The State Board of Education’s (SBE) Sept. 9 meeting included thorough discussion on proposed changes to the state’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) template — including ways to make the document more useful to schools and communities rather than an exercise in compliance — as well as potential use of 11th grade Smarter Balanced results in higher education admissions and more.
LCAP updates
The board provided feedback regarding the draft LCAP template and instructions, which will be brought back to the board for final adoption during its November 2026 meeting.
California’s LCAP is a three-year plan that describes local educational agencies’ goals, actions, services and expenditures to support positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The document provides an opportunity for districts to share their stories of how, what and why programs and services are selected to meet the specific needs of their students and community.
Any changes adopted by the SBE later this year will be applied to the LCAP template for the 2027–28 through 2029–30 school years.
California Department of Education (CDE) staff presented revisions to the LCAP required under statute, revisions proposed by the CDE (detailed in attachment one of the agenda item) and possible additional revisions for discussion.
Required revision
Education Code (EC) Section 52064.4 requires that an LEA that has unexpended Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant (LREBG) funds must include one or more actions funded with LREBG funds within the 2025–26, 2026–27 and 2027–28 LCAPs, as well as an explanation of the rationale for selecting each action funded with LREBG funds, how it aligns with allowable uses and how the action is expected to address areas of need among students and schools.
Instructions for the 2027–28 LCAP must include a requirement for LEAs to review the rationale used to select each action funded with LREBG funds to assess the overall effectiveness and make adjustments based on progress. The CDE proposed that this requirement also be included in the proposed 2026–27 LCAP Annual Update Template and Instructions.
Proposed revisions
In addition to basic changes like removing information including references to statute and years that are no longer relevant, CDE staff proposed several additional changes including:
- Changing the word “Red” currently used in the LCAP instructions to “the lowest performance level” to align with the language of EC Section 52064 and to ensure that LEAs are including specific actions in their LCAP to address all instances where a school or student group receives the lowest performance level on one or more state indicators on the California School Dashboard. Specifically, LEAs will be required to include required actions in the 2027–28 LCAP to address instances when a school or student group receives the lowest performance level on the science indicator, English language arts growth indicator, and/or mathematics growth indicator in addition to the state indicators currently available on the 2025 Dashboard.
- Adding a one-time template and instructions for the 2026–27 LCAP Annual Update to allow LEAs to report outcomes for 2026–27 and to provide an analysis of goals included in the 2026–27 LCAP.
Possible revisions
Possible revisions discussed by the board included implementing a page or word limit on the LCAP and removing several fields within the LCAP template that are either not required by statute or are duplicative.
CDE staff floated the idea of removing various tables from the template, as well as fields linked to the “Increased or Improved Services for Foster Youth, English Learners, and Low-Income Students” section of the LCAP, including “Total Projected LCFF Supplemental and/or Concentration Grants,” both total and projected percentages to increase or improve services for the coming school year, and Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) carryover in both dollar amount and percentage.
During public comment, CSBA Legislative Advocate Carlos Machado noted that the LCAP must be a meaningful strategic planning tool, not a compliance exercise, and urged the board to collaborate with entities like CSBA to rethink and reshape the LCAP to “reduce overlap, redundancy and administrative complexities to successfully drive clear, transparent communication.”
He also pointed out pitfalls around simply adding an artificial length requirement to the LCAP without addressing the issues that inflate the document to such an extreme degree.
“CSBA fully supports making LCAPs more accessible and readable. However, an overall word or page limit on the entire document creates unintended consequences,” Machado explained. “Blanket document caps ignore local context and force districts with complex, high-need populations to oversimplify critical programs. While word or page limits applied to individual sections may be more workable, they cannot be imposed in a vacuum. Before considering these limits, the state must first streamline the underlying statutory reporting requirements. Imposing caps without reducing mandatory disclosures creates an impossible compliance trap for LEAs.”
SBE discussion suggested that members similarly recognized the need for a larger overhaul of the LCAP template than what was proposed by CDE staff.
SBE Vice President Cynthia Glover Woods said that revisions within the board’s purview to make only “tweak around the edges” and wouldn’t meaningfully address stakeholder concerns with the length and complexity of the LCAP.
“The most ambitious changes will require statutory action, and I think the Legislature also recognizes that the LCAP has become challenging for school districts, so we will work with our legislative partners and others between now and 2030 when the next LCAP cycle comes along to really help return it to its form as a strategic planning document and engagement tool,” Board President Linda Darling-Hammond said.
Higher education and Smarter Balanced results
The board discussed the current postsecondary uses of the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics in grade 11, as well as potential administration and policy implications depending on the outcome of University of California (UC) deliberations on whether to reinstate the SAT in admissions or use students’ Smarter Balanced scores.
Arguments presented by the CDE in support of including Smarter Balanced scores in higher education admissions note that the assessments are aligned with California’s public school curriculum, and measure whether students are meeting state standards in math and English.
Additionally, research cited in the agenda item linked grade 11 Smarter Balanced assessments, part of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, to first-year grade point average (GPA), first-year credits earned and second-year persistence for students who later attended a California State University or UC campus. Pairing high school GPA with Smarter Balanced scores also yielded a more socioeconomically and racially/ethnically diverse pool of applicants.
“I think this is the real opportunity to help strengthen the connection between K-12 and higher education, and to explore [how] these results alongside GPA, coursework, dual enrollment, [Advanced Placement], and other measures, can help students understand their options, and perhaps even open additional pathways to post-secondary education,” said SBE member Gabriela Orozco-Gonzalez. “I also think that we need to keep equity at the center of this conversation. The goal should not be to create another gatekeeper. It should be to use information we already have to expand opportunity, identify support and help other students successfully transition from high school and into other college and careers.”
However, some math faculty who spoke to EdSource in July said they prefer using the SAT and ACT because “they test students on more advanced math topics than the Smarter Balanced exam.” It’s also unclear what using the state assessment would mean for applicants from private schools and from other states. SBE member Kim Pattillo Brownson also echoed their concerns that Smarter Balanced assessments are not high-stakes tests and that moving forward would add new pressures and potentially expose test preparation inequities present in the SAT or ACT.
Glover Woods noted that using Smarter Balanced results in college admissions was ultimately not the board’s decision to make, but that it will be crucial to figure out how best to prepare the K-12 system and students should the decision be made to incorporate those scores in the admissions process.
Should the UC system move to utilize Smarter Balanced results in admissions, CDE staff said the SBE may need to address assessment policy questions tied to the possibility of adding a grade 12 administration option for the assessment and making changes to provide additional differentiation among students who demonstrate advanced knowledge and skills.
In other SBE news:
- The board approved 31 of 37 proposed literacy professional development programs (those under tier 1 in attachment one of the agenda item). After thanking CDE staff and the review committee, CSBA’s Machado emphasized the wide variety and quality of the recommended programs and requested that LEAs be provided with support in navigating the list. “Without more robust guidance, many LEAs may not have the capacity to access them in ways that meet local needs,” Machado said during public comment. “This may fragment the effectiveness of this literacy initiative before implementation. We urge the board to consider more robust guidance or limiting the list to the strongest programs.”
- CDE staff will continue to move ahead on developing mini performance tasks (mini PTs) for the California Science Test, which measures key elements of the California Next Generation Science Standards by emphasizing authentic student engagement with, and demonstration of, science and engineering practices and scientific sensemaking. The SBE approved the state’s assessment contractor, ETS, to continue refining the mini PTs and developing a plan for the implementation and scoring.
- The board approved fiscal year 2026–27 Career Technical Education Incentive Grant allocations.
The next State Board meeting is scheduled for Nov. 12-13. View the full meeting calendar.