California school board elections, 2015
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 15 min
 |
California's 2015 elections School boards • Municipal • Candidate ballot access |
 |
2016 →
← 2014
|
 |
Candidate filing dates • Finance reporting • Poll opening and closing times |
A total of 46 California school districts among America's largest school districts by enrollment held elections in 2015 for 122 seats. Five of the elections were scheduled for April, one for May, and the remaining 40 districts held elections on November 3, 2015.
Here are several quick facts about California's school board elections in 2015:
- The largest school district by enrollment with an election in 2015 was Los Angeles Unified School District with 655,455 K-12 students.
- The smallest school district by enrollment with an election in 2015 was Redwood City Elementary School District with 9,210 students.
- Eight districts tied for the most seats on the ballot in 2015 with four seats up for election.
- San Jacinto Unified School District had the fewest seats on the ballot in 2015 with one seat up for special election.
The districts listed below served 1,453,222 K-12 students during the 2012-2013 school year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.[1] Click on the district names for more information on the district and its school board elections.
Trends in California school board elections[edit]
- See also: School boards in session: 2015 in brief
The 2015 school board elections in California’s largest school districts attracted a higher average number of candidates per seat than the state’s 2014 school board elections did. The 2015 election also had a slightly lower percentage of unopposed seats. A total of 22.95 percent of the seats were unopposed in 2015, compared to the 25.18 percent that were unopposed in 2014. Newcomers fared slightly better in the state’s 2015 school board elections. They won 39.34 percent of seats that year, compared to the 37.90 percent of seats they won in 2014.
The 2015 election had far fewer seats on the ballot than there were in 2014. A total of 122 seats were on the ballot in 2015, compared to 409 in 2014.
The following sections analyze competitiveness and incumbency advantage in California's school board elections. One of the districts held primary elections in 2015, and another district held a runoff election. In the other districts, winners only had to receive a plurality, or relative majority, of votes to secure a seat. All of the school board elections held in the state in 2014 and 2015 were nonpartisan.
Details of the data discussed here can be found in the table below.
Competitiveness[edit]
In 2015, school board elections held in California’s largest school districts attracted an average of 2.01 candidates per seat on the ballot. This was higher than the average 1.91 candidates that ran for each seat up for election in 2014. A total of 22.95 percent of seats were unopposed in 2015. A total of 25.18 percent of seats were unopposed in 2014.
Incumbency advantage[edit]
|
A total of 81.11 percent of incumbents who ran for re-election in 2015 retained their seats. Ninety of the 122 incumbents whose terms were up for election ran to keep their seats, and 73 of them won. Of those winners, 23 ran unopposed; the others won re-election by defeating challengers. In 2014, 79.00 percent of incumbents who sought another term won re-election. A total of 319 of the 409 incumbents whose seats were on the ballot ran to keep their seats, and 252 of them won. Of those winners, 91 ran unopposed. The other 161 winning incumbents had to defeat challengers in order to win additional terms. The map below details the success rates for incumbents who ran in the 2015 school board elections that were held in the largest school districts by enrollment in the U.S.
|
  |
Data table[edit]
The table below displays the statistics for school board elections in California's largest school districts from 2014 to 2015.
| California school board elections, 2014-2015 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Total | Incumbents | ||||||||
| Seats up | Candidates | Candidates/ seat |
Unopposed seats | % unopposed | % seats won by newcomers | Sought re-election | Unopposed | Retained | % retained | |
| 2015 | 122 | 245 | 2.01 | 28 | 22.95% | 39.34% | 90 | 23 | 73 | 81.11% |
| 2014 | 409 | 780 | 1.91 | 103 | 25.18% | 37.90% | 319 | 91 | 252 | 79.00% |
Spotlight districts[edit]
Switching to by district elections[edit]
The ABC Unified School District switched to by district elections in 2015, following a trend of such changes in California school districts to comply with the California Voting Rights Act. Prior to the change, ABC Unified held at-large elections. Modesto City Schools may be the next school district to make the switch. The school board put a ballot measure before voters on November 3, 2015, asking if they should use the by district election method in the future.
ABC Unified School District[edit]
ABC Unified's 2015 school board election was the first time the district used the by district election method. Prior to this election, school board races were held at-large. The switch was made to settle a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit that was filed against the district in April 2013 by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Goldstien, Borgen, Dardarian and Ho law firm. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three plaintiffs, one of whom unsuccessfully applied for an open position on the board in 2011. According to the lawsuit, no Latinos had been voted onto the board since the 1990s.[2]
Though the district serves the cities of Artesia, Cerritos and Hawaiian Gardens, as well as parts of Long Beach, Lakewood and Norwalk, prior to 2015, all the board members were from Cerritos. The school board approved a trustee area map in 2014 that divided the Cerritos area of the district into four separate districts. The candidates in the 2015 election were from Artesia, Cerritos and Hawaiian Gardens.[2]
Modesto City Schools[edit]
In addition to choosing their next school board members, citizens in the Modesto City school district were supposed to vote on how future school board elections would be conducted. Measure F was on the ballot on November 3, 2015, to ask voters whether or not the district should convert to by district elections.[3] The measure, however, was withdrawn by the school district. Though it appeared on the ballot, the votes were not counted.[4]
The measure was withdrawn because it had not been included on the ballots of citizens outside of the city limits of Modesto. Though the district includes surrounding areas outside of the city, those residents, approximately 24,000 voters in total, were unable to vote on the measure. The school district's attorneys filed a writ of mandate days before the election to ensure that the votes on the ballot measure would not be counted and that the measure would appear on the ballot in June 2016.[5]
The 2015 election, and all those prior, elected school board members at-large. This was required by the Modesto City Charter. Most school districts in the state are allowed to decide how to conduct their elections, but because the Modesto City Schools are governed by the city charter, a measure had to be passed by voters in order to change to by district elections.[3]
Measure F sought to set up seven boundary areas from which future school board members would have been elected. The board sought to change the district's election method after a number of districts in California were sued for Voting Rights Act violations. Those districts switched to by district elections in order to settle the lawsuits. Though the Modesto City school district had not been sued as of November 2015, the city had lost a lawsuit in 2007 that was brought against it by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.[6]
Bond measures[edit]
A number of school boards put bond measures before voters on November 3, 2015. They ranged in cost from $148 million in the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District to $350 million in the Compton Unified School District. The Las Virgenes Unified School District asked voters to renew a parcel tax.
Compton Unified School District[edit]
The Compton Unified School District asked voters to approve Measure S, a $350 million general obligation bond on November 3, 2015. A 55 percent supermajority vote was required to approve the measure. The measure was passed with 55.94 percent of voters casting ballots to approve it.[7]
The bond question appeared on the ballot as follows:[8]
| “ | To make schools modern, safe and inspiring; shall the Compton Unified School District issue $350,000,000 in bonds at legal rates to reconstruct local schools and facilities, including research libraries, modern classrooms and science labs, media and performing arts centers, technology centers and athletic complexes; improve safety, security, roofing, plumbing, heating, electrical, and other systems; with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, no money for administrator salaries, and all funds staying local?[9] | ” |
Micah Ali, incumbent and president on the Compton Unified Board of Education, spoke in favor of the bond. He said, "To accelerate the dramatic improvements we made with student performance will take an investment from the community. If our children are going to be career and college ready for the 21st-century economy, they deserve to learn in 21st-century facilities.”[10]
Las Virgenes Unified School District[edit]
In addition to two school board seats, a measure was also on the ballot on November 3, 2015. The district asked voters to approve Measure E, which sought to continue the district's annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $98 per parcel for 12 years.[8] Voters approved the measure.
District voters approved this tax in 2004 and renewed it in 2007. It was designed to expire in 2015 without approval of a measure continuing the tax, such as Measure E. In 2011, voters defeated Measure K, which would have authorized a $95 per year parcel tax for eight years.
The full text of the resolution calling for Measure E can be read here. The measure appeared on the ballot as the following question:
| “ | To protect the quality of education in our local schools, fund core programs in math, science, reading, technology and the arts, attract/retain highly qualified teachers, counselors, and technology specialists, maintain smaller class sizes, enhance student achievement and prepare our students for success in college and careers, shall Las Virgenes Unified School District continue for twelve years the existing $98 annual school parcel tax without raising the current rate, with an exemption for seniors, and all money staying local?[8][9] | ” |
Redwood City Elementary School District[edit]
In addition to voting on their next school board members, voters in the Redwood City Elementary School District were asked to pass a $193 million measure on November 3, 2015. They approved the measure, which allowed the district to increase its debt by up to $193 million through general obligation bonds. The district planned to use the bond revenue for capital improvements.[11]
District officials estimated that an average property tax rate of $30 per $100,000 of assessed property value would be required to repay the bonds within 40 years.[11] The measure question appeared on the ballot as follows:
| “ | To upgrade and repair neighborhood schools with funding that cannot be taken by the State, shall Redwood City Elementary School District: renovate aging classrooms and science labs for 21st century learning; fix or replace deteriorating roofs; update classroom and instructional technology; improve school fire and earthquake safety; and repair, construct, acquire, or equip classrooms, sites, and facilities; by issuing $193 million in bonds at legal rates with independent oversight, no money for administrators, and all funds staying local?[8][9] | ” |
A 55 percent supermajority vote was required to approve Measure T.
San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District[edit]
In addition to choosing their next school board members, voters in the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District passed a $148 million measure on November 3, 2015. Measure X was put on the ballot to help the district deal with overcrowding issues. A 55 percent supermajority vote was required to pass the measure.[12][11][13]
Measure X authorized the district to increase its debt by up to $148 million through general obligation bonds. The bonds must be repaid within a maximum of 40 years. District officials estimated that an average property tax levy of $14.8 per $100,000 of assessed property value would be required to repay the bonds. The board planned to add classrooms on to school buildings across the district and to seek the purchase of land for a new elementary school with the new funds.[11]
Measure P, a $130 million measure, was rejected by voters in 2013. A board trustee at the time campaigned against Measure P. Because of this, Superintendent Joan Rosas sought unanimous support from board members for Measure X before it was put on the ballot.[14]
Voters saw the following question on the ballot:
| “ | To provide additional classrooms, relieve overcrowding and address increasing enrollment at San Mateo and Foster City schools, with funding that cannot be taken by the State, shall San Mateo - Foster City Elementary School District replace aging portable classrooms, update ad add new classrooms, provide modern classrooms, reduce class size, improve handicapped access, repair, construct, acquire equipment, classrooms, sites/facilities, by issuing $148,000,000 of bonds at legal rates, with citizen oversight, no money for administrators' salaries, and all funds benefiting San Mateo and Foster City schools?[15][9] | ” |
Walnut Valley Unified School District[edit]
In addition to deciding who would serve as their next school board members on November 3, 2015, voters in the district were asked to pass Measure O, a package of general obligation bonds totaling $208 million. District officials estimated that the property tax required to repay the bonds would be between $31 and $60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. District officials estimated that the interest for the bond issue would amount to $277,866,750, resulting in a total cost to the taxpayers, with principal and interest, of $485,866,750.[16]
A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of Measure O. The measure appeared on the ballot as the following question:[8]
| “ | Walnut Valley Local School Improvement Measure. To upgrade facilities to maintain excellent education/college readiness by providing facilities/technology for advanced math, science, engineering, upgrading outdated classrooms, science labs, libraries, computer systems, improving school safety/security, and repairing, constructing/acquiring classrooms, facilities, equipment, shall Walnut Valley Unified School District issue $208 million in bonds at legal rates, with independent citizen oversight, no money for administrator salaries, and all funds used for neighborhood schools in/around Diamond Bar and Walnut?[9] | ” |
In 2007, district voters approved Measure S and Measure Y, a $64.6 million Academic Facilities bond measure and a $15.2 million Physical Education Facilities bond measure, respectively.[17]
Survey responses[edit]
Twenty-three of the 241 candidates running for a school board seat in California's largest school districts in the 2015 elections responded to Ballotpedia's school board candidate survey. The following sections display their answers to questions about education issues.
Ranking the issues[edit]
The candidates were asked to rank the following issues by importance in the school district, with 1 being the most important and 7 being the least important. This table displays the candidates' average rankings as well as the highest and lowest rankings for each issue.
| Issue importance ranking | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Issues | Average ranking | Highest ranking | Lowest ranking |
| Expanding arts education | 4.41 | 2 | 7 |
| Expanding career-technical education | 4.18 | 2 | 7 |
| Balancing or maintaining the district's budget | 2.41 | 1 | 7 |
| Improving college readiness | 4.06 | 1 | 7 |
| Closing the achievement gap | 3.53 | 1 | 7 |
| Improving education for special needs students | 4.12 | 1 | 6 |
| Expanding school choice options | 5.29 | 1 | 7 |
Positions on the issues[edit]
The candidates were also asked short answer and multiple choice questions regarding significant issues in education. Links to those responses can be found below.
State profile[edit]
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern[edit]
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Endorsers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
Academic performance[edit]
- See also: Public education in California
| Education terms |
|---|
 |
| For more information on education policy terms, see this article. |
|
NAEP scores[edit]
- See also: NAEP scores by state
The National Center for Education Statistics provides state-by-state data on student achievement levels in mathematics and reading in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The chart below presents the percentage of fourth and eighth grade students that scored at or above proficient in reading and math during the 2012-2013 school year. Compared to three neighboring states (Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon), California's fourth grade students fared the worst in mathematics, with only 33 percent scoring at or above proficient in the 2012-2013 school year.[18]
| Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math - Grade 4 | Math - Grade 8 | Reading - Grade 4 | Reading - Grade 8 | |
| California | 33% | 28% | 27% | 29% |
| Arizona | 40% | 31% | 28% | 28% |
| Nevada | 34% | 28% | 27% | 30% |
| Oregon | 40% | 34% | 33% | 37% |
| U.S. average | 41% | 34% | 34% | 34% |
| Source: United States Department of Education, ED Data Express, "State Tables," accessed May 13, 2014 | ||||
Graduation, ACT and SAT scores[edit]
The following table shows the graduation rates and average composite ACT and SAT scores for California and surrounding states during the 2012-2013 school year. All statements made in this section refer to that school year.[18][19][20]
In the United States, public schools reported graduation rates that averaged to about 81.4 percent. About 54 percent of all students in the country took the ACT, while 50 percent reported taking the SAT. The average national composite scores for those tests were 20.9 out of a possible 36 for the ACT and 1,498 out of a possible 2,400 for the SAT.[21]
California schools reported a graduation rate of 80.4 percent. Compared to three neighboring states, California had the highest graduation rate.
In California, more students took the SAT than the ACT. The students taking the SAT scored an average of 1,505.
| Comparison table for graduation rates and test scores, 2012-2013 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Graduation rate, 2013 | Average ACT composite, 2013 | Average SAT composite, 2013 | ||||
| Percent | Quintile ranking** | Score | Participation rate | Score | Participation rate | ||
| California | 80.4% | Third | 22.2 | 26% | 1,505 | 57% | |
| Arizona | 75.1% | Fifth | 19.6 | 50% | 1,551 | 35% | |
| Nevada | 70.7% | Fifth | 21.3 | 32% | 1,454 | 48% | |
| Oregon | 68.7% | Fifth | 21.5 | 34% | 1,539 | 49% | |
| United States | 81.4% | 20.9 | 54% | 1498 | 50% | ||
| **Graduation rates for states in the first quintile ranked in the top 20 percent nationally. Similarly, graduation rates for states in the fifth quintile ranked in the bottom 20 percent nationally. Sources: United States Department of Education, "ED Data Express," accessed May 28, 2015 ACT.org, "2013 ACT National and State Scores," accessed May 28, 2015 The Commonwealth Foundation, "SAT scores by state, 2013," accessed May 28, 2015 | |||||||
Dropout rate[edit]
- See also: Public high school dropout rates by state for a full comparison of dropout rates by group in all states
The high school event dropout rate indicates the proportion of students who were enrolled at some time during the school year and were expected to be enrolled in grades nine through 12 in the following school year but were not enrolled by October 1 of the following school year. Students who have graduated, transferred to another school, died, moved to another country, or who are out of school due to illness are not considered dropouts. The average public high school event dropout rate for the United States remained constant at 3.3 percent for both school year 2010–2011 and school year 2011–2012. The event dropout rate for California was higher than the national average at 4.2 percent in the 2010-2011 school year, and 4 percent in the 2011-2012 school year.[22]
See also[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ National Center for Education Statistics, "Elementary/Secondary Information System," accessed April 20, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Press-Telegram, "ABC Unified to hold first by-district election after settling lawsuit," September 26, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Modesto City Schools, "What is Measure F?" accessed October 9, 2015
- ↑ The Modesto Bee, "The Modesto Bee 2015 election recommendations," October 22, 2015
- ↑ The Modesto Bee, "Council to meet again over botched ballot measure," October 28, 2015
- ↑ The Modesto Bee, "Modesto City Schools moving toward by-area elections for trustees," June 23, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, "NOVEMBER 03, 2015 - LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS: Final Official Election Returns," accessed November 24, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Los Angeles County Elections Office, “Measures appearing on the ballot on November 3, 2015,” accessed September 8, 2015 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "TEXT" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "TEXT" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Compton Herald, "Compton Unified places $350 million bond on November ballot," June 25, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 San Mateo Elections Office, "Impartial analysis of Measure T," accessed October 1, 2015 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "Analysis" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ San Mateo County, "November 3, 2015 Consolidated Municipal, School and Special District All-Mailed Ballot Election: San Mateo-Foster City School District Members, Governing Board," accessed November 4, 2015
- ↑ The Daily Journal, "District puts bond on ballot: San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District will ask voters to pass tax for new school buildings," August 7, 2015
- ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "San Mateo-Foster City School District to pursue $150 million bond measure," August 4, 2015
- ↑ San Mateo County Elections Office, “Measures appearing on the ballot on November 3, 2015,” accessed September 29, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles County Elections Office, "Resolution calling for Measure O," accessed September 25, 2015
- ↑ Inside SoCal, "Walnut Valley needs help on Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee," April 22, 2015
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 United States Department of Education, ED Data Express, "State Tables," accessed May 13, 2014
- ↑ ACT, "2012 ACT National and State Scores," accessed May 13, 2014
- ↑ Commonwealth Foundation, "SAT Scores by State 2013," October 10, 2013
- ↑ StudyPoints, "What's a good SAT score or ACT score?" accessed June 7, 2015
- ↑ United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, "Common Core of Data (CCD), State Dropout and Graduation Rate Data File, School Year 2010-11, Provision Version 1a and School Year 2011-12, Preliminary Version 1a," accessed May 13, 2014
| |||||
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF