A new push in California’s 2026-27 budget argues Student Success Coaches are vital for attendance and engagement.
Protecting students means more than assigning lessons—it requires adults who notice when a student starts slipping, then step in early enough to keep learning on track.
That argument is at the center of a call for California to continue funding the Student Success Coach Learning Network in the 2026-27 state budget.. The warning is direct: without action by the state Legislature and the governor. the statewide effort could end. leaving schools without a support system at a time when absenteeism. disengagement from academics. and emotional strain remain pressing concerns.
The model’s premise is simple but demanding: students succeed when they are seen. supported. and encouraged by trusted adults who show up consistently.. Student Success Coaches work alongside teachers. counselors. and administrators to identify students who are beginning to disengage. check in early. and help address obstacles that can interfere with learning before those barriers intensify.
Supporters of the program emphasize that academic outcomes are tied to relationships.. Test scores and other performance indicators matter. but the way students experience their school—especially the culture and the quality of day-to-day connections—can determine whether they stay motivated.. In this framing. coaching is not an add-on to instruction; it is a mechanism for strengthening the conditions under which learning becomes possible.
The Learning Network is also described as cost-effective in tackling chronic absenteeism and academic disengagement. while attending to social and emotional needs that can derail attendance and focus.. Rather than waiting for problems to reach a crisis point. coaches are positioned as an early-warning and early-intervention layer inside schools.
In Los Angeles, the commentary points to City Year as an example of how near-peer support can reinforce school progress.. City Year corps members—many of whom were raised in the communities where they work—partner with schools to help produce what the report describes as strong results.. It also cites research indicating that schools partnering with City Year are up to two to three times more likely to improve on English and math assessments.
Across other communities. the approach described is consistent: student success coaches work in tandem with the educators already responsible for student outcomes—teachers. counselors. and administrators—so students who may be at risk of falling through gaps receive structured support.. The program’s role is portrayed as building trust. noticing withdrawal early. and intervening when a small academic. emotional. or practical problem is still manageable.
The push for continued funding is backed by a broader research claim: schools function best when they are built on strong relationships.. Learning is described as having social and emotional dimensions, not only intellectual ones.. Students who feel known and supported are more likely to stay motivated and persevere. a point the commentary says is especially important in communities that have historically been underserved and face outside pressures that make it harder to focus on school.
The author’s concern returns to policy risk: if the Legislature and governor do not act, the statewide effort could cease, and the loss would come at a moment when many students are still struggling with absenteeism, academic disengagement, and emotional stress.
At a statewide scale. the commentary reports that more than 1. 100 Student Success Coaches now serve nearly 76. 000 students across more than 215 sites in more than 30 communities in California.. But it argues that the program’s value cannot be judged only by numbers.. It points to the kinds of change coaches can help create—students returning to attendance after someone noticed they were missing. gaining confidence after being listened to. and staying connected to school because an adult knows their name and recognizes their potential.
Even as the program grows. the commentary stresses that what is at risk is not simply a general commitment to student support. but the continuation of the Learning Network itself.. It raises the issue that federal support linked to AmeriCorps and similar national service pathways may become less certain. and it argues California should make clear its own commitment through the 2026-27 state budget.
From a broader education-policy perspective. the argument suggests that state funding is what turns relationship-based supports into a reliable part of school operations.. If those supports depend too heavily on uncertain federal pathways. schools may face gaps precisely when attendance and engagement challenges remain persistent.
There is also an equity implication woven into the case: the commentary frames relationship-centered support as especially crucial for students in communities that have long been underserved.. In that view. keeping coaches in place is not only about improving immediate attendance metrics. but about protecting a mechanism that helps students remain motivated and connected to learning despite pressures outside the classroom.
Ultimately, the commentary links the budget decision to a larger definition of educational success.. It argues California should invest not only in what students are taught. but in the people who help them stay ready to learn—through consistent encouragement. early intervention. and a school environment where students feel supported.
The author, Pedro Noguera, Ph.D., is the dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California and a board member for City Year Los Angeles.
Student Success Coach Learning Network California education budget chronic absenteeism student engagement school relationships City Year Los Angeles state policy 2026-27