This bill mandates universal screening for math difficulties in kindergarten through grade 2 using instruments approved by a state-appointed expert panel. It directs the State Board of Education to establish evaluation criteria and an approved list of culturally and developmentally appropriate screening tools, and requires local educational agencies to adopt instruments from that list and screen each eligible pupil annually, subject to parental opt-out.
Results are explicitly limited to diagnostic and instructional uses — the bill bars high-stakes uses (teacher evaluation, retention, promotion, or gifted identification) and clarifies screenings do not replace IDEA evaluations while permitting referrals. The measure also requires timely parent notification, multilingual materials, and annual, disaggregated reporting to the State Department of Education.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the State Board to convene an independent expert panel to approve K–2 math screening instruments and sets statewide expectations: LEAs must adopt approved tools and screen each K–2 pupil annually (with a parental opt-out). The bill requires guidance on administration, language availability, and annual reporting of screening outcomes.
Who It Affects
Kindergarten through grade 2 pupils and their families, school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, classroom teachers who administer screeners, and vendors seeking placement on the approved list. It also implicates special education teams because screenings can trigger further assessment.
Why It Matters
It institutionalizes early, universal math identification in California and sets standards for cultural and linguistic validity, potentially reshaping early intervention practices and vendor markets while creating new operational and data-reporting duties for LEAs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a two-step state-to-local system for identifying K–2 pupils with math difficulties. First, the State Board of Education must appoint an independent panel of experts (no financial conflicts) to develop a review process and approve a list of screening instruments designed for kindergarten and grades 1–2.
The panel must consider cultural, linguistic, and developmental appropriateness, time-to-administer, and how quickly results are reported. Meetings of the panel are subject to California’s Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
Local educational agencies (school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools) must select one or more instruments from the approved list and use them to screen every pupil in kindergarten through grade 2 annually, beginning in the 2028–29 school year. LEAs must screen new enrollees within 45 calendar days of enrollment.
Parents or guardians may opt their child out in writing, and LEAs must provide notice and opt-out instructions at least 15 calendar days before screening. The bill excludes transitional kindergarten from the requirement.Screenings are designed to be brief tools administered by trained school staff and intended to identify students who are not demonstrating grade-level foundational math skills (for example, number sense, basic operations, comparing numbers).
Results must be shared with parents within 30 calendar days, include interpretation guidance in the pupil’s primary language when appropriate, and be used to guide tiered supports — classroom adjustments, evidence-based instruction, progress monitoring, small-group or one-on-one tutoring, or referral for further diagnostic evaluation. The statute makes clear these screenings are not diagnostic evaluations under IDEA or Section 504 and cannot be used for high-stakes decisions like teacher evaluation, promotion/retention, or gifted placement, though they may prompt a formal special-education referral.To support oversight and transparency, LEAs must report annually to the State Department of Education the number and percentage of pupils identified through screening, disaggregated by pupil group.
The law also instructs the State Board and the expert panel to prioritize instruments normed on contemporary, multicultural, and multilingual samples and to provide administration and interpretation resources aligned with California’s Math Framework and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The State Board must appoint an independent expert panel (no financial conflicts) to develop evaluation criteria and approve a list of K–2 math screening instruments.
The panel must vote on an approved list at a public meeting by January 31, 2028, and its meetings are subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
Local educational agencies must adopt approved screening instruments by June 30, 2028, and begin annual screenings for K–2 no later than the 2028–29 school year; pupils enrolling after initial administration must be screened within 45 calendar days.
Parents must be notified at least 15 calendar days before screening and may opt their child out in writing; LEAs must provide screening results to parents within 30 calendar days.
LEAs must report to the Department annually (by July 15) the number and percentage of pupils identified as experiencing math difficulties, disaggregated by pupil group.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expert panel appointment and criteria development
The State Board must appoint an independent panel of experts to create an approved list of screening instruments for kindergarten and grades 1–2. The board must prevent financial conflicts of interest on the panel and establish the panel’s review process. Practically, this centralizes technical judgment about what counts as an acceptable screener—measurement validity, language coverage, and developmental appropriateness will be gatekeeping factors vendors must meet to get on the list.
Public process and required list features
The bill makes the panel’s work subject to Bagley-Keene, requiring public meetings and a public vote to approve the list by a statutory deadline. The panel must include tools for English- and non-English-speaking pupils where available, consider administration time, reporting speed, and specify appropriate grades for each instrument. This provision imposes transparency on the selection process but also introduces procedural timelines that can slow adoption.
Evaluation criteria for screening quality
The State Board must ensure evaluation criteria require direct measurement of foundational math skills, norming and validation on modern multicultural and multilingual samples, and integration of demographic/contextual data (home language, pre-K access). The board must also require guidance for educators on administration, interpretation, family communication, and alignment with MTSS and California’s Math Framework—setting expectations that approved tools do more than generate scores.
Local adoption, administration, exclusions, and use of results
LEAs must adopt approved instruments and screen all K–2 pupils annually (with written parental opt-out). New enrollees are screened within 45 days unless prior equivalent screening documentation exists. Screenings do not substitute for IDEA or Section 504 evaluations and must not delay child-find, but may prompt referral for formal assessment. The statute lists specific exclusions (documented dyscalculia, current IDEA/504 eligibility, or concurrent diagnostic evaluations) when parents give prior written consent to forgo screening.
Parent notifications, result uses, timelines, and reporting
LEAs must notify parents at least 15 days before screenings, provide opt-out instructions, and deliver screening results within 30 calendar days along with interpretation and next-step guidance in parents’ primary languages per existing translation rules. The law prohibits high-stakes uses of screening results (teacher evaluation, retention, gifted identification) and requires annual reporting to the Department by July 15 of each year of the counts and percentages of pupils identified, disaggregated by pupil group.
Definitions and scope
The bill defines key terms: 'kindergarten' excludes transitional kindergarten; 'local educational agency' includes districts, county offices, and charter schools; 'math difficulties' are framed around foundational skills in the state Math Framework; and 'screening instrument' is a brief tool administered by a trained school employee. These definitions narrow the program’s scope and clarify which students and tools are covered.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Early-grade pupils at risk of falling behind in math: earlier identification enables targeted instruction, progress monitoring, and intervention aligned with students’ specific foundational skill gaps.
- Families of multilingual pupils and historically underserved students: the bill requires consideration of primary-language instruments and translation of communications, potentially reducing language-related misidentification.
- Teachers and instructional coaches: receive structured, actionable screening data and guidance tied to MTSS and the state Math Framework to inform classroom instruction and small-group interventions.
- State and local policy planners: gain annual, disaggregated data on early math difficulties to direct resources and evaluate program effectiveness over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies (school districts, county offices, charter schools): responsible for purchasing/adopting approved tools, training staff, administering screens, communicating with families, and managing data and reporting workloads.
- Assessment vendors: must meet stringent validity, norming, and multilingual criteria to get on the approved list, which may require investment in revalidation or new-language development.
- State agencies: while the bill states the Legislature intends to provide funding, the State Board and Department will need administrative resources to convene the panel, manage approvals, produce guidance, and process annual LEA reports.
- Classroom teachers and certificated staff: will spend instructional time administering and interpreting screenings and implementing follow-up interventions, adding operational duties to existing workloads.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the clear public-interest goal of identifying and remediating early math gaps and the practical risks of misclassification, added administrative burden, and unequal access to validated, multilingual screeners—solving one problem (late identification) may create others (resource strain, referral spikes, and potential inequities) without adequate funding and vendor capacity.
The bill balances early identification against the risk of overburdening classroom time and local budgets. Brief screeners are intended to minimize instructional disruption, but districts will still need to schedule administration windows, train staff, and allocate time for make-up screening for new enrollees.
Smaller districts and charter schools may face higher per-pupil costs for purchasing approved instruments and for training, and the text’s reliance on the Legislature’s intent to provide funding does not create an enforceable funding stream.
Language coverage and valid norming are central to the law’s promise but also its biggest practical challenge. The statute requires instruments normed on multilingual and multicultural samples and calls for non-English instruments where available; however, many commercial screeners lack robust non-English versions or contemporary norming samples.
That gap creates a trade-off: either LEAs use imperfect English-language components (with accommodations) or face unequal access while vendors catch up. The bill attempts to mitigate misidentification by integrating demographic context and prohibiting high-stakes uses, yet the line between screening and formal evaluation can blur in practice, increasing the risk that screenings will generate additional assessment workloads and potential referral spikes for special education.
Transparency requirements (Bagley-Keene) strengthen public trust but can extend timelines for instrument approval; the panel’s public process may limit rapid updates to the approved list as new evidence emerges. Finally, the law mandates annual, disaggregated data collection but does not specify data privacy protections beyond existing law; districts will need to reconcile reporting obligations with FERPA and state privacy rules while ensuring that aggregated reporting does not inadvertently stigmatize small pupil groups.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.