zone-California 7

The Constitutional "Wall"

For three decades, Proposition 209 has served as a constitutional "wall" in California. Passed by voters in 1996, it prevents school districts and government agencies from using race, gender, or ethnicity as a factor in admissions, hiring, or program placement. In 2020, California voters reaffirmed this principle by defeating Proposition 16, which sought a total repeal of those protections.

From Prop 16 to ACA 7

Following the defeat of Prop 16, proponents introduced ACA 7 with a more surgical approach. Unlike previous attempts at a total repeal, the current version (passed by the Assembly in February 2026) seeks to narrow the scope of the state’s equal treatment rules. It proposes to delete "public education" from the constitutional list of areas where racial and gender preferences are prohibited. While the bill adds a specific ban for "higher education admissions" to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, it removes constitutional protection for the rest of the education system.

The K-12 and Resource Focus

By removing the broad "public education" category, ACA 7 effectively eliminates the equal treatment mandate for K-12 schools and university-level resource allocation (such as grants and specialized funding). This shift would grant school districts like CUSD the authority to once again use race, gender, or ethnicity as a factor in student acceleration, specialized enrollment, and the distribution of educational resources. This version ensures that while college admissions remain colorblind, the "pipeline" leading up to them—and the resources within them—can be legally managed through racial preferences.

Next Steps and Local Representation

The Assembly passed ACA 7 on February 19, 2026. Patrick Ahrens and Marc Berman, the Assemblymembers who represent the CUSD area, both voted "Yes" on the measure. The bill is now in the State Senate. Because it is a Constitutional Amendment, your State Senators (Josh Becker, Dave Cortese, and Aisha Wahab) will have the final say on whether this reaches your ballot for voter approval this November.

While the 2023 California Mathematics Framework (CMF) has been a topic of debate for several years, the state-level process reached a major milestone this past November. On November 6, 2025, the California State Board of Education officially approved a list of 64 instructional programs for K–8 and Algebra I that align with the new framework.

This marks the end of the state’s vetting process. The "adoption cycle" has now moved from the state level to individual school districts. While each district determines its own timeline for reviewing and adopting new materials—with many likely looking toward the 2027–2028 school year or beyond—the philosophies contained in these new state-approved books represent a significant shift in how math may be taught in the future.

The Goal: "Equity and Excellence"
The California Department of Education (CDE) describes the new framework as a "Step Forward for Equity and Excellence." These terms represent the dual goals of the state’s vision:

• Equity: The goal of ensuring all students—regardless of background—have access to high-quality math and are not "tracked" out of advanced opportunities too early.
• Excellence: The goal of raising the bar for all students through deep problem-solving and data literacy, skills essential for a 21st-century workforce.

The "New Generation" of Math Philosophy: Trade-offs to Consider

The programs recently approved by the state represent a shift from traditional math instruction. Each pillar of this new philosophy carries potential benefits and common concerns that communities are currently weighing:

1. Active "Inquiry-Based" Learning

This shift moves away from the teacher providing a formula first. Instead, students "investigate" a complex task in groups to discover the logic themselves.

• Pros: Encourages "productive struggle" and deeper conceptual understanding. Proponents argue it makes math more joyful and relevant, which can reduce math anxiety and increase student engagement.
• Cons: Critics worry that without enough "Direct Instruction," students may fail to develop "automaticity" (speed and accuracy) with basic math facts. There is also concern that this method is less efficient, potentially leaving less time to cover the full curriculum.

2. Organization by "Big Ideas"

New textbooks group standards into 8–10 broad themes (e.g., "Data as a Tool" or "Patterns in the World") to show how math is interconnected across grades.

• Pros: Helps students see math as a unified language rather than a list of disconnected skills. It answers the common question, "When will I ever use this?" by placing math in a real-world context.
• Cons: Some educators fear this "integrated" approach can lead to a "fuzzier" curriculum where the mastery of discrete, rigorous skills—like factoring polynomials or long division—is glossed over in favor of broad concepts.

3. "Heterogeneous" (Mixed-Ability) Grouping

The framework encourages keeping students of all ability levels in the same classroom for longer (often called "de-tracking").

• Pros: Promotes equity by ensuring all students have access to high-quality content and prevents students from being "labeled" as low-achievers early in their education. It allows for peer-to-peer learning.
• Cons: Opponents argue that "one size does not fit all" and that mixed-ability classrooms can be extremely difficult for teachers to manage. There is concern that advanced learners may feel "held back" while struggling learners may feel overwhelmed without targeted, leveled support.

The Data Science vs. Calculus Debate

A core feature of the CMF is its emphasis on Data Science as a rigorous and relevant pathway. However, this has recently met with a significant policy shift from California's universities:

• The Framework’s Vision: To promote data literacy and statistics as a valid alternative to the traditional Calculus-focused track, making math more accessible to more students.
• The UC/CSU Reality: The University of California and California State University systems have clarified that Data Science courses no longer satisfy the "Area C" (Advanced Math) requirement in the same way Algebra II does. Students who take Data Science instead of Algebra II may find themselves ineligible for admission to these universities.

The 2026 "Study Phase"

Because the state-approved list of textbooks is now final, 2026 serves as an important "study phase." This period allows parents and community members to observe how these new instructional styles and "Big Ideas" align with local standards for academic rigor and student potential.

Understanding these state-level changes now ensures that as local districts eventually begin their own review processes in the coming years, the conversation is guided by a clear understanding of the options and trade-offs provided by the state.

The debate over how we grade our students is reaching a boiling point in the East Bay. What started as a controversial movement in San Francisco has now arrived in the Tri-Valley—but under a new set of names.

The SFUSD Precedent

In May 2025, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) attempted to mandate a district-wide "Grading for Equity" system. The proposal was met with fierce community opposition, leading the Superintendent to pull the plan. Critics argued the system lowered standards and reduced student accountability.

The Tri-Valley Shift (January 2026)

As of January 2026, school districts in Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon are actively considering or rolling out similar reforms. However, you won’t find the word “Equity” in many of the new proposals. Instead, administrators are using terms like:

• Standards-Based Grading
• Mastery-Based Assessment
• Grade Reform

The Architect: Joe Feldman

Behind these changes is Joe Feldman, author of Grading for Equity and the consultant who advised SFUSD. While Tri-Valley districts are using his framework, many are taking a "buffet" approach—adopting some of his methods while discarding others that proved too controversial.

For example, due to parent feedback, most local districts have abandoned the "50% minimum floor" (the practice where a student cannot receive lower than a 50%, even for missing work).

What is actually changing?

Proposed policies currently under review (including a major vote expected in SRVUSD between February and April 2026) include:

• Eliminating the +/-: An 89% becomes a B; a 91% becomes an A. This aims for "consistency" but has sparked debate among students worried about GPA impact.
• Redos and Retakes: Providing multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery of a subject.
• Separating Behavior from Academics: Eliminating "participation points" or "extra credit" for bringing in classroom supplies, ensuring the grade reflects only what the student has learned.
• Softening Deadlines: Encouraging teachers to reduce or eliminate point deductions for late work.

Why the Rebrand?

Officials state that terms like "Mastery-Based" better describe the goal: ensuring every student actually learns the material. Critics, however, argue that "Mastering-Based" is simply a rebranding of "Equity Grading" designed to bypass the same community pushback that happened in San Francisco.

What do you think?

Does removing the +/- scale make grading fairer, or does it hurt high-achieving students? Is "Mastery" a better goal than "Accountability"?

Updates on Mirabelli v. Olson.

On January 5, 2026, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay (a pause) on Judge Benitez’s ruling.

Following the 9th Circuit's decision to pause the injunction, the plaintiffs (the teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West) filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in early January 2026. They are asking the High Court to lift the stay and allow Judge Benitez's ruling to remain in effect while the appeal proceeds.

On December 22, 2025, a federal district court issued a significant ruling in the case of Mirabelli v. Olson. The judge granted a class-wide permanent injunction against the State of California, fundamentally altering how schools handle student information regarding gender identity and medical privacy.

The Court's Key Findings

The ruling centers on the tension between state privacy mandates and federal constitutional protections. The court reached three primary conclusions:

• Parental Rights: Under the 14th Amendment, parents have a "fundamental right" to be informed of significant issues affecting their child's health and well-being.
• Teacher Rights: Forcing school staff to withhold information or provide misleading answers to parents violates the teachers' First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise.
• Supremacy of Federal Law: The court mandated that school training materials must now explicitly state that federal constitutional rights to parental notification are superior to any conflicting state or local laws.

The Core Conflict: Autonomy vs. Guardianship

This ruling highlights a deep legal and ethical divide:

• The State's Position: California emphasizes that minors are individuals with an independent right to privacy. The state argues that confidentiality is necessary to protect students who may face a hostile environment at home.

• The Federal Court's Position: The court asserts that because minors are not yet fully mature, they require the guidance of their parents. Therefore, a parent's right to oversee their child's upbringing outweighs the school's interest in maintaining secrecy.

Beyond Gender Identity: Implications for Reproductive Health

While Mirabelli v. Olson specifically addressed "social transitions" (name and pronoun changes), the legal logic may extend to other confidential services. Currently, California Education Code § 46010.1 allows schools to excuse students for "confidential medical services" -- including abortion and reproductive care -- without parental consent or notification.

The following table illustrates the current legal landscape following the injunction:

What's Next?

The ruling in Mirabelli v. Olson is not yet the final word. The State of California is expected to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Legal experts view this as a "test case" that is likely to be petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a national standard for parental rights in education.

Overview

The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) is addressing ongoing budget challenges through a fiscal stabilization plan. This initiative aims to reduce deficits proactively, maintain adequate reserves, and minimize impacts on educational programs. The following provides background on the current fiscal situation and proposals discussed at the October 30, 2025, Board Advance meeting.

Current Fiscal Context

CUSD faces pressures from declining enrollment, lost local revenues, and external funding uncertainties:

• Deficits: Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 closed with a deficit exceeding $26 million. FY 2025-2026 projections indicate a shortfall of more than $11 million.

• Reserves: Board-designated reserves are expected to drop below 5% of the annual budget, compared to the district's 10% target. Neighboring districts often maintain around 20% reserves for added stability.

• Revenue Loss: The district has lost approximately $8 million annually from the expired parcel tax since 2024.

• Broader Factors: Federal cuts and state budget volatility, including Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) adjustments, exacerbate challenges for Basic Aid districts like CUSD.

These trends underscore the need for targeted efficiencies to avoid larger program reductions in the future.

Board Advance Discussion: Targeted Reductions

District staff presented a plan for $8 million in savings, focusing on:

• Middle school elective offerings

• Transitional Kindergarten (TK) adjustments

• Early retirement incentives

• Cuperdoodle program changes

Emphasis is on middle school electives and TK, potentially yielding $4–5 million combined. Details follow.

Middle School Electives

Electives such as band, foreign languages, woodshop, and photography support student engagement. Recent changes include:

• Pre-2025: Offerings varied by school (e.g., two electives for 7th/8th graders at some sites, one for 6th graders).

• FY 2025-2026: Expansion to two electives for all 6th–8th graders, enabled by enrollment declines without new hires.

With continued enrollment at lower levels, proposed options balance access and costs:

• Option 1: 7th/8th graders may opt for a second elective; 6th graders receive one. Projected impact: ~18 full-time employees (FTEs) reduction in middle school staff. Estimated savings: ~$2.1 million.

• Option 2: All 7th/8th graders receive two electives; 6th graders receive one. Projected impact: ~13 FTEs reduction. Estimated savings: ~$1.5 million.

• Option 3 (Status Quo): All 6th–8th graders receive two electives, accounting for enrollment declines. Projected impact: Minimal staff changes. Estimated savings: ~$0.6 million.

• Option 4: All 6th–8th graders may opt for a second elective (voluntary). Projected impact: Savings pending analysis; aligns staffing with participation. Estimated savings: To be determined.

All options ensure at least one elective per student.

Transitional Kindergarten (TK)

TK, a statewide pre-K program for four-year-olds, aids kindergarten readiness but poses funding issues for Basic Aid districts:

• No state funding per TK student (vs. ~$5,545 extra for LCFF districts).
• Mandated 1:10 adult-to-pupil ratio (vs. 1:20 or more for other grades), nearly doubling per-pupil costs.

Serving ~720 students currently, proposed adjustments include:

• Option 1: Half-day classes; no enrollment cap. Projected impact: TK teachers and instructional assistants (IAs) reduced to 60% contracts. Estimated savings: ~$2.5 million.

• Option 2: Full-day classes; cap enrollment at 360 students. Projected impact: ~36 teacher/IA positions eliminated. Estimated savings: ~$3.2 million.

• Option 3: Split-day classes (e.g., alternating schedules). Projected impact: ~36 teacher/IA positions eliminated. Estimated savings: ~$2.5 million.

These maintain significant TK capacity while reallocating resources to K–8 priorities.

Next Steps

The board will review and vote on the stabilization plan at the board meeting on 11/20/2025.

In recent years, several teachers have been terminated for expressions related to social or political topics, either in the classroom or on personal social media. These incidents span diverse viewpoints and have fueled ongoing discussions about free speech protections for public educators versus institutional expectations for neutrality. The following examples outline key details from three such cases.

• 2023, St. Philip's College, Texas: Adjunct biology professor Johnson Varkey was fired after stating in class that biological sex is determined by X and Y chromosomes, prompting student complaints of discrimination and walkouts. He was reinstated following a settlement with the college. Link

• 2023, Jurupa Unified School District, California: Tenured PE teacher Jessica Tapia was terminated for declining to use students' preferred pronouns and for not disclosing students' gender transitions to parents, citing her religious beliefs. The district reached a $360,000 settlement with her in 2024. Link

• 2025, Jourdanton High School, Texas: Social studies teacher Matthew Justin Holland was placed on administrative leave and later unanimously fired by the school board after a social media post about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, gained widespread attention. The post was made outside school hours. Link

In two of these cases, the initial terminations were followed by settlements or reinstatements, while the third proceeded to final termination. Such outcomes highlight varying approaches to handling teacher speech, particularly when it occurs off-campus. These situations prompt consideration of several issues in educational policy and employment:

• To what extent should school districts regulate teachers' expressions made outside of work?

• How do district guidelines align with legal protections for free speech and personal beliefs?

• In what ways do public reactions influence decisions about employee conduct?

These cases contribute to wider conversations on the boundaries of expression in public schools.

In response to Texas’s 2025 mid-decade redistricting plan, which aims to add five Republican-leaning congressional seats, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed Proposition 50 to redraw California’s congressional districts to favor Democrats, offsetting potential losses in Congress. This proposal, driven by the Democratic supermajority in the state legislature, seeks to temporarily transfer redistricting authority from the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) to the legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections.

Legal Context and Constitutional Changes

Under the California Constitution, the CRC, an independent 14-member body established by Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010), is responsible for redrawing congressional and state legislative districts every decade following the federal census. Mid-decade redistricting is prohibited unless ordered by a court, as clarified in Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983). To enable Proposition 50, two constitutional amendments are proposed:

1. Transferring redistricting power from the CRC to the state legislature for congressional maps until 2030.
2. Allowing mid-decade redistricting without a court order.

The state Assembly and Senate passed these amendments with a two-thirds supermajority in August 2025. Proposition 50 now requires approval by more than 50% of California voters in a special election on November 4, 2025, to take effect.

Controversy and Public Response

Proposition 50 has sparked significant debate. Supporters, including Governor Newsom, argue it’s a necessary countermeasure to Texas’s redistricting, which passed the Texas House on August 20, 2025, to strengthen Republican control of Congress. They view it as protecting California’s interests in a national “redistricting war.” Opponents, including the California Republican Party and former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, contend it undermines the CRC’s nonpartisan process, risking partisan gerrymandering and eroding voter trust.

A recent controversy involved a flyer from the Voters First Act, which quoted the League of Women Voters of California’s president opposing mid-decade redistricting. The League distanced itself from the flyer on its website but reaffirmed its opposition to mid-decade redistricting, advocating for independent and transparent redistricting processes.

Implications for California

Proposition 50 could reshape California’s congressional representation, potentially affecting federal funding and policies that impact education, including in districts like Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). With 45% of California children having at least one immigrant parent, fair representation is critical for communities with diverse needs. The outcome of the November 4, 2025, election will determine whether California adopts this unprecedented mid-decade redistricting approach.

Equity Grading in schools.