It’s anyone’s guess who is the front-runner for state superintendent of public instruction. According to a voter survey on K-12 education released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California, none of the 10 candidates for the California schools chief reaches even 10% of support among likely voters.

The PPIC survey of 1,604 California adults was conducted between March 26 and April 3. It also found that voters overwhelmingly approve of teacher strikes and support an initiative, led by the California Teachers Association, that would make permanent a temporary, multi-billion-dollar income tax surcharge on wealthy earners, which is set to expire in 2031. 

When asked in the abstract about the quality of education in the state’s public schools, half of voters (51%) said the quality has gotten worse over the past few years and major changes are needed, and 47% of all voters said public schools are headed in the wrong direction. But among public school parents, more than half (57%) said schools are headed in the right direction.

Mark Baldassare, survey director at PPIC, said the results are somewhat surprising, given the increased investments in public education in recent years.

“When you have more than half the people saying that they think that the quality of education has gotten worse, I think that’s something,” Baldassare said. “Given all the efforts that have been made to make it better and the resources that have gone into it, that’s still a sizable proportion who are concerned about where we are and where we’re headed.”

Still, voters’ concerns about the direction in which education is headed do not translate into support for radical changes to education policy, such as vouchers for private and religious schools. Less than a quarter (24%) of likely voters said they would vote yes on an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would require the state to provide money for California residents to attend religious and private schools.

Baldassare said he found it significant that the vast majority (79%) of those surveyed said they were concerned that students in lower-income areas are less likely than other students to be ready for college when they finish high school. A large majority (71%) also said they were concerned about improving educational outcomes for students learning English as a second language.

Good marks for Newsom

The survey found more than half of voters (54%) support Gov. Gavin Newsom’s handling of schools — an increase of 4 percentage points from last year — and there is widespread support for several of the initiatives implemented under his watch, including transitional kindergarten, an extra public school grade for 4-year-olds, limits on cellphone use in schools and protections for immigrant and transgender students.

A majority (61%) also approve of teachers’ unions striking for higher pay. Baldassare said support for teachers has been high for many years, but the answers to the question this year are significant because several teachers’ unions have either gone on strike or threatened to do so, whereas in the past the question was more theoretical.

“That’s really driven by a perception that the cost of living is very high in California and that people are concerned about teachers being able to afford to live here,” Baldassare said.

The PPIC is a prominent nonpartisan research and public policy organization that explores issues of the environment, politics, economics and education, and regularly surveys Californians on their views. The latest education survey has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points, meaning that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3.2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. 

Race for state superintendent 

Almost a third (32%) of likely voters said they did not know who they would vote for in the race for state superintendent of public instruction. The rest were split among the 10 candidates — mostly within the survey’s margin of error — with 9% saying they would vote for Ainye Long, a public school teacher from San Francisco who has not run an active campaign, and 9% for Anthony Rendon, the former speaker of the California Assembly. 

Two school board members — Richard Barrera of the San Diego Unified School District and Sonja Shaw, president of Chino Valley Unified School District — each had 7%; Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and former State Sen. Josh Newman received 6%. Nichelle Henderson, board member of the Los Angeles Community College District, had 5%.

Calling the race “a sleeper outside of the education community,” Barrett Snyder, a partner with Capitol Advisors Group, a government relations firm for public schools, estimated it would take $15 million to $20 million for a candidate to get the awareness it would take to ensure a win.  

At this point, no candidate has raised even a 10th of that amount. Former Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon has collected $1.2 million, and Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi is second with about half of that amount.

The California Teachers Association, the dominant funding source in past state superintendent elections, has endorsed Richard Barrera, the veteran San Diego Unified school board member, but he has raised only about $180,000 so far — though that could change.

This week, the CTA announced it was throwing its support for governor to Tom Steyer, who has committed $100 million of his own fortune to the campaign, reducing the need for the CTA to throw a lot of money into that race. As a result, Snyder said, Barrera could be the biggest benefactor.

“We’re in it to win it. We know it takes money,” CTA President David Goldberg said Wednesday, without specifying how much the union would spend on the state superintendent primary campaign.

Support for transitional kindergarten, limits on cellphone use

Newsom made early education one of his signature issues during his campaign for governor, and in 2022 signed a law gradually expanding transitional kindergarten, an extra grade before kindergarten, to all 4-year-olds, which is now fully implemented.

The vast majority of voters (68%) said they approve of the state funding transitional kindergarten for all 4-year-olds in California. More than two-thirds (72%) said attending transitional kindergarten is somewhat or very important to helping students succeed in later years of school.

A large majority of voters are concerned about disparities in early education. More than two-thirds (69%) said they were concerned that children in lower-income areas are less likely than other children to be ready for kindergarten, and 61% said they were concerned that students who speak English as a second language are less likely than other children to be ready for kindergarten.

An overwhelming majority also approves of limiting cellphone use in schools, which Newsom championed by signing a law in 2024 requiring every school to adopt a policy limiting the use of phones in school by July 1. More than 90% of parents with school-age children support policies that limit phone use in schools. About half (52%) said they prefer banning cellphones during class time but allowing students to use phones at lunch or between classes, while 40% prefer banning cellphones throughout the school day.

Support for school policies protecting undocumented immigrant and transgender students

Two-thirds of voters (67%) said they were somewhat or very concerned about increased federal immigration enforcement under the Trump administration and the effects on undocumented students in their local public schools. The same percentage supports their school districts becoming a “sanctuary safe zone” to protect undocumented students. The Legislature passed several laws last year prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration agents to enter nonpublic areas of schools without a warrant signed by a judge, and requiring schools to notify parents and students if federal immigration agents were on campus.

The majority of voters (57%) also said it is a good thing that California passed Assembly Bill 1955 in 2024, which bans schools from requiring teachers and staff to disclose students’ gender identity or sexual orientation to parents or others without their permission.

Ballot initiatives and legislation

Likely voters were asked how they would vote on several different initiatives proposed for the November ballot. A large majority (62%) said they would vote yes to make permanent an existing tax rate for high-income Californians, which is currently set to expire in 2031. If the initiative were to fail, it would result in an estimated annual loss of $2 billion to $5 billion for TK-12 schools and community colleges.

Though most voters (47%) said current state funding is “not enough” for public schools, the poll shows that local bond measures and parcel taxes that could provide more funding for public schools might fall short of the 55% majority needed to pass.

Most voters (57%) said they would not approve an initiative that would limit voters’ ability to pass local taxes by requiring a two-thirds majority.

Newsom’s proposal to shift control of the state Department of Education to a new education commissioner appointed by the next governor appears to have weak support, although it is unclear how much voters understood what the policy would entail. When asked whether they support a proposal to “remove the elected state superintendent as the head of the California Department of Education and have the appointed State Board of Education run the California Department of Education,” only 43% approved.

For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.

Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.

But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.

With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle.

Like a statewide game of Choose Your Own Adventure, local elected officials for the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles to San Diego are exploring ways to either lean into the spirit of the law, come up with their own plan tailored to the city’s whims and needs, or slow the local roll out for as long as possible while considering their options. Those that do nothing will be forced to accept the transit-oriented rezoning prescribed by state legislators.

Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.

The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.

For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.

Likewise, many lower income neighborhoods, those at risk of wildfire and sea-level rise or sites listed on a historic preservation registry also qualify for that temporary delay.

L.A.’s city council mashed every pause button it could.

Along with temporarily exempting zoning changes in poorer neighborhoods, known fire zones and historic districts, the council preemptively voted to allow modest multiplex buildings as tall as three or four stories in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently restricted to single family homes. That will bring those areas up above the cut-off needed for the four-year reprieve, according to the city’s planning staff.

By swallowing a little more allowable density in the short term, the city was able to ward off a whole lot more — for now. Backers of the measure said that will give the city more time to come up with a better alternative that still complies with the law.

The vote “adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.

When 2030 arrives, the city will either have to come up with its own plan that meets the overall density requirements of the state law — but with some allowable flexibility over where all the potential growth goes — or belatedly accept SB 79 whole cloth.

The L.A. vote came as a disappointment to many pro-development advocates, who have called upon city officials to speedily accept the state-imposed densification immediately, or barring that, to take more aggressive steps in the meantime.

“We’re pretty concerned that this is not actually going to produce housing,” said Scott Epstein, policy and research director with Abundant Housing Los Angeles, a “Yes In My Backyard” oriented advocacy group.

He noted that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to be financially feasible in areas where land costs are exceptionally high. The city’s ordinance achieves its increase in allowable density by permitting modest apartment buildings in relatively affluent neighborhoods.

But even some of the state law’s fiercest defenders see a silver lining in the city’s delay tactic.

“On the one hand, it’s disappointing because we’re delaying the full potential of the law,” said Aaron Eckhouse, local policy programs director for California YIMBY, one of the sponsors of SB 79. But in Los Angeles, he noted, city officials have long been fiercely resistant to proposed zoning changes in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.

Now Los Angeles council members are effectively saying, “‘okay, we will do this on our terms rather than on the state’s terms,’” said Eckhouse. “But it is still happening, because the state forced the issue.”

How can cities go their own way?

The Los Angeles approach mirrors one being pursued by officials in San Francisco. There officials are considering a policy of exempting industrial areas and many of the city’s low-resource neighborhoods, while preemptively pushing up the allowable density on certain low-rise locations to get them over the 50% threshold and qualify for a delay until 2032.

But unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco doesn’t plan to spend years coming up with a bespoke local alternative. Instead, the city is proposing to roll out its own version before July 1. That task was made a bit easier given that local officials just wrapped up a citywide densification effort last year as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan.”

The current proposal is set to be heard by a Board of Supervisors subcommittee later this month.

For cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that decide to come up with their own local plans, they will still need to get the approval of state housing regulators. Officials from California’s Housing Department have yet to publicly weigh in on any individual city’s plans. But their boss has. In a handful of social media posts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has lambasted Los Angeles and San Diego for their proposed efforts to shield certain portions of their city from the requirements of the law. Newsom did not suggest that either city was violating the law itself.

Some cities may simply decide not to bother. Sacramento, for example, will soon consider an ordinance that would make modest tweaks to the way it accepts development applications subject to the state law, but otherwise leaves the state-set zoning rules intact.

Other municipalities, with smaller budgets and fewer professional planners on staff, may not have much choice but to accept the requirements of the state law, said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill when it was working its way through the Legislature.

Rhine said that some cities are still scrambling to understand the basics of the statute, such as how it applies to future transit infrastructure or how the law defines distance from a transit stop.

“If you’re a planner trying to come up with an alternative plan authorized by (the law), you don’t have the information needed to even get started,” said Rhine. He said he is urging state lawmakers to consider extending the July 1 deadline. No one has taken him up on the idea yet.

‘A matter of urgency’

In Oakland, the decision over whether to delay or accept the state upzoning has played out at the neighborhood level.

Last month, the city’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to take the full suite of possible delays in order to buy time and develop an alternative plan. This, city staff stressed, was not about opposition to the goals of state law, but about a preference among local planners to reconsider the city’s plan comprehensively and at all once, rather than in fits and starts.

“It’s no dispute over outcome,” Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist told the council. “I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.”

Even so, three city council members objected, arguing, in effect, that they would like the state’s override in their districts now, thank you very much.

Zac Unger, who represents some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods in North Oakland, argued that parcels that have already achieved the 50% density threshold should not be exempt in his district, especially because the bulk of them are located along busy commercial corridors.

Change is coming, one way or another, he argued at council. “I am arguing for, in a sense, coming to grips with that reality right now rather than spending a year providing people with the false idea that we can somehow exempt ourselves from state law.”

Two other members — Charlene Wang and Ken Houston — who represent some of the low-resource neighborhoods entitled to delay, also wanted to adopt the law in their districts now. “In an urban area like Oakland we should be far exceeding the density minimums in (state law),” said Wang.

In a follow-up interview, Unger noted that the debate in Oakland may be more symbolic than it is in other cities. By happenstance, city planners have been working for years toward an overhaul of the city’s zoning map, which they aim to wrap up next year. In other words, Oakland is likely to have an alternative plan that complies with the state law’s requirements by 2027 anyway.

“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings blowing up from the street,” he said. “It’s just a matter of urgency — and a statement of values.”

Aside from those cities that are racing to embrace the state law and those seeking delay or their own versions, there is another possible category: Those that resist the law entirely.

After California lawmakers passed a law in 2021 allowing homeowners to split up their properties into as many as four separate units, density-averse cities pushed back. Some took the state to court, others explored adopting municipal charters, one flirted with the idea of becoming a mountain lion refuge. None of the measures ultimately succeeded.

If SB 79 is met with a similar array of resistance, we aren’t likely to see that until after the July 1 deadline, said Eckhouse with California YIMBY.

“The reason to do something now is either to lean into it or to use the provisions of the law for flexibility and deferrals,” he said. “But if they just want to stand in the door and say ‘no,’ we might not find out about that until the zoning standards go into effect.”

California Senator Alex Padilla has been one of the loudest voices in the Senate against President Trump’s SAVE America Act, fighting against it on the Senate floor on Tuesday.

“I don’t put anything past Donald Trump in trying to hold on to power,” Padilla told Eyewitness News in a one-on-one interview last week.

The SAVE Act would require all U.S. voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register and a photo ID to vote. Padilla says it would disenfranchise millions of eligible American citizens from making their voices heard.

“Your own driver’s license wouldn’t be sufficient to be able to cast your ballot. We’re talking passports or original birth certificates. If you’re a woman who changed her name when she got married, good luck trying to meet the documentary requirements to be able to exercise your right to vote,” said Padilla.

We’re less than two months from the California primary and almost six months from the 2026 midterms. Democrats like Padilla fear we could see ICE raids at polling places.

“It is against the law for that type of law enforcement presence to intimidate voters at the polls… When we heard that it was being entertained by the White House, we started asking the question. Then, multiple Department of Homeland Security officials on record publicly saying, ‘No, there’s no plans to do that. No, that wouldn’t be allowed.’ But we have to remain vigilant. Look, all the more reason for people to vote early, which you can in California, and vote by mail just to not have to worry about that potential come Election Day,” Padilla said.

Padilla tells Eyewitness News the biggest way he believes Democrats can rein in the president is by regaining their majority in Congress in the midterms. Trump went to war with Iran without approval from Congress. In a new IPSOS poll, 51% of Americans say the decision to take military action in Iran has not been worth it. Another 24% say it has been worth it, and 22% are unsure.

“A ceasefire is not a peace agreement. A ceasefire, and if it holds in two weeks, then what? The one thing that’s clear, though, is Donald Trump never justified, gave a clear reason, for beginning this war with Iran,” Padilla said.

Trump said Tuesday that a new round of peace talks with Iran in Pakistan could happen in the coming days. A deal wasn’t reached over the weekend after Vice President JD Vance said Iran refused to give up their nuclear program. Padilla blames the war for rising gas prices and inflation.

“For all his distaste for California, California’s policy leadership and electric vehicles, all of a sudden these cleaner, more efficient and zero-emitting vehicles are a lot more attractive,” Padilla said.

When it comes to the crowded and chaotic governor’s race, Padilla told Eyewitness News he thinks that at this point, one Democrat and one Republican will move on to the runoff. So far, Padilla has not endorsed a candidate.