Monitor 2026–27 CALPADS data-quality criteria tied to differentiated assistance

In Plain Language: When CALPADS data do not reconcile, do not chase a clean-looking report by changing whichever value is easiest. Identify the authoritative business fact, trace how it moved through the local system and submission, correct the responsible source, post the correction, and verify the resulting state. For 2026–27, use the published CDE CALPADS TA criteria below for district and COE assistance; do not conflate them with Dashboard performance-based DA.

Why this matters

A certified submission can still contain inaccurate data, and a local SIS can disagree with what CALPADS actually posted. Unresolved differences affect funding, accountability, services, civil-rights reporting, certification, longitudinal records, and downstream systems. The objective is trustworthy data and a stronger management process—not merely removal of an error.

Joint ownership

Executive sponsor: superintendent or designee. Data-process owner: CALPADS administrator. Source owners: enrollment, program, attendance, discipline, human resources, course, special-education, and SIS staff. Assistance partners: COE for districts; CDE/SPI support for COEs; CSIS and the Service Desk for system guidance.

Who qualifies for CALPADS technical assistance

CDE’s CALPADS Technical Assistance page, reviewed October 15, 2026, replaces the earlier pending-criteria language. Under AB 126 and EC 52071.1/52071.51, eligible districts and COEs receive at least one year of assistance focused on data management. A district’s provider is the county superintendent; a COE’s provider is CDE.

Missing the final certification deadline for Fall 1, Fall 2, EOY 1 or EOY 2 is an eligibility basis. Data-quality eligibility also includes information establishing inaccurate or incomplete certified data, including responses to CDE follow-up about anomalies. CDE places data-quality-identified LEAs on the subsequent year’s eligibility list. An anomaly alone is a reason for investigation, not automatic proof of inaccurate reporting.

Charter schools are excluded from the AB 126 CALPADS technical assistance program. They remain responsible for accurate, complete and timely reporting. See CALPADS Update Flash 332, page 1. This CALPADS framework is distinct from Dashboard performance-based differentiated assistance. Zero-fatal-error target dates are recommended preparation milestones; final certification dates are reporting deadlines.

CDE eligibility criteria · CDE Flash 332 · Source register

Check the eligibility file and prepare for assistance

Find the agency and read its TA status. CDE posted its 2026 data file on October 15. Open the 2026 CALPADS TA worksheet and locate the agency by its 14-digit County-District-School code. Read the missed-submission, deadline and data-quality flags, then check the Eligible for CALPADS Technical Assistance column. The Data Quality Issue Year identifies the affected year or years. The file can include charter schools with reporting issues. Statutory assistance under AB 126 applies to school districts and county offices of education. 2026 CALPADS Submission and Data Quality Issues data file (Excel).
Prepare the evidence for the provider. For a missed final deadline, bring the collection name, certification history and date of the final action. For a quality issue, bring the certified revision, the records that establish the discrepancy and any response to CDE. For example, if a district certified on time but later confirms it omitted a school, the district should document the missing school and affected totals for the county superintendent.
Agree on the first improvement to test. A district can use the CSIS planning guide with its county superintendent. A county office can use it with CDE for its own submission. Identify the failed check, assign a person to correct it, and agree on evidence to review at the next submission. For an omitted school, compare the expected-school roster with the schools in the regenerated report and retain the reviewer’s signoff. Any LEA can use these tools. CSIS Universal Supports Toolkit.

The reconciliation path

1 · DefineState the expected fact, population, date range, report, and business rule.

2 · LocateCompare the authoritative program evidence, SIS/source system, extract, upload, posted record, and report.

3 · DiagnoseIdentify whether the cause is policy, workflow, timing, access, coding, interface, validation, ownership, or training.

4 · CorrectChange the responsible source, resubmit as needed, and preserve the audit trail.

5 · VerifyConfirm the exact posted state and regenerated report, then prevent recurrence.

If the numbers do not agree

Comparison	Questions	Proof of resolution
Program roster ↔ SIS	Was the program decision received, dated, entered, ended, and updated for the right pupils?	Authorized roster and matching local records with correction history.
SIS ↔ extract	Did selection rules, mappings, dates, blank handling, code tables, or interface timing omit or transform data?	Controlled source-to-extract comparison and corrected configuration or record.
Extract ↔ posted CALPADS	Was the file uploaded, did each record pass, and did a later transaction overwrite or fail to update it?	Upload results and current posted record—not merely a successful file transmission.
Posted record ↔ certification report	Does the record fall within the report population, census date, academic year, enrollment context, and revision snapshot?	Regenerated revision and reconciled supporting/certification report.
CALPADS ↔ downstream result	Which snapshot, deadline, business rules, filters, and other data sources produced the downstream measure?	Documented lineage and confirmation from the responsible CDE program when needed.

From a CALPADS difference to a corrected source and a fixed process: the SDLA ITO workflow

Do not chase a clean-looking report by changing whichever value is easiest. This SDLA ITO (Input, Transformation, Output) graphic shows how control totals, source reports, extracts, and certification reports become the control totals and error logs, the signed-off reports, and the remediation plan and procedures.

SDLA ITO: eleven steps from control totals, source reports, extracts, and certification reports, through classifying errors, reconciling reports, root-cause analysis, and knowledgeable review, to the control totals and error logs, the signed-off reports, and the remediation plan and procedures. — **Read down each column, then move to the next:** Input identifies what to collect; Transformation covers classifying errors, reconciling reports, root-cause analysis, and knowledgeable review; Output covers the control totals and error logs, the signed-off reports, and the remediation plan and procedures. Work throughout 2026–27, before each zero-fatal-error target and certification deadline.

Open the full-size workflow graphic

Operational workflow

At the start of each submissionDefine control totals and owners.Agree on the expected populations, authoritative rosters, source reports, report reviewers, and signoff authority.
Before the zero-fatal-error targetPost early and classify errors.Separate record defects, mapping/configuration problems, missing handoffs, system issues, and report misunderstandings.
After fatal errors clearReconcile supporting reports.Compare counts and pupil lists to source evidence; review anomalies and certification data discrepancies rather than treating zero fatals as completion.
When a difference persistsComplete root-cause analysis.Trace one representative record end to end, expand to the affected population, and assign the correction at the earliest reliable source.
Before certificationObtain knowledgeable review.Program and data owners validate the same regenerated revision and document unexplained exceptions.
After certificationFix the process.Update procedures, code mappings, roles, training, calendars, quality checks, and leadership monitoring.

District, COE, and charter distinctions

LEA type	Responsibility	Assistance boundary
School district	Submit accurate, complete data on time; investigate mismatches; build sustainable local data-management practices.	For eligible districts, the county superintendent provides at least one year of assistance focused on the district’s data-management processes.
County office of education	Maintain the same controls for the COE's own CALPADS data and fulfill separately assigned county review/support roles.	For eligible COEs, CDE provides at least one year of assistance focused on COE processes and capacity.
Charter school	Maintain accurate data and reconciliation whether reporting independently or through an authorizer.	Charters are excluded from the specific CALPADS TA eligibility statement on the CDE page; that does not reduce their reporting or data-quality obligations.

Evidence to retain

Control totals, authoritative rosters, source reports, extracts, upload results, and posted-record evidence.
Error and discrepancy logs with population, root cause, owner, correction, resubmission, and verification.
Certification and supporting reports with dated program-owner and data-owner signoff.
Anomaly communications and cross-LEA resolution evidence.
Data-management needs assessment, root-cause analysis, remediation plan, procedures, and training evidence.
Leadership review of deadlines, unresolved risks, and recurring failure patterns.

Official guidance and help

CDE CALPADS Technical AssistanceCurrent eligibility phase, best practices, and Universal Supports Toolkit.
CALPADS CalendarSubmission, zero-fatal-error, certification, and amendment milestones.
CALPADS System DocumentationCurrent specifications, code sets, errors, and procedures.
CALPADS Frequently Asked QuestionsOperational reporting and anomaly guidance.

November 4, 2026 update. Checked the CDE eligibility file and CSIS toolkit and added steps for the first assistance meeting. The October 21 review covered statutory eligibility and the roles of the county superintendent and CDE. See the source-version register. Other source history is retained in the publication record.