“Nearly half of Californians believe that current state funding for schools is not enough to meet student needs.”
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — April 17, 2025 — As California’s public education system grapples with a changing political and demographic landscape, new data from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that fewer than half of Californians believe the state’s K–12 public schools are headed in the right direction.
Support for the state’s educational leadership is tepid, federal interventions have sparked partisan divides, and concern about declining enrollment and immigration enforcement in schools is widespread.
These findings, based on interviews with more than 1,500 adult residents across the state, present a sobering snapshot of public confidence in California’s public education system as the state navigates mounting challenges—including funding shortfalls, political polarization, and a looming culture war over curriculum and inclusion.
Public Confidence in K–12 Direction Slipping
Only 45 percent of adults and 46 percent of likely voters said they believe California’s K–12 public schools are heading in the right direction, continuing a steady decline from 57 percent in April 2022. Among public school parents, optimism is slightly higher, with 56 percent believing schools are on the right path. However, 50 percent of adults believe major changes are needed in the system, and nearly half say school quality has worsened in recent years.
“The fact that just 45 percent of Californians think the state’s K–12 system is headed in the right direction signals an urgent need for reform,” said Mark Baldassare, the PPIC survey director. “This data reflects both long-standing frustrations and heightened concerns about current policy.”
Notably, partisan and racial divides are stark: while 65 percent of Democrats believe schools are headed in the right direction, only 16 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independents agree. Optimism is also higher among Asian American (50%) and Latino (49%) respondents than among African American (45%) or white (39%) respondents.
Mixed Reviews for State Leadership
The public remains divided on how key state leaders are handling education. Governor Gavin Newsom holds a 50 percent approval rating among all adults on his handling of K–12 education; the legislature and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond follow closely at 48 and 47 percent, respectively. Among public school parents, support is notably stronger: 58 percent approve of Newsom’s performance, 56 percent approve of the legislature’s handling, and 59 percent approve of Thurmond.
These ratings, while not disastrous, suggest a public growing restless with incremental reforms and skeptical of leadership during a time of social and fiscal turbulence.
Trump’s Education Orders Spark Backlash in California
A large majority of Californians—71 percent of adults and 74 percent of public school parents—oppose President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, viewing it as a destructive move for national policy and local school stability. The opposition is bipartisan in most urban and coastal regions but shows sharp partisan splits statewide: 91 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents oppose the closure, compared to just 31 percent of Republicans.
California’s electorate is also divided over Trump’s order requiring transgender athletes to compete based on their birth-assigned sex rather than gender identity. While a majority of adults (65%) and public school parents (71%) support the requirement, support is again split along party lines—91 percent of Republicans are in favor, while only 49 percent of Democrats express support.
These splits reflect the culture war tensions playing out in classrooms and school board meetings, where debates over gender identity, inclusive curricula, and federal mandates have intensified.
Immigration Enforcement in Schools Raises Alarm
Another major theme of the report is anxiety around federal immigration enforcement and its chilling effect on California’s large population of undocumented students and mixed-status families. Sixty-six percent of adults, 64 percent of likely voters, and 74 percent of public school parents say they are very or somewhat concerned about the impacts of federal immigration crackdowns in local schools.
A strong majority of Californians—63 percent of adults and 72 percent of parents—support school districts designating themselves as sanctuary “safe zones” to protect undocumented students from enforcement actions. Support for sanctuary status is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (69%) and Los Angeles (67%), though it remains a majority position in every region.
“These findings show overwhelming concern about the safety and inclusion of immigrant families in our public schools,” Baldassare noted. “It underscores the unique role schools play as safe havens in California communities.”
Parents Still See Value in Local Schools
Despite grim assessments of statewide direction, Californians report higher satisfaction with their local public schools. Majorities said their local schools are doing a good or excellent job preparing students for college (65%), jobs and the workforce (54%), and civic engagement (55%). Among public school parents, those numbers were even stronger—75 percent said schools are doing well preparing students for college, and 68 percent said they are doing well in preparing students for the workforce.
These numbers suggest a critical distinction between perceptions of the broader system and views of individual schools—many Californians are discouraged by state leadership or policy debates but still trust the teachers and administrators in their own communities.
Funding Concerns Mount Amid Enrollment Declines
Nearly half of Californians (48%) and likely voters (47%) believe that current state funding for schools is not enough to meet student needs. Just 13 percent of adults and 9 percent of parents believe funding is more than adequate. With school enrollment declining in many districts due to shifting demographics and cost-of-living pressures, financial strain is only expected to grow.
About 61 percent of adults and 68 percent of public school parents said they are very or somewhat concerned about the impact of declining enrollment on school funding. These concerns are especially acute in suburban and rural regions where schools have already begun consolidating classrooms and cutting programs.
A Mandate for Change
The PPIC report makes clear that California stands at a crossroads. The public has confidence in its local schools and educators, but is demanding more transparency, accountability, and innovation from state leadership. There is strong opposition to federal overreach, deep concern over immigration enforcement, and clear majorities that support inclusion and equity-based policy in public education.
Yet, the contradictions are also apparent: While majorities want to protect undocumented students, many also support bans on transgender athletes. While parents are satisfied with local schools, nearly half believe the system is broken at large. And while public education is a cornerstone of California’s progressive identity, funding still lags behind needs—and is threatened further by declining enrollment.
As Baldassare put it: “Californians see their public schools as vital, but under stress. There is a window now to act decisively, or risk further erosion in public confidence and educational equity.”
I’d like to see a survey question that asks if the state or federal government should fund education for those in the country illegally.
At this point, schools are dependent upon those in the country illegally due to the manner in which schools are funded, combined with declining citizen enrollments. So all of the talk about “protecting immigrant students” is at least partly due to self-interest. Not sure that the average citizen understands this.
I’d also like to see some statistics which show the dollar amounts (and percentages) of all tax funds that are used to support public schools. (I don’t believe that most people know these amounts/percentages.)
I’d also like to see a survey which asks if a community should pursue continuous development so that its school district can try to avoid “right-sizing” itself in response to the declining needs of a given community.
It’s unfortunate that everything in Ron’s worldview is ultimately reducible to his view on housing. The conversation stops being about policy and how to best address the policy and starts being about preserving this worldview.
For Ron – demographics – threat to housing. School funding – threat to housing. Immigration threat to housing. Traffic – same. Even climate policy – somehow is still about housing.
The problem is that this kind of framing turns EVERY SINGLE POLICY DISCUSSION into a proxy war over development even those where the topic has multiple dimensions and could be explored more broadly.
David: I’m not the one advocating for continued sprawl so that school districts can avoid try to avoid downsizing. Your position (“sprawl for schools”) is so absurd that I’m surprised that you or anyone actually advocates for it as if it was a reaonable position.
Most of the growth advocates on here don’t even take that position.
None of the issues you mention are a “threat to housing”. You’ve got that backwards, in that you’re the one arguing that lack of additional housing is a “threat to schools”, a “threat to immigration”, a “threat to the climate”, a “threat to equity”, etc.
With each housing unit not built “contributing” to those problems, in your mind at least. It’s really rather amusing to see.
And you lack the introspection to understand your own motivations, so you turn to the Keithian tactic of whataboutism.
I fully understand my motivation, and I believe I understand yours as well.
But you don’t seem to understand “whataboutism”, as I made no such “whatabout”. Nor did I mistakenly attribute your comments in a “backward manner”, as you did with mine.
You have literally said that lack of additional housing is a threat to all of those issues (schools, immigration, climate, equity, etc.).
But perhaps the most relevant comment I made in regard to this particular article is that schools are DEPENDENT upon those in the country illegally, at this point – due to the manner in which they’re funded combined with declining citizen enrollment. As such, part of their motivation is driven by self-interest (though they “somehow” fail to mention that – and only publicly focus on “protecting immigrants”). Also, I said nothing about housing in regard to that comment.
My third comment, already. (That’s what happens when nonsensical responses to my comments, to which I then feel compelled to respond).
Here’s a Keithian tactic:
“For Ron – demographics – threat to housing. School funding – threat to housing. Immigration threat to housing. Traffic – same. Even climate policy –
somehow is still about housing.”
Hilarious to see David writing this. Here’s how I see it:
For David – Lack of Housing – threat to demographics. Lack of Housing– threat to school funding. Where Housing is Built – threat to traffic. Where Housing is Built – threat to climate change.
For proof just read some of the hundreds of Vanguard “housing” articles.
“LESS THAN HALF OF CALIFORNIANS SAY STATE’S K–12 SYSTEM IS HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION”
What’s amazing is that 45% actually said it’s heading in the right direction.
What planet are they from?
By what objective standard would you say the educational system in California is headed in the wrong direction? 85 to 88 percent graduate from high school and 60 percent go to college out of high school. Based on those percentages, why would you expect that less 45 percent percent think it’s headed in the wrong direction?
Our California K-12 schools rank 37th and 41st nationally according to these two ratings. Is that an objective enough standard for you?
So 45% of Californians think being in the bottom 20% of the nation for K-12 schooling is going in the right direction? Scary!
Don’t bother replying because I can’t respond, 3rd comment. Not a very fair conversation, is it?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state#sources
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education/prek-12
First of all, you chose to interject yourself into my discussion with Ron for one of your comments, so I’m not very sympathetic.
Second, the data you cite, doesn’t negate the possibility that a large percentage of people would be satisfied with the educational system in California. It ignores two possible explanations. One, is that there is no unified K-12 in California, instead it’s district by district. Second, a low relevant ranking (which actually looks subjective rather than objective based on what I read) doesn’t mean that the education system is bad. It just means that other states are better – but what if there is either little objective difference in the measures or that all the states are doing well? I’m sorry, but I happen to believe I got a good education and that my children, here in Davis, also got a very good education. Did your kids get a bad education in Davis? Remember the question isn’t whether or not they are correct it’s whether or not someone would believe that. I don’t think 45% is unreasonable given what we know about education in California.
“a low relevant ranking (which actually looks subjective rather than objective based on what I read) doesn’t mean that the education system is bad. It just means that other states are better ”
North Korea isn’t necessarily a bad country, but simply that other countries are better. LOL
This is extraordinarily bad reasoning. Whether NK is “bad” is not determined by some rank, but rather by examining specific metrics – things like human rights abuses, economic repression, lack of free expression. The takeaway from my comment isn’t that rankings are meaningless, it’s that they’re only as useful as the analysis behind them. You pointing out that California ranks low, misses the point that for a sizable enough portion of the population (apparently 45 percent if you believe the PPIC poll), the system works. Ironically, I would not have answered in the affirmative had I been questioned, you didn’t even bother to explore that.
I wonder if the half who think schools are under-performing is the same half that reads above a sixth grade level?
Interesting point
Good point Ron. The half that is actually literate.