Few parents understand the massive California school system accurately — even in "normal" times.

Many think they do (after all, they lived through their own education!) but a dose of humility is in order. The education system as a whole rarely changes much from one year to the next, but it has changed quite significantly since the Great Recession of 2008, and even more drastically since the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. Even in ordinary times, myths and outdated ideas have a funny way of sticking around.

Ed100 exists to demystify the California school system. Let's start with the obvious: the system is really, really big.

There are sound reasons why this mammoth education system has to be particularly complex. Similar to Texas and Florida (and unlike, say, New York), California's population has grown and changed rapidly. The school system has had to grow and change with it.

Students in these growing states have all kinds of different needs. To serve those needs and balance among them, the education system must be simultaneously massive and personal, which makes complexity unavoidable. To work for all students, it has to work for each student — even in a pandemic. That's an authentic challenge.

Breaking it Down

In California, about one student in five lives in poverty. About a fifth are learning English. Some kids come to school ready for kindergarten, but most don't. About an eighth have learning disabilities. All students need teachers that can teach complex material. And effective leaders. And access to the arts. Which takes money. And...

... we're getting ahead of ourselves. Getting education right requires getting lots of things right. It's too much to think about all of them at once, so Ed100 breaks it down. It's easier to make sense of the system if you take it one topic at a time. Ed100 explains California's education system, busts myths, and explains what you need to know.

Wait, you might ask — do I really need to understand the system that governs California schools? Is it even possible? The answer is yes and yes.

Understanding the system is helpful for the sake of your own kids, of course, and the point of Ed100 is to make the system learnable. But there's something bigger: like it or not, you, as an involved parent or community member, are the heart of California's education accountability system. There is no independent watchdog in the system. You are it. The system literally depends on the vigilant support of local, active, informed constituents to speak up for what's right and what's needed.

To wield influence when you need it, you have to know what you are talking about. Ed100 can help with that.

California school results have improved a lot over the long term. But they are still pretty mediocre, and the pandemic hurt.

Ed100's core content is a set of short lessons, including this one. (We have a blog, too, which provides more detail and helps make sense of disruptive conditions like the coronavirus pandemic. We also have a toolbox to help encourage conversation and learning — but the lessons are the core content.) You are reading Lesson 1.1, the first lesson of the first chapter. At the bottom of each lesson you will find a simple quiz that reinforces a main point. Pass a quiz and you earn a ticket (more about that in a moment); pass every quiz and you become an Ed100 Graduate.

You can do this. It's free, and it matters. If you complete all of the lessons you will become, in the words of one state leader, "intimidatingly well-informed." (She wasn't being tongue-in-cheek. Informed parents aren't easy to dismiss.)

Here's the main point of Lesson 1.1: California's K-12 educational results have improved a lot over the long term. But they are still pretty mediocre.

How Can We Tell if California Schools Are Behind?

Schools serve many purposes, some straightforward and others hard to measure. Obviously, one of the central jobs of school is to help students learn grade-level academic stuff.

Each year (with an exception in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic) some of America's 4th and 8th graders take tests for the "Nation’s Report Card." Education insiders rarely call it by that name. To insiders, these tests are known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. (It's pronounced "nape.")

Very few children actually take the NAEP tests.

Only a few hundred thousand children actually take the NAEP tests. These are not the tests that all students are required to take each year. (Those are called the CAASPP, or the "Smarter Balanced" tests.) NAEP is separate, and its purpose is purely statistical. Designed to be consistent from place to place and from year to year, it evaluates how well students know the basic academic content associated with their grade level. Scores on NAEP, though imperfect, enable researchers and policymakers to monitor the overall education system, comparing student achievement between years, states, grades, and student subgroups (for example by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic factors like family income).

NAEP scores don't tend to change quickly. Frankly, almost nothing in the education system changes quickly — and this is a recurring theme of Ed100.org. Each year, scores bump up or down a point or two, but the best predictor of next year's score tends to be last year's score. It makes sense, right? The education system is like an armada of giant ships, each rowed by thousands of little oars. Each year the people rowing have a lot in common with those who rowed the year before. The underlying currents surrounding a school community tend to change slowly, too. Books and tools might change a little. Teachers evolve their lessons, or move, or retire, or shift grades. But on the whole, change tends to happen slowly in each school system.

There are exceptions.

For example, on a national basis, NAEP scores dropped during the pandemic. School districts strained, with uneven success, to make access to technology universal. Teachers strained to figure out ways to make learning engaging at a distance. The pandemic also accelerated resentment about SAT and ACT tests. Even so, when we look back years from now it will be interesting to see whether the outcomes changed very much.

California's Scores are Low. And also Ordinary.

California's children tend to score poorly on the NAEP tests. The chart below shows the overall rate at which groups of children in each state have scored at the level deemed proficient or better over time. (It averages fourth and eighth-grade math and reading scores.) California is represented by the thick orange line. The black line represents the average of all the states excluding California. (Massachusetts is the one on top. Hover over the chart for details. Full model here.)

Unfortunately for California kids, these stubborn scores appear to matter. Most (not all) education researchers reckon that a ten-point difference in NAEP scores represents about a year of difference in academic learning. If true, California's average students are years behind those in top-scoring states like Massachusetts. Meanwhile, California's less-advantaged students (those qualifying for free or reduced-price meals) are scoring a year behind less-advantaged students in Mississippi.

Quibbles

Perhaps these tests aren’t quite fair to California students. For example, administration of the test may vary a little by state. Some states provide extra testing time to English learners. Texas, for example, doesn't make students take the test if they are so new to English that they would bomb it. These small differences in administration probably matter a bit; small differences in state scores shouldn't be taken too seriously. Also, maybe the rule of thumb is wrong. Maybe ten points of difference on a NAEP test isn't equivalent to a year, but more like nine months. Or six. Anyway, tests don’t tell the whole story, right? There are many ways to measure success.

California’s children are not within quibbling distance of the skills of children elsewhere in the country.

These quibbles miss the point. The fourth grade reading assessment evaluates whether children can read short passages and understand them. The math questions are similarly basic. Year after year, the big picture is clear: compared to other states, California's students aren't within quibbling distance. They are behind.

Ask a family that has moved to California from the east coast for their perspective. At minimum, they will almost certainly tell you that class sizes in California schools are much, much bigger. (In 2019 ChildrenNow, a nonprofit organization, compared high schools in California, Illinois and New Jersey to document some of the differences. The report is titled Not Enough Adults to Go Around.)

Does it matter if California children start off slowly, one might ask, so long as they catch up later? Unfortunately, most don’t. For many years, research has shown that children not reading at grade level by the end of third grade are at serious risk of never graduating from high school.

Are poor results somehow better for California, or for kids, if they can be “explained...?”

It's important to acknowledge that most of California's NAEP scores look less bad if you "disaggregate" them, looking beneath the averages to compare the scores of students with similar advantages and disadvantages. The Urban Institute has attempted this in a report it calls America's Gradebook. By its reckoning, the real star of US public education is Minnesota:

Yet another report, A Portrait of Educational Outcomes in California, reveals that there is little difference between affluent districts in California and affluent districts nationally. “The disparity between California and the nation is concentrated in average and disadvantaged districts where California students score nearly a full grade level behind their national counterparts. These patterns are consistent when the same comparisons are made within each racial/ethnic group.”

So... Blame the Kids?

Wait, some might ask — does this mean California’s lackluster NAEP scores can be explained by demographics? This question begs another in return: should it matter? Are poor results somehow better for California, or for kids, if they can be "explained" by the state’s larger numbers of children of color and children in poverty? Is it useful to imagine it as their fault? The children in our schools grow up to become the workers and leaders of our communities. If we want California to have a bright future, can we afford to accept demographics as an excuse for bad scores? Or are systemic inequalities at play here?

In any case, the data leave little room for denial. California’s children in poverty generally score starkly behind those in other states, as do California's Hispanic/Latinx students. But California's white children aren't exactly leading the parade, either, and neither are California's kids that don't qualify for the lunch program.

State-level results don't change quickly.

These results are not accidental or surprising. They do not zigzag from one year to the next or change quickly in response to small changes in policy or practice. They are the long-term output of a large, complex system. One important finding from the "Portrait" report mentioned above is that California's system underperforms at each level. Gaps, lags and disparities start early and tend to get worse, not better. This is a national challenge, and perhaps a global one, but California has an impressively bad record at addressing it.

Themes of Ed100

As you read Ed100, a few themes will emerge, like these:

Perhaps you found your way to Ed100 because you want to help make things better. There are many approaches to change, and we will explore them one by one. It's important to lay the groundwork first, so let’s broaden the context a bit. The next lesson examines how California compares not just to America, but to the world.

Scroll down just a little more to take the quiz for this lesson. Pass it, earn your ticket and keep going!

Updated May, 2018 with refreshed state rankings.
Updated September 2018 with GDTFII findings about the persistence of pre-K gaps.
Reviewed September, 2019
Revised November, 2019
Revised February, 2020
Revised March, 2020
Revised August, 2021
Revised July, 2022