The Brief

For the second time in two years, a coalition of advocates wants to make a high-quality education a constitutional right in California.

The push comes in the aftermath of pandemic-era school closures and distance learning, during which parents witnessed firsthand what they considered deficient instruction.

As educators now try to help students recover, advocates behind a proposed ballot measure say the right to a high-quality education is more crucial than ever. But while some see it as a simple and obvious proposal designed to empower families and students, critics anticipate a barrage of lawsuits against schools and districts resulting from the vaguely defined phrase “high-quality education.”

“It seems like the intention is to initiate lawsuits,” said Richard Barrera, a board member at the San Diego Unified School District, the state’s second-largest district. “It seems like it’s written in a way to drain funding from public schools to go into the pockets of lawyers.”

The California Attorney General’s office approved three versions of the initiative language, but the authors haven’t yet selected which one they’ll try to get on the ballot. Once they make the decision, they’ll start gathering signatures. There’s currently no organized opposition to the proposed measure.

Supporters of the proposed ballot measure argue that critics exaggerate the concerns about frivolous lawsuits. Christina Laster, a parent and the western region’s education director for the National Action Network, said that parents just want to hold districts accountable. She said litigation is a final resort used in extreme cases.

“For the most part, parents have not been willing to file lawsuits,” she said. “They just want conversation and change.”

More than 10 years ago, John Affeldt, the managing attorney at the civil rights advocacy group Public Advocates, represented plaintiffs who unsuccessfully sued the state seeking to guarantee the right to a high-quality education. He argued that the state and local districts have a variety of ways to define a high-quality education, whether it be through state standards or test scores.

That detail, he said, can be worked out later, whether in the courts or by the state Legislature and governor. The most urgent need, Affeldt said, is ensuring public schools are serving California’s students.

“We should’ve settled this already,” he said. “If education is going to be fundamental and meaningful… it has to deliver something of decent quality.”

A battle started in L.A. 

Students Matter, a coalition of education advocates, authored the proposed measure under the leadership of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

James Liebman, a Columbia Law School professor who helped draft the language, said of the three versions written, the third version will most likely be the coalition’s choice. It reads: “The state and its school districts shall provide all public school students with high-quality public schools that equip them with the tools necessary to participate fully in our economy, our society, and our democracy.”

Villaraigosa said the measure is largely a response to former Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner’s statements in response to a lawsuit brought by parents frustrated over distance learning during the first years of the pandemic. Beutner said a district is only required to provide a free public education, not a high-quality one.

Villaraigosa said he feared what this complacency might do to future generations of students and voters.

“The less you know, the more easily you can be persuaded by people who are selling you half-baked solutions to complex problems,” he said. “Just look at Trump’s base. They’re less educated people.”

Liebman said the phrase “high-quality” is intentionally broad so that future generations and local districts can each define what a “high-quality” education is. He said even the authors of the U.S. Constitution used broad language that evolved through legal interpretations over time.

“Our nation’s Constitution developed over hundreds of years,” he said. “You can’t predict everything that’s going to happen.”

Liebman added that enshrining a high-quality education as a constitutional right in California will give students and their families another tool for holding their schools and districts accountable. He expects political mobilization, not litigation, to be the main avenue for seeking accountability.

But William Koski, a law and education professor at Stanford University, remains skeptical that political mobilization, if it materializes, will pressure the Legislature to take action.

“Everyone in the California Legislature knew schools were underfunded,” he said. “Yet they couldn’t do anything about it because of a fear of raising taxes.”

In its analysis, the Legislative Analyst’s Office notes that the measure would not have a direct fiscal impact on the public education system. But the LAO also notes that there could be “unknown and highly uncertain” costs, depending on how courts interpret the measure’s language.

Courts as a venue for policy?

For supporters of the measure, those costs are worth empowering families through a constitutional right. But Koski said that, perhaps most significantly, the initiative will open the courts as a venue for shaping education policy, giving parents more power to strike down decisions made by state lawmakers and local school boards.

Koski said this could result in legal battles over actions ranging from teacher layoffs to school closures. Or in the event of another pandemic or public health crisis, parents could challenge a district’s decision to move to remote instruction.

“All of this could land in the courts’ hands,” Koski said.

Students Matter’s 2022 version of this proposed ballot measure more strongly suggested the possibility of legal action against schools and districts. It stated that a parent or guardian could bring “[a]n action to enforce the right to a high-quality public education.” The 2024 ballot versions omit this language.

Villairagosa said the measure is in no way designed to invite lawsuits. Rather, he said, it’s meant to encourage legislation and funding proposals to better equip the state’s schools.

Thousands gather outside the LAUSD headquarters in downtown Los Angeles in support of the SEIU99 and UTLA strike on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.

(

Ashley Balderrama

/

for LAist

)

Villairagosa’s tense history with teachers unions adds a thorny political dimension to the proposal. He enjoyed strong support from charter school advocates during his 2018 gubernatorial bid. Teachers unions have historically opposed charter schools for pulling students, and thus state funding, from traditional school districts. Charter schools are also typically not unionized. As mayor, Villairagosa clashed with United Teachers Los Angeles in his efforts to weaken tenure protections.

As of yet, it remains unclear how the politics for this most recent initiative will unfold. Villaraigosa said his team met with the California Teachers Association to discuss the measure. He didn’t disclose any details from the meeting. But he said he’s open to working with the union to finalize the details of the initiative.

“I think what I made clear is that the only way for us to get a high-quality education is for us to work together,” he said.

Becky Zoglman, an associate executive director for the California Teachers Association, declined to comment on the proposed ballot measure and only said that teachers are already striving to provide a high-quality education to all students. She said the union will take a position on the proposed measure only if it makes it onto the ballot. The association also did not take a position on the 2022 initiative, which did not gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

Both Koski and Liebman pointed to Kentucky as a positive example of what could happen if a state enshrines the right to a high-quality education into its state constitution.

In 1989, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that the state had failed to provide an “efficient” education to all of its students and ordered the Legislature to overhaul the public school system. A study published in 2004 found that the 1989 decision resulted in more per-pupil funding as well as higher test scores.

But in California, Koski said the vagueness of the proposed language could invite lawsuits targeting everything from book bans to school closures.

“I do think it’s appropriate to hold school systems accountable,” he said. “But should every decision be subject to scrutiny in a lawsuit? I don’t know about that.”

Topline:

New data shows Waymo’s robotaxis are crashing less often as they log more miles driven in Los Angeles. Experts recently joined LAist 89.3’s AirTalk with Larry Mantle and said the numbers are encouraging but don’t tell the whole story.

The data: Analyzed by the Los Angeles Times, it found:

• Crash rates are down from 57 crashes per million miles driven in 2023 to under six this year.
• The majority of Waymo-involved crashes happened while the vehicle was stopped. However, Waymos are designed to stop when they encounter issues.

Why safety is improving: Better technology, remote human help, and human drivers getting accustomed to Waymos are likely reasons safety is improving, Matthew Raifman of UC Berkeley told AirTalk listeners.

Concerns: Former federal auto safety regulator and UCLA law professor Ann Carlson stressed on air that Waymo’s improving safety record shouldn’t be extrapolated onto other autonomous car companies like Tesla’s Cybercab or Amazon’s Zoox, both of which have had recent safety issues.

Listen: To the full AirTalk segment above to hear about the challenges involved in making autonomous cars safe in every environment.

The Los Angeles Unified School District’s restrictions on generative artificial intelligence have drawn mixed reactions from education experts and students.

The district said in a statement to EdSource that its new Generative AI Ad Hoc Committee is working on specifics and will bring policy recommendations to the school board by the end of this academic year.

Here’s what experts and students have to say about the approach.

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Stephen Aguilar, professor of education at USC who leads the Center for Generative A.I. and Society

As a general rule, I am against blanket bans.

The core idea that I try to get across when we’re talking about screen time bans or AI bans is that we’re treating these technologies as though they are uniform, almost like a drug. AI is an umbrella term that refers to lots of different types of technologies.

Before everyone was talking about generative AI, cognitive tutors were AI-based tutoring systems that helped kids learn math. They can be very good at providing hints and diagnosing which concepts specifically students have issues with.

Teachers are often under-resourced and not respected in terms of the decisions that they end up making in the classroom. And policies aside, teachers end up defining almost 100% what the learning environment looks like for the kids that are under their charge.

So, I think that any real solution to this challenge involves giving teachers, and to a lesser extent parents, good information backed by sound science about the effects of different technologies.

Professional development is one way. Teachers need to be responsive to the emerging science about how kids learn — not because learning changes fundamentally, but because the tools we use to learn change.

Lucrecia Santibañez, professor of education and faculty co-director of UCLA’s Center for the Transformation of Schools 

I think [AI bans are] probably the correct approach. As we learn more, some of these policies may be revised.

It is easier to ban it in the elementary grades because kids are learning basic skills. They’re learning how to read, write, do basic math and understand concepts about science.

What gets tricky in high school is that every kid pretty much has a smartphone, so their ability to independently access AI is really high. As teachers get better trained to use AI in their own teaching and assignments, we may see more of a hybrid model.

One of the guiding pedagogical questions for me is: Is doing the tasks themselves an important part of what students are meant to do? If you want students to brainstorm, for example, some of that needs to be practiced first before it is delegated to an AI companion.

An analogy that makes sense is to treat classrooms like gyms. If you want to get fit and be able to run, you have to do it yourself. And it is the same way with education.

Chaitra Sure, senior at Taft Charter High School in Woodland Hills 

I don’t frequently use AI, but I do observe people in the classroom using it. I would say it’s mostly used to give the answer, and then they [students] just move on without really understanding.

I think this ban is mainly because a lot of students don’t know how to use AI effectively in an educational sense. But I don’t think the ban is going to really restrict usage. We can use precedents like the phone ban. I don’t see my peers using phones any less.

But I think what we need right now is some sort of class or lesson integrated into the curriculum that teaches us how to use artificial intelligence more effectively, which we’re not taught.

With the growing prevalence of artificial intelligence and technology beyond high school, in college and in careers, it’s going to become much more important to know how to use AI. I think what would be more effective is having a required curriculum or more opportunity in school to learn how to use artificial intelligence more effectively.

It’s going to be so helpful for the future.

This story was originally published by EdSource.

Bernie Sanders. Jane Fonda. There’s some star power endorsing each of the two Democratic candidates to be California’s next insurance commissioner.

Sure, it has historically been a little-known regulatory position. But its profile and importance are rising after a decade of some of the most destructive and deadliest wildfires in the state, which have disrupted one of the world’s largest insurance markets.

Not a homeowner? The commissioner's actions still affect your wallet if you're a renter, driver, pet owner, landlord, business owner, buyer of life insurance or possible user of workers' compensation.

If voters elect Jane Kim, the former San Francisco supervisor is proposing a drastic change that could have come out of the playbook of Sanders, her most famous backer: public disaster insurance.

If state Sen. Ben Allen wins, the movie star-backed candidate wants to get everyone on board to help reduce wildfire risk — individuals, communities, fire experts, local and state officials and the insurance industry — which he says would help solve the availability and affordability issues around homeowners insurance.

Voters are deciding between two candidates with a lot in common, including extensive track records of consumer advocacy, but who are offering very different ways of trying to solve the state’s insurance problems. At a debate between them moderated by CalMatters on Thursday, Kim characterized her opponent as offering to “tinker” and uphold the status quo, while Allen referred to Kim’s plans as “totally unprecedented and unmoored.”

The commissioner leads the Insurance Department, whose responsibilities include approving how much insurers can charge customers for property and casualty insurance, such as home, auto, commercial, renters, pet and travel.

A few years ago, some insurance companies stopped writing or renewing homeowner policies in areas with high fire risk, saying the state wasn’t approving their rate requests quickly enough so their prices weren’t matching the risk. That pushed homeowners into the FAIR Plan, a pool of insurers required to sell policies to those who can’t buy them from the regular market. The plan’s policies are generally more expensive and provide less coverage.

Last year, Commissioner Ricardo Lara rolled out new regulations that include faster rate reviews — when the Insurance Department looks at an insurer’s request to charge more money — and letting insurance companies factor reinsurance and catastrophe models into their rates. The department says the new rules are working because some insurers have said they plan to write more policies in the state again, though the state has not shared how many.

The new rules are generally leading to higher prices. Homeowners insurance rates in California rose 5% in the first half of the year, one of the largest increases in the nation, according to Insurify, a comparison site.

Meanwhile, average auto insurance premiums in the state are among the highest in the nation as replacement costs have gone up with the cost of vehicles. Both candidates said they hope to increase awareness of a state program that provides low-cost auto insurance to low-income drivers; Kim wants to expand it.

The Insurance Department reviews insurer practices and conducts investigations, though it’s limited in what it can order companies to do, as survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires in January 2025 have found as they struggle to rebuild partly because of insurance-claim delays and denials.

The candidates’ records

One of the candidates was in a position to take action on the issue: The governor recently signed Allen’s Senate Bill 1209, which increases the commissioner’s ability to compel insurers to fix problems the department finds after an investigation.

For example, the department found that State Farm violated the law in its handling of claims from last year’s fires in the Los Angeles area and recommended penalties, but the case has yet to go to a hearing. Although the law Allen authored, which was co-sponsored by Lara, is not retroactive, it should give the future commissioner additional power to hold insurers more accountable.

Democratic state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón is among many fellow lawmakers endorsing Allen in the race.

She said the senator, who represents the Palisades, “jumped into action the second he heard about the fire.” That meant assessing the situation, rallying his staff and going to his district immediately afterward, she said.

“From the start to now, he has been active,” Limón said. “He has authored legislation, held town halls and brought stakeholders together.”

She worked with him on the climate bond that voters approved in 2024 that is now helping fund water infrastructure, wildfire prevention and more. Allen, who also authored a landmark plastics law to reduce pollution that continues to face blowback, has been a champion of the environment — hence the support from Fonda’s climate political action committee.

“He has been able to land some of these difficult deals,” Limón said.

Allen has been a state senator since 2014 and is terming out. In his last legislative session, he authored two other laws that will affect the insurance market: One will establish a state-backed loan program for homeowners to upgrade and harden their homes against fire. The other will require insurers to give homeowners more details if they’re planning to drop their coverage, and give homeowners time to fix the issues to try to retain their insurance.

“This law’s going to help people help existing coverage, and keep them off the FAIR Plan,” Allen told CalMatters. “We have to think about holistic solutions.”

Kim has not held an elected office since 2019. Her most recent jobs were California director for the Working Families Party, and before that, California political director for Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign.

A fellow former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors recalled Kim’s impact during her time there. It includes helping pass the first $15 minimum wage ordinance in the state, securing tenant protections and providing free community college for the city’s residents.

“I got to witness for eight years a woman that was tenacious and relentless,” said Malia Cohen, the state controller who’s running for another term.

Cohen said she and Kim represented different districts in San Francisco and sometimes had opposing priorities: “She has been my enemy and my friend.”

She recalled working with Kim to “ban the box” that formerly incarcerated people used to have to check on job applications, a city ordinance that became a model for the state.

At a rally last week in San Francisco where Sanders campaigned for Proposition 40, the billionaire wealth tax, Kim delivered a speech in which she chalked up her grit to her mother and being drawn to public service from her father, both immigrants.

From left, insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna join hands and wave to supporters during a “Ballots Over Billionaires” rally at the Curran Theater in San Francisco on Oct. 3, 2026.

(

Manuel Orbegozo

/

CalMatters

)

“My mother taught me to negotiate relentlessly in a world that did not see her, and it is what allowed me to walk into a room full of older white men and demand 40% affordable and middle-income housing,” Kim said, referring to her dealings with developers in San Francisco.

“She passed legislation in San Francisco that has shaped the California landscape,” Cohen said.

The candidates’ platforms

Kim and Allen have a lot in common. Each has promised to be tough on the insurance industry, including by pushing for insurer transparency and creating public report cards for them.

Both candidates have support from different labor, environmental and civil rights groups. But with two Democrats vying for the position for the first time, the endorsements reflect the divide within the party that has been highlighted by the victories of progressive candidates elsewhere, such as that of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

The California Democratic Party endorsed Allen, while the California Labor Federation endorsed Kim. Both U.S. senators from California, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, endorsed Allen. U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, the Democrat from Silicon Valley who has long been aligned with Sanders, endorsed Kim.

“I think Jane is a strong progressive,” Khanna told CalMatters in San Francisco earlier this week. “She understands that the big oil companies should be paying for the extreme conditions that are causing wildfires in California.”

Kim’s proposal for public disaster insurance, which she said would be funded by premiums policyholders already pay to insurance companies, would allow consumers to keep their existing coverage. It would split off fire and flood coverage. The state would run the program and could invest some of the revenue from premiums into wildfire risk mitigation and not into the fossil-fuel industry like insurance companies do, she said.

Kim’s plan aligns with proposals by experts who say the current insurance model is failing because of growing risks, and that public involvement is the answer. A report by the California Earthquake Authority, which was tasked with studying how the state can boost its catastrophe resiliency, includes an analysis of a state-backed wildfire insurer.

The insurance industry and some consumer advocates have slammed her plan, saying it’s a bad idea to shift catastrophic burden to the state. A San Francisco Chronicle endorsement of Allen said Kim would “blow up” the insurance system during a time when the regulations Lara implemented last year need more time to work.

Kim said onstage at the rally with Sanders in San Francisco last week: “They will tell us our ideas are too expensive or magical thinking, but the status quo is not the safest path. It is the most expensive one.”

She has pointed to New Zealand’s public disaster system as an example. At the debate on Thursday, Allen voiced a frequent criticism: The coverage that system provides is limited and doesn’t include wildfire.

“What matters is not the type of catastrophe but that we are covering catastrophe, and that we would work to cover up to a median price of a home,” Kim responded. She said New Zealand covers catastrophes that exist in their country, like mudslides and earthquakes.

Kim also wants to create a public option for low-cost auto insurance by expanding the state’s existing program for low-income drivers. Allen says that would allow drivers who have more resources to take advantage.

Allen’s plan for comprehensive wildfire risk mitigation — which the recent earthquake authority’s report analyzed, too — would include pushing the insurance industry to do more than “pay lip service” to reducing fire risk. Some homeowners have complained that their home-hardening efforts haven’t led to significant savings on their premiums, or ensured that they will be able to buy affordable insurance.

“The commissioner is uniquely positioned to force the industry to the table to be a part of the solution, to help to incentivize and reward real, meaningful resilience and risk reduction all over the state,” he told CalMatters.

At the debate, Allen said his approach is “grounded in the realities we’re facing now, and how we actually fix the system as it is.”

Allen has said his plan includes thinking about mitigation as early as the development process. “We shouldn’t be building new construction that is irresponsible in high-risk areas,” he said earlier this year, before he and Kim ended up being the top two vote-getters in the June primary election.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.