roos districts, where residents pay extra taxes specifically for local services like education.

• Anaheim: A more mixed-income population means lower property tax revenue, leading to less funding for schools.

State and Federal Funding: Can They Close the Gap?

• State Funding: California uses a formula to redistribute money to lower-income districts, but it doesn’t fully close the funding gap.

• Federal Funding: The federal government provides around 8-10% of school funding, mostly for special programs like support for low-income students or special education. However, it’s not enough to balance out disparities caused by local property taxes.

• Other Sources: Schools also rely on grants, donations, and fundraisers, but these vary widely, deepening the gap between wealthy and lower-income districts.

Proposition 13: A Key Factor in School Funding Disparities

California’s Proposition 13, passed in 1978, limits how much property taxes can increase each year. While this stabilizes taxes for homeowners, it also means that:

• Wealthier areas like Irvine continue to benefit from high property tax revenues.

• Lower-income areas like Anaheim struggle with limited school funding.

This policy has had long-term effects on funding disparities, which we can explore further in a future post.

Why This Matters

The contrast between Irvine and Anaheim clearly shows how local wealth impacts school funding. Wealthier areas generate more local revenue, giving their schools better resources, while lower-income areas rely more on state and federal funding that doesn’t fully make up for the difference.

Understanding these disparities helps us advocate for more equitable education policies—and informs how we vote in local elections.

Take Action

By understanding how public schools are funded, we can make more informed choices at the ballot box. Let’s work toward ensuring all students—regardless of where they live—have access to the resources they need to succeed.

Teachers in Southern California: A Reflection on Layoff Rumors, Resilience, and Dedication

As we enter 2025, the buzz about potential teacher layoffs is back, creating anxiety in Southern California school districts. In my own district, with 34 schools and 23 elementary schools, the uncertainty is palpable. Teachers are given months' notice that their jobs may be on the line, which is enough to keep anyone up at night. But despite the stress and anxiety, we still show up. Day in and day out, we keep giving our best, even when the odds seem stacked against us.

I recently spoke to a kindergarten teacher—she’s worried about how her already stretched income can keep up with Southern California’s sky-high cost of living. In areas like Irvine, where a one-bedroom apartment can cost between $2,400 and $3,000, first-year teachers are considered low-income. A new teacher in the Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine area makes around $66,000—well below the income limits for affordable housing.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Extremely Low Income: Up to $33,150

• Very Low Income: $33,150 to $55,250

• Low Income: $55,250 to $88,400

When she said, “I don’t know what I’ll do if I lose my job,” I could feel the weight of her words. But the next day, she was in her classroom, teaching with the same passion and dedication that makes her beloved by her students. That moment highlighted what sets teachers apart. Despite everything, we keep showing up.

This is not just her story—it’s happening across Southern California, especially in our district. Teachers have faced years of economic strain, from the 2008 recession to the pandemic. Funding cuts, layoffs, and overcrowded classrooms have been ongoing challenges. Now, districts like San Diego Unified face a $176 million deficit for the 2025-2026 school year, and Santa Ana Unified is looking at a $180 million shortfall, with 350 staff positions at risk, including 169 teachers. These numbers aren’t just statistics—they represent real people and real consequences.

Yet, we keep showing up. We give 110% not because it’s easy, but because we believe in what we do and who we do it for—our students.

But here’s the real challenge: it’s not just the layoffs. The issue of declining enrollment adds fuel to the fire. Fewer students enrolling means fewer teachers are hired, leading to larger class sizes. Imagine classrooms that are too empty to fill with teachers, while others are bursting at the seams, with one teacher responsible for more students than is manageable. Our district is even considering bringing back combination classrooms next year. It’s a lose-lose situation for everyone, but especially for the students.

California Education Code (EC) sets limits on class sizes:

• Kindergarten—average class size can’t exceed 31 students, with a maximum of 33 students in a class.

But due to budget cuts and teacher shortages, districts are pushing these limits, and it’s the students and teachers who suffer. This issue didn’t appear overnight. Classroom sizes in California, especially in kindergarten, have steadily increased for the last 20 years, and this growth has paralleled the state’s financial struggles.

Back in the 1990s, California tackled overcrowded classrooms with the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program, which lowered kindergarten through third-grade classes to a maximum of 20 students. This initiative worked and improved education quality. But when the 2008 budget crisis hit, CSR was suspended, and larger class sizes returned. In recent years, many districts have relaxed class size limits, and some have even surpassed the mandated limits. Larger classes, fewer teachers, and rising expectations have become the new norm.

So why not revisit the CSR program now? Why, after two decades of rising class sizes, are we still allowing classrooms to grow while cutting teacher positions? The CSR program worked in the past, so why not bring it back? We need smaller class sizes for all grade levels, especially in early education where it’s critical to set a strong foundation.

Here’s the truth: classroom sizes are unmanageable, and teachers are overwhelmed. Imagine a kindergarten class with 33 children, each with unique developmental needs and varying reading levels, all while teachers have fewer resources to meet those needs. It’s simply not sustainable. We can’t keep asking educators to do more with less. It’s time for change—and it’s time to invest in teachers and students again.

Let’s start a conversation that doesn’t just focus on the challenges we face but also the solutions that have worked in the past and can work again. We need smaller class sizes, more teachers, and policies that support our workforce so that our students get the education they deserve. The CSR program provides a proven solution—let’s adapt it to today’s reality.

It’s time to stop letting budget cuts dictate our students' futures. We have the power to change this, but it will take all of us—teachers, parents, and lawmakers—working together to secure a brighter, more sustainable future for California’s classrooms.

Three Key Solutions:

• Reinstate Class Size Reduction: Bring back the CSR program from the 1990s to reduce class sizes, especially in kindergarten through third grade, where smaller classes have proven to improve learning outcomes.

• Increase Teacher Hiring: Address teacher shortages by investing in more hires to meet growing demand and prevent burnout among current teachers.

• Allocate Funds to Education: Prioritize education funding to ensure schools have the resources needed to provide quality education, including manageable class sizes and teacher support.

Let’s start the dialogue—it's time for change.