These 8 California public high schools are leading the state in academics and innovation
In a state as academically diverse as California, certain public high schools have emerged as national models of excellence. These eight institutions, spread across urban hubs and university campuses, are leading the way with forward-thinking curricula, college-focused programs, and a relentless drive to nurture leadership, innovation, and equity.
Whether it's earning college credit in high school or receiving conservatory-level arts instruction, students at these schools are gaining an edge for the future.
Here's a closer look at what sets them apart in the 2025 landscape.
California Academy of Mathematics & Science
(CAMS), Carson
Student–teacher ratio:
25:1
Located on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills and part of the Long Beach Unified School District, CAMS is a STEM magnet school that consistently ranks among the top public schools in the state.
Since its founding in 1990, CAMS has aimed to increase the number of graduates pursuing science, math, and engineering careers—especially from underrepresented backgrounds.
Its integrated curriculum blends high school and college coursework, and partnerships with local universities and industry give students access to research labs, internships, and mentorship. The school has won multiple accolades, including the National Blue Ribbon and California Distinguished School awards.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
The boy meets a dog on the street - no one expected what happened next.
Women's Method
Learn More
Undo
Girls Academic Leadership Academy (GALA), Los Angeles
Student–teacher ratio:
21:1
A trailblazer in gender equity and STEM education, GALA is the first all-girls public school in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Established in 2016, the school caters to grades 6–12 and is designed to close gender gaps in science and technology by offering a supportive, high-expectation environment.
GALA offers advanced courses in robotics, biomedical science, computer science, and engineering. The school also emphasizes leadership, mental wellness, and civic engagement.
Students are encouraged to pursue real-world problem-solving through competitions, mentorship programs, and global partnerships.
Troy High School, Fullerton
Student–teacher ratio:
26:1
Troy High School is a national powerhouse known for its specialized Troy Tech magnet program, Cambridge AICE curriculum, and International Baccalaureate (IB) offerings. Students here experience a high-octane academic culture backed by rigorous coursework and access to cutting-edge technology labs.
The school has repeatedly claimed top spots in the National Science Olympiad and Science Bowl, producing students who go on to attend top-tier universities with competitive scholarships. With over 2,500 students, Troy maintains an ambitious, achievement-oriented environment that prepares learners for elite college admissions and STEM careers.
Henry M. Gunn High School, Palo Alto
Student–teacher ratio:
19:1
Gunn High, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, reflects the academic intensity and innovation of its tech-savvy community.
The school offers a wide range of AP courses, a strong performing arts program, and comprehensive college counseling services.
Gunn is also known for addressing student mental health, introducing wellness centers and flexible scheduling after community feedback. Students are regularly accepted to top institutions like Stanford, MIT, and UC Berkeley, and participate in advanced research, entrepreneurship clubs, and civic initiatives.
Canyon Crest Academy, San Diego
Student–teacher ratio:
28:1
One of the highest-rated public high schools in California, Canyon Crest Academy blends academic rigor with an emphasis on creativity and student autonomy. Its flexible schedule model encourages students to build their own educational paths with courses in everything from biotechnology to film production.
The school offers over 100 electives, including advanced arts and media classes, and maintains a strong college prep focus.
Known for its vibrant student life, CCA also boasts impressive graduation rates and consistently high AP scores across subjects.
Orange County School of the Arts (OCSA), Santa Ana
Student–teacher ratio:
24:1
OCSA is a public charter school offering a conservatory model for grades 7–12, where students specialize in areas like classical music, visual arts, creative writing, culinary arts, and more—while completing a full academic curriculum. Admission is based on talent auditions and portfolios rather than academic metrics.
Students split their day between college-prep academics and professional-level arts training. Many graduates go on to Juilliard, NYU Tisch, and UCLA, often pursuing careers in both arts and academia. OCSA's donor-supported model keeps it tuition-free, while its partnerships with industry professionals offer invaluable exposure.
California School of the Arts – San Gabriel Valley (CSArts-SGV), Duarte
Student–teacher ratio:
22:1
An offshoot of OCSA, CSArts-SGV brings the same dual focus on academics and arts training to students in the San Gabriel Valley.
The school offers conservatory tracks such as dance, acting, vocal music, and digital media arts, along with honors and AP-level academic coursework.
Students benefit from professional guest artists, masterclasses, and internship opportunities while maintaining high academic standards. With small class sizes and a nurturing environment, CSArts-SGV emphasizes both artistic mastery and personal development.
Academy of the Canyons, Santa Clarita
Student–teacher ratio:
18:1
Situated on the College of the Canyons campus, this innovative middle college high school allows students to simultaneously earn high school and college credits. Most graduates leave with 60–80 college units, giving them a head start on their undergraduate degrees.
Known for its tight-knit student community and academic flexibility, AOC is ideal for highly motivated learners who thrive in a mature, college-like setting. Students also benefit from access to college professors, early career exploration, and university transfer agreements.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
20 hours ago
- Hans India
MITS bags ISTE best engg college award
Madanapalle: Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science (MITS) has been honoured with the prestigious 'Best Engineering College Award – 2024' by the Indian Society for Technical Education (ISTE), Andhra Pradesh Section. The award recognises MITS's outstanding performance in academics, research and overall institutional excellence. The award will be formally presented during the ISTE Student Convention on August 14 at MITS campus. In addition, two MITS students received individual State-level honours. Kagithi Bhargavi (EEE) was named Best Electrical and Electronics Engineering student in AP, while Karthik Kovi (CSE) received the State Award for Best Student Innovator. College Correspondent Dr N Vijaya Bhaskar Choudary, Executive Director Keerthi Nadella, and Principal Dr C Yuvaraj expressed gratitude to ISTE and congratulated the students for bringing pride to the institution.
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Trump's science reform veers off course
Gift this article Critics accuse President Trump of politicizing the National Science Foundation, warning that the administration poses a lethal threat to what one called 'American science expertise as we know it." At first, these assertions were overwrought and misleading: The administration was cleansing the NSF of left-wing politics. The administration's latest proposals, however, don't go far enough in some areas while jeopardizing progress in others. Critics accuse President Trump of politicizing the National Science Foundation, warning that the administration poses a lethal threat to what one called 'American science expertise as we know it." At first, these assertions were overwrought and misleading: The administration was cleansing the NSF of left-wing politics. The administration's latest proposals, however, don't go far enough in some areas while jeopardizing progress in others. From February through May, the NSF, which supports academic science, terminated more than 1,700 grants, totaling $1.4 billion. 'The American people deserve a scientific enterprise free from political interference," California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the House Science Committee's ranking Democrat, said in an April press release. Jon Freeman, Columbia psychologist and NSF grant recipient, told the New York Times that the cuts will cede 'American leadership in science and technology to China and to other countries." Science magazine reported that 'NSF watchers" feared a proposed restructuring would leave the foundation 'more vulnerable to pressure from the White House to fund research that suits its ideological bent." The claim about ideological bias was rich. The NSF has been supporting ideologically driven projects for years, much of it through its Directorate for STEM Education. The foundation's education grant-making has focused on racial victimhood. 'Learning From Black Intellectualism: Broadening Epistemic Foundations in Engineering Education to Empower Black Students and Faculty," funded in 2023 at nearly $600,000, was typical. According to the project's abstract, the prevailing 'narrative" around black underrepresentation 'preserves Whiteness by passively neglecting the culture of racism in engineering." 'Learning From Black Intellectualism" would 'advance educational justice by countering the epistemic violence within engineering and its sense-making practices." It would use 'fugitive pedagogy" to 'investigate engineering faculty epistemic norms." 'Black intellectualism" would be used to 're-politicize engineering pedagogy." Projects like that obviously don't advance American leadership over China. On May 9, the NSF announced that it was disbanding its most concentrated source of racial grant-making: the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM, housed within the Directorate for STEM Education. Predictably, the press played the race card, claiming the cuts 'reduced the diversity of NSF's pool of funded scientists," as the Science article put it. Black grantees suffered the heaviest blow, it reported, with a cancellation rate four times as high as their representation among total NSF grantees. Such a disparity is hardly surprising, given that racism-themed grants serve as a vehicle for increasing black representation among NSF awardees. The education directorate contains three other divisions: Graduate Education, Undergraduate Education, and Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. All should be eliminated. Like the Division of Equity for Excellence, these divisions are mere extensions of education schools, whose effect on the transmission of knowledge has been disastrous. The NSF's Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences is another source of grant-making premised on academic leftism. Consider Mr. Freeman, the Columbia psychologist. His terminated grant—from the directorate's Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences—focused on how 'social inequities such as gender and racial disparities" are shaped by facial and other 'learned stereotypes" about race and sex. It is doubtful that China is attempting to compete in this area. Such was the state of play before the Trump administration's funding request for fiscal 2026: The science establishment was crying bloody murder because the NSF had started cutting some of its most blatantly politicized grants. Enter the 2026 budget, released on May 30. It would reduce funding for research and related activities by 61%, or $5 billion. The NSF's total budget would be cut 55%, or $5.12 billion. But the Education and Social Sciences directorates wouldn't be eliminated. Worse, the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM within the Education Directorate would be exhumed. True, the Equity Division's budget would be cut nearly 80%, from $214 million in 2024 to $43 million in 2026. But $43 million can support a lot of mischief. On the bright side, the 2026 budget would almost zero out a category of grants known as 'Broadening Participation." These grants reflect Congress's decadeslong mania for imposing nonscientific goals onto the foundation. In 2010 Congress forbade the NSF from evaluating grants solely on scientific merit. Instead, scientists have to justify their research according to its 'broader impacts," and vital scientific projects have been rejected for failure to state a sufficiently attractive 'broader impact." Broadening Participation grants dealing with race and sex are mostly eliminated. But the budget preserves geographic Broadening Participation funding, which allows politicians in noncoastal areas to brag of bringing home the science bacon, regardless of whether their district's colleges are likely to make breakthrough discoveries. While the cuts to the Education and Social Science directorates were too timid, cuts to the hard-science directorates were too sweeping. Biological Sciences is down 71.5%. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, which includes chemistry, physics and astronomy, is down 67%. The May 30 budget request reads like a pitch for a tech startup. Its 'prioritized" activities are Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Information Science, and the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships—the last akin to a tech incubator for small businesses. Other favored areas are Advanced Manufacturing, Advanced Wireless, and Microelectronics and Semiconductors, because those fields help 'harness the full power of American innovation by empowering entrepreneurs and unleashing private-sector creativity." It is a mistake to reorient the NSF toward research perceived to be economically useful. The private sector is already charging ahead on high-tech research and applications. It has less incentive to fund curiosity-driven research into the laws of the universe. Other battles are more worthy of attention. Congressional Republicans should provide the White House with an unambiguous charter for its reform efforts. Congress should strip all identity-politics language from NSF budgetary authorizations by rejecting the notion that researchers must justify their work on nonscientific grounds. Lawmakers should also extricate the NSF from teacher training and education research. Congress and the administration could treat scientists like adults again by cutting red tape and restoring discretion to project managers and researchers. The White House has started a long overdue overhaul of science and academia, unleashing end-of-times prophesying from those intertwined establishments. But federal science funding shouldn't go to social or economic goals, 'equity" or any other ideology. Rather, its aim should be to unleash human genius in its confrontation with natural mystery. Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of 'When Race Trumps Merit." This is adapted from the Summer issue of City Journal. Topics You May Be Interested In
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump's Science Reform Veers off Course
Critics accuse President Trump of politicizing the National Science Foundation, warning that the administration poses a lethal threat to what one called 'American science expertise as we know it.' At first, these assertions were overwrought and misleading: The administration was cleansing the NSF of left-wing politics. The administration's latest proposals, however, don't go far enough in some areas while jeopardizing progress in others. Trump's Science Reform Veers off Course From February through May, the NSF, which supports academic science, terminated more than 1,700 grants, totaling $1.4 billion. 'The American people deserve a scientific enterprise free from political interference,' California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the House Science Committee's ranking Democrat, said in an April press release. Jon Freeman, Columbia psychologist and NSF grant recipient, told the New York Times that the cuts will cede 'American leadership in science and technology to China and to other countries.' Science magazine reported that 'NSF watchers' feared a proposed restructuring would leave the foundation 'more vulnerable to pressure from the White House to fund research that suits its ideological bent.' The claim about ideological bias was rich. The NSF has been supporting ideologically driven projects for years, much of it through its Directorate for STEM Education. The foundation's education grant-making has focused on racial victimhood. 'Learning From Black Intellectualism: Broadening Epistemic Foundations in Engineering Education to Empower Black Students and Faculty,' funded in 2023 at nearly $600,000, was typical. According to the project's abstract, the prevailing 'narrative' around black underrepresentation 'preserves Whiteness by passively neglecting the culture of racism in engineering.' 'Learning From Black Intellectualism' would 'advance educational justice by countering the epistemic violence within engineering and its sense-making practices.' It would use 'fugitive pedagogy' to 'investigate engineering faculty epistemic norms.' 'Black intellectualism' would be used to 're-politicize engineering pedagogy.' Projects like that obviously don't advance American leadership over China. On May 9, the NSF announced that it was disbanding its most concentrated source of racial grant-making: the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM, housed within the Directorate for STEM Education. Predictably, the press played the race card, claiming the cuts 'reduced the diversity of NSF's pool of funded scientists,' as the Science article put it. Black grantees suffered the heaviest blow, it reported, with a cancellation rate four times as high as their representation among total NSF grantees. Such a disparity is hardly surprising, given that racism-themed grants serve as a vehicle for increasing black representation among NSF awardees. The education directorate contains three other divisions: Graduate Education, Undergraduate Education, and Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. All should be eliminated. Like the Division of Equity for Excellence, these divisions are mere extensions of education schools, whose effect on the transmission of knowledge has been disastrous. The NSF's Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences is another source of grant-making premised on academic leftism. Consider Mr. Freeman, the Columbia psychologist. His terminated grant—from the directorate's Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences—focused on how 'social inequities such as gender and racial disparities' are shaped by facial and other 'learned stereotypes' about race and sex. It is doubtful that China is attempting to compete in this area. Such was the state of play before the Trump administration's funding request for fiscal 2026: The science establishment was crying bloody murder because the NSF had started cutting some of its most blatantly politicized grants. Enter the 2026 budget, released on May 30. It would reduce funding for research and related activities by 61%, or $5 billion. The NSF's total budget would be cut 55%, or $5.12 billion. But the Education and Social Sciences directorates wouldn't be eliminated. Worse, the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM within the Education Directorate would be exhumed. True, the Equity Division's budget would be cut nearly 80%, from $214 million in 2024 to $43 million in 2026. But $43 million can support a lot of mischief. On the bright side, the 2026 budget would almost zero out a category of grants known as 'Broadening Participation.' These grants reflect Congress's decadeslong mania for imposing nonscientific goals onto the foundation. In 2010 Congress forbade the NSF from evaluating grants solely on scientific merit. Instead, scientists have to justify their research according to its 'broader impacts,' and vital scientific projects have been rejected for failure to state a sufficiently attractive 'broader impact.' Broadening Participation grants dealing with race and sex are mostly eliminated. But the budget preserves geographic Broadening Participation funding, which allows politicians in noncoastal areas to brag of bringing home the science bacon, regardless of whether their district's colleges are likely to make breakthrough discoveries. While the cuts to the Education and Social Science directorates were too timid, cuts to the hard-science directorates were too sweeping. Biological Sciences is down 71.5%. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, which includes chemistry, physics and astronomy, is down 67%. The May 30 budget request reads like a pitch for a tech startup. Its 'prioritized' activities are Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Information Science, and the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships—the last akin to a tech incubator for small businesses. Other favored areas are Advanced Manufacturing, Advanced Wireless, and Microelectronics and Semiconductors, because those fields help 'harness the full power of American innovation by empowering entrepreneurs and unleashing private-sector creativity.' It is a mistake to reorient the NSF toward research perceived to be economically useful. The private sector is already charging ahead on high-tech research and applications. It has less incentive to fund curiosity-driven research into the laws of the universe. Other battles are more worthy of attention. Congressional Republicans should provide the White House with an unambiguous charter for its reform efforts. Congress should strip all identity-politics language from NSF budgetary authorizations by rejecting the notion that researchers must justify their work on nonscientific grounds. Lawmakers should also extricate the NSF from teacher training and education research. Congress and the administration could treat scientists like adults again by cutting red tape and restoring discretion to project managers and researchers. The White House has started a long overdue overhaul of science and academia, unleashing end-of-times prophesying from those intertwined establishments. But federal science funding shouldn't go to social or economic goals, 'equity' or any other ideology. Rather, its aim should be to unleash human genius in its confrontation with natural mystery. Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of 'When Race Trumps Merit.' This is adapted from the Summer issue of City Journal.
