The Brief

Parents and guardians of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District offer mixed reviews of the nation’s second-largest school district, scoring it low on how it disseminates information and considers parents’ perspectives but generally high on the quality of education their children are receiving. Specifically, less than a quarter give the district an “A,” according to the Family Insights survey, conducted by GPSN and Loyola Marymount University’s Center for Equity for English Learners.

The 2023 survey also marks the second year of the district’s four-year strategic plan under Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, who garnered approval from two-thirds of survey respondents.

Forty-one percent of parents in the survey give district schools a ‘B’ overall — and 43% give the same grade to their children’s individual campus.

“Families generally feel positive about the quality of teaching and instruction in their direct school and their own child’s academic performance, but gave mixed results on the district’s overall performance,” according to the report.

“Raising up family perspectives on the state of the district and its performance is key this year when we may expect to see progress from the many investments made to address learning loss and other impacts of the pandemic on students.”

The Penta Group, an independent research firm, surveyed a random sample of more than 500 district parents and guardians between Aug. 22 and Sept. 14, 2023 — asking them about the district’s progress and what they would like to see LAUSD focus on.

The survey sample was representative of Los Angeles families “with students attending district, magnet, pilot, and both affiliated and independent charter public schools, and aligns with key demographic variables of enrollment by grade level, race/ethnicity, school type, English learner status, language spoken in the home, board district enrollment, and family income level.”

Academics 

According to the report, parents throughout the district say they are satisfied with their children’s education and would like to see LAUSD invest in more enrichment opportunities and individualized support. However, many do not understand how their child or the district as a whole is performing.

Specifically, 82% of parents surveyed say instruction at their children’s school is “good” or “excellent.”

Parents’ broader perception of LAUSD’s academic performance, however, paints a different picture. A little more than half of parents think the majority of district students perform at grade level in reading and math.

Three-quarters of LAUSD parents surveyed also think their own child is performing at grade level in core subject areas.

In reality, however, 41% of students in the district met state standards in English language arts this past year, while 30.5% met state standards in math, according to state standardized test scores.

“As a family member, a parent or a guardian, you’re looking for the basic thing: Can my kids read? Can they do math at whatever level you think that’s appropriate?” said Ana Teresa Dahan, GPSN’s managing director.

“But … what type of words you’re reading and what your comprehension is really what differentiates having a basic skill versus being at grade level, and I think that’s like a nuance families don’t always understand.”

Families that make more than $60,000 are more likely to believe their child is performing adequately, the survey found. In contrast, only 28% of low-income families and 27% of families of English learners have the same confidence in their child performing at grade level.

“When you’re sending your kids to your neighborhood public school, there’s a trust that … the school is delivering on getting your kids at grade level,” Dahan said. “Unless someone is telling them that that’s not happening, I think they just inherently are trusting that it’s occurring.”

In previous years, the survey revealed a high demand for additional academic support as well as after-school and summer enrichment opportunities. And this year, the number of parents calling for that assistance — including one-on-one tutoring — increased even more.

Parents “recognize and respect the challenges schools are facing and teachers are facing” in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, Dahan said. “You can’t just expect a teacher or the school to solve the entire challenge of what the pandemic brought to students and families and communities.”

Fifty-six percent of parents name high-quality tutoring as their top priority for the district as a whole —– marking a 25 percentage point increase over the past two years. Meanwhile, 54% say they want to see LAUSD offer free, widely accessible summer programs.

And specifically at their child’s school, 85% of parents — and 93% of English learner families — say they want one-on-one or group tutoring on campus.

More than half of parents surveyed also voiced strong support for enrichment programs, including arts programs, sports and coding.

“We’re also seeing, for students in particular, what those 18 months of isolation did,” Dahan said.

“Families are recognizing (that) impact (on) their students, whether that means not wanting to go to school or not being happy at home. … They know that straight learning at school isn’t going to bring back the joy, right? So, it’s the enrichment opportunities that do that.”

Emotional support

Additional support for students’ mental health is also a top concern among the parents, with 45% of respondents naming counseling and therapy as their third priority for the district overall.

In comparison, 32% of parents made the same request in 2021, and 44% called for the same in 2022.

Food assistance 

For the first time in the survey’s history, 38% of families called for food assistance to be more readily available on their child’s campus.

“The district has done a lot in the years (to feed students)” Dahan said.

“We know that the people most impacted coming out of the pandemic … continue to be families in low-income households. And, as different government financial support has faded away, I think we’re starting to see the effects of that in LAUSD.”

Internet connectivity

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, LAUSD promised to provide a laptop to every student and provide free internet access to families in need. But now, nearly three-quarters of the families surveyed said they experience a barrier to consistent, quality internet access. That number, however, marks a 10% improvement since 2021.

This year, 42% say the cost of internet is a barrier, while 34% said their challenges had more to do with securing a good quality connection.

Twenty-six percent, however, attribute their challenges to their geographical area.

Community involvement and communication 

Parents also said they feel their input is increasingly insignificant to the district — and that they would like communication from LAUSD to improve, especially concerning academic standards.

Specifically, the number of parents who feel their thoughts matter “a great deal in school and district decisions” decreased by 9 percentage points, only accounting for 40% in 2023. That drop was even larger for low-income families, the study found.

Meanwhile, most families applaud LAUSD for timely and accessible communications, but more than half also say it “takes a lot of effort” to understand the messages.

Forty-eight percent of parents say they want to receive district communications via an app, while 44% said they prefer email.

More than half of the parents also say they want more information about academic standards and a better idea about what their child is learning in the classroom. Fifty-two percent also said they want to know whether district students are performing at grade level in the main subject areas.

“We want to ensure that families receive accessible and understandable information that aligns with their expectations and needs,” Dahan said. “That’s also going to be a factor not only just accessing programs, but their understanding of where their child is.”

A future in LAUSD

Despite mixed reviews in various areas, about 90% of families said they would likely keep their children in the district until they graduate from high school.

Respondents who said they are “extremely likely” to keep their children enrolled in the district, however, dropped by about 18 percentage points in the past year from 53% to 35%, according to the study. And the number of families who are “not very or not at all likely to stay” in LAUSD has increased from 3% to 8%.

Forty-two percent of families that voiced an interest in leaving the district — which included disproportionate rates of low-income families, families of English learners and white families — said they would most likely pursue a charter school.

Private schools lagged in popularity for those considering leaving the district and would be the first choice of roughly 32% of families, while 28% said they would take their child to a public school in another district altogether.

“Whatever perspective families had about communications, or even their policies, the district (and the superintendent) really did rate high,” Dahan said.

“Effective leadership plays a pivotal role in driving school improvement and meeting the diversities of our community. I think that is a signal that families think that the district is going in the right direction. It also underscores the importance of sustained leadership support in fulfilling these aspirations of our families and kind of fostering a thriving educational environment.”

Topline:

Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

• Extreme heat
• Emergency preparedness and recovery
• Protecting communities from pollution
• Water
• Public transit

About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

"States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

"It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
Copyright 2026 NPR

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.