A New Vision for California High School Dance Team: Is It Time for a True State System?

California has some of the most talented high school dance teams in the country.

Our state is full of incredible dancers, passionate coaches, proud school traditions, and a growing network of competitions that continue to give students meaningful opportunities to perform. But despite all of that, California still does not have what many other states already have:

A true school-based statewide dance team system built specifically for interscholastic programs.

Unlike states such as Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, Utah, and Wisconsin, our beloved California does not currently have a formal statewide structure for dance team that includes a defined season, regional pathways, and a championship model designed around school-based participation.

That does not mean California lacks opportunity. In fact, quite the opposite.

California already has strong independently hosted regionals, dedicated event producers, and several national competition companies that continue to serve our schools with high-quality experiences. Those events have played a major role in helping our community grow, and they remain an important part of the dance team ecosystem.

But even with all of that, there is still a missing piece.

This article is not meant to present a final rulebook. It is meant to begin a serious conversation among California high school dance team coaches, directors, and school leaders about whether it may be time to build something new through a future state organization.

Because the economy is not getting any easier on our students and their families. And while Prop 28 has recently provided limited program funding relief that was absent for decades prior, many competition event companies have begun to increase their registration fees in response. As educators working at high schools, what legacy are we creating for our dance students to have an accessible budget-conscious platform to showcase their talents? Or do we even want that option to exist at the high school level here in California at all?

Why California Needs a Different Kind of State Model

California already has many excellent dance competition opportunities… That matters! Because any future state system should not try to ignore that reality or compete with what is already working. We already have:

  • strong independently-hosted regional competitions
  • high-quality weekend competitions
  • regionals as meaningful fundraiser opportunities for host schools
  • national-style events that allow programs to bring multiple routines and experience large-scale production

Those events serve an important purpose, and they should definitely continue to do so! That is exactly why a future California State Dance Team Tournament should not simply become another version of the same thing. A true state championship should serve a different purpose. It should be built to:

  • create a more affordable and accessible pathway for school-based teams
  • provide structured regular-season opportunities through meets
  • develop regional identity and healthy school camaraderie
  • create a more equitable system for participation and hosting
  • reward season-long preparation
  • showcase a wide variety of talent from across California
  • culminate in a championship event that feels distinct, meaningful, and truly representative of our state

California does NOT need another event that tries to do what the for-profit national competition companies already do so well. California needs something that COMPLEMENTS those opportunities by filling the gap that still exists.

Why a “Nationals-Style” State Championship No Longer Makes Sense

For many years, California’s school dance team community has leaned heavily on formats that resemble national competitions. That model absolutely has value. It allows school dance programs to:

  • perform multiple entries in the same genre
  • compete in different size categories
  • maximize performance opportunities
  • and build routines that prepare them for later-season national events

But when the goal is to create a true state championship, that same structure starts to create challenges. Because a state dance team championship that functions like a nationals-style open event can unintentionally:

  • over-represent a small number of highly resourced programs
  • limit geographic diversity
  • make it harder for developing programs to see a pathway forward
  • blur the identity of the event
  • and make the State Championship feel more like another regional/invitational than a true statewide championship

After 4 years of research traveling the United States, that is why I believe a new California state system should not try to replicate the broad, multi-entry, nationals-style framework that already exists. Those opportunities are already being served by many respected companies that have done a tremendous amount of good for the California dance team community.

This is not about replacing those events. This is not about criticizing those events. This is about recognizing that a state tournament should be different.

A true state model should be designed around:

  • school identity
  • regular-season participation
  • class/division structure
  • regional representation
  • and a championship pathway that feels more like other interscholastic activities

What a California State System Could Look Like

If California were to build a true statewide dance team structure, I believe it should borrow the strongest parts of systems that already work in other states.

There is a lot to learn from:

  • Minnesota: which offers a highly structured postseason model with a true tournament-advancement feel
  • Wisconsin: which offers broader genre representation and a championship presentation that still feels special
  • Washington: where dance is recognized within a school-based championship framework
  • Utah: where drill team culture and state identity are deeply embedded in the school experience
  • Iowa: the largest state dance team championship in the United States with over 350 participating schools annually

California does NOT need to copy any one state exactly. But there is real value in studying what has already been proven to work. A future California interscholastic dance team season could be built around five major components:

1) Sanctioned Meets

These would function more like regular-season contests in other school activities.

  • designated high school gymnasiums
  • after-school, evening, or occasional Sunday scheduling
  • one or two genres only
  • critique and feedback focused formats rather than large-scale production

Why meets matter:

  • more affordable for school-based programs
  • more localized opportunities
  • more regular feedback during the season
  • more regional familiarity and rivalry
  • more balanced hosting access across the state

(That last bullet point is important!)

Historically, some schools have benefited more than others from the fundraising potential and visibility that comes with hosting larger weekend events year-after-year. While those independently-hosted regionals are valuable and should absolutely continue, a meet system creates another fundraising opportunity for other schools and helps spread hosting access more evenly across our community.

2) Sanctioned Invitationals

California already has a strong culture of independently-hosted regional competitions, and that should definitely remain part of the model. But under a NEW California system these events would be renamed “Invitationals”

Invitationals could continue to serve as:

  • major showcase opportunities for teams and solos
  • fundraiser opportunities for host schools
  • high-energy community events
  • strong “Nationals Preparation” opportunities, regardless of which Nationals event a team prefers to attend (if they participate in Nationals at all)

This proposed state model is not anti-invitational and it is not anti-national. It should actually make both stronger!

3) Section Championship Events

California is too large to run a meaningful statewide system without regional structure. A starting concept could be to divide the state into FOUR or FIVE GEOGRAPHIC SECTIONS, with each section hosting its own Section Championship.

The goal should be to make sure the State Tournament reflects a wide variety of talent from across California and not just the most densely populated competitive pockets of the state.

4) California State Dance Team Tournament

No matter which model California chooses, the State Tournament should feel distinct. It should not feel like a standard invitational or regional competition. It should feel like a real championship event with:

  • strong geographic representation
  • meaningful advancement or seeding
  • a memorable awards experience
  • a structure that honors school-based excellence

Proposed Championship Divisions

A future California state structure could potentially start off centered around six core divisions:

  1. Pom
  2. Jazz
  3. Hip Hop
  4. Lyrical
  5. Contemporary
  6. Specialty (see below)

The addition of “Specialty” is important. California has a wide variety of school dance team traditions, and not every program fits neatly into only the most common national-style categories. The Specialty division could allow for categories such as:

  • Dance/Drill
  • Gameday
  • Kick
  • Military
  • Character
  • Prop
  • Team Performance (aka Variety)
  • Any other approved school-based specialty formats

This creates flexibility while still preserving the integrity of the overall state model. And it establishes a competitive opportunity for those categories to build in popularity, as well as a catch-all for categories that also may decrease in statewide popularity over time. And if a certain category within the Specialty division grows in statewide popularity, then it could easily be added for the state championship model.

One Routine Per Genre: A Defining Feature of the State Model

After 4 years of research traveling all over the country (and 25 years of head coaching experience), I believe the following structure is essential if California wants a true interscholastic championship model with the highest potential for statewide buy-in and school participation.

One of the biggest philosophical shifts in a true state model would be this:

Each school would submit only ONE routine per dance genre category within the state championship pathway.

That means a school would not enter multiple routines in the same genre category in a NEW state tournament model (i.e. Small Contemporary, Medium Contemporary, and Large Contemporary). Instead, the school would select ONE representative routine in each genre to carry through the state pathway… and schools would NOT be required to compete in all style genre categories in order to participate.

For example:

  • one Pom routine
  • one Jazz routine
  • one Hip Hop routine
  • one Lyrical routine
  • one Contemporary routine
  • one Specialty routine

At first, this may not feel attractive to every program… especially those that currently maintain multiple routines in the same dance style across different size categories.

That concern is valid.

The purpose of the State Tournament should NOT be to maximize the number of entries. The purpose should be to identify and showcase a school’s best work in each dance genre… mirroring high school Varsity & JV athletic programs. This approach:

  • raises the prestige of each entry
  • makes the state pathway feel more intentional
  • prevents a small number of highly resourced programs from dominating a single genre with multiple entries
  • opens more space for geographic and program diversity
  • encourages schools to think strategically about what routine they want representing their programs at the highest level

This also does not prevent teams from continuing to build multiple routines for later-season national competitions... In fact, I believe it can help.

A school that is forced to identify its strongest routine in a genre early in the season is often sharpening the exact kind of work that can later succeed on a national stage. So while this model is designed to recognize teams at all stages of growth, it also helps push forward the programs that may eventually represent California at elite national events later in the season.

The goal is not only to crown state champions. The goal is to help California programs grow stronger, more focused, and more competitive wherever they perform next.

How Schools Could Be Classified

One of the most important questions California would need to solve is how to classify schools fairly. A logical starting point would be three classes:

  • Class A
  • Class AA
  • Class AAA

However, unlike traditional CIF sports, dance team participation in California is not universal. Many high schools do not have dance team programs at all. And among the schools that do, the size, structure, community/studio resources, and competitive history of those programs can vary dramatically.

That means a classification system based only on school enrollment may not be enough. If the goal is to place the strongest and most established programs in Class AAA, California may eventually need a more customized formula that considers a combination of factors such as:

  • school enrollment
  • dance team roster size
  • historical competitive strength
  • number of actively maintained team routines
  • recent participation in nationally recognized school-based competitions

That kind of hybrid model would better reflect the real landscape of the California dance team community.

Two Possible State Models for California

As I continue studying what other states do well, I believe California may want to seriously consider two possible models. Both have merit. Both deserve discussion…

Model #1: Tournament Qualifying System (TQS)

A Minnesota/Utah-Inspired Postseason Model

In this model:

  • teams compete during the regular season in sanctioned meets and invitationals
  • teams then advance into a Section Championship
  • the top teams in each class and category move on to the State Tournament, thereby representing that geographic region of California
  • the State Tournament becomes a true postseason event with qualification and advancement built into the system

Why this model is attractive:

  • clear championship pathway
  • strong prestige around qualifying
  • sections have real importance
  • stronger “state tournament” identity
  • encourages teams to peak at the right time

Potential challenge:
California is a very large state with uneven participation density. In the early years, a strict qualifying model may need flexibility to ensure that the State Tournament still reflects strong geographic representation rather than simply favoring the most densely competitive regions.

Model #2: Open Championship System with Section Seeding (OCS)

A Wisconsin/Iowa-Inspired Championship Model

In this model:

  • teams compete during the regular season in sanctioned meets and invitationals
  • teams participate in a Section Championship
  • section results determine:
    • regional honors
    • state seeding
    • performance order
    • or qualification for certain championship rounds
  • more schools may still have access to the State Tournament, especially in the early years

Why this model is attractive:

  • more inclusive during launch years
  • may build stronger statewide buy-in
  • sections still matter
  • creates a bridge toward a stricter qualifying system in the future if California wants one

Potential challenge:
Some coaches may prefer a more elimination-based state tournament structure and may feel this version is less definitive. No Finals Advancement Round = Missed Opportunity?

How Teams Could Become Eligible for Section Competition

One of the important details California would need to resolve is how teams become eligible to participate in their section competition. That formula may look different depending on which model California chooses…

In a tournament qualifying model (Model #1: TQS)

Sectionals would likely function as the official postseason qualifying round for State. A school could become eligible to participate if it:

  • is a registered member school in the statewide association
  • competes in at least two sanctioned meets
  • competes in at least one sanctioned invitational or another approved judged event
  • declares its class and division participation by a designated deadline
  • remains in good standing with roster and eligibility rules

Potential advancement formulas could include:

  • top three teams per class and division
  • top two teams per class and division PLUS one wildcard
  • or advancement numbers based on section size and participation density

California may also need safeguards for low-entry sections in the early years.

In an open championship model (Model #2: OCS)

Sectionals would function more as regional championship and seeding events rather than strict elimination rounds. A school could become eligible to participate if it:

  • is a registered member school in the statewide association
  • competes in at least two sanctioned meets
  • attends at least one additional sanctioned invitational event
  • declares its class and division participation by the deadline
  • remains in good standing with eligibility requirements

Section results could then determine:

  • state section champion honors
  • state championship event seeding
  • state championship performance order
  • qualification for championship rounds at State
  • or other competitive advantages

This may be especially effective in the early years because it preserves access while still rewarding regular-season commitment.

Where Section Events Could Be Hosted

Section events could potentially be hosted at:

  • a neutral high school venue
  • or a school that already has experience hosting a successful independently-run invitational

Both options have value. A neutral venue may feel more like a true postseason championship site and can help reduce concerns about home-site advantage. At the same time, schools that already host successful invitationals often have the gym space, volunteers, infrastructure, and event experience needed to produce a strong sectional event.

A realistic long-term approach may be to allow schools to BID TO HOST section events based on:

  • geographic location within the section
  • gym size and spectator capacity
  • warm-up space
  • campus logistics
  • administrative support
  • volunteer staffing
  • and demonstrated ability to meet statewide hosting standards

What the State Tournament Could Feel Like

No matter which model California chooses, the State Tournament should feel special.

It should not feel like a standard invitational.

There are several ideas I’ve seen in other states that I believe California should seriously consider.

Championship-style awards presentation

In both Minnesota and Wisconsin, I was especially impressed by how they presented awards by division in a way that felt elevated and memorable.

For example:

  • all schools who competed in a specific genre such as Pom or Hip Hop return to the floor for awards
  • top placements are announced in a way that creates real championship energy
  • individual dancer names can be read aloud for major honors
  • second- and third-place teams can flank the sides of the performance floor or stage
  • the champion can take center stage with:
    • a state banner
    • a trophy
    • and a professional championship photo moment

That kind of presentation matters.

It gives the event identity. It gives students a moment they will remember.

Competition floor layout

I also really liked how states like Minnesota and Wisconsin utilized Side A and Side B of the competition floor to manage classes and divisions within the same genre.

California could potentially explore:

  • Side A and Side B competition zones
  • alternating class sessions within a genre
  • or other formats that keep divisions grouped in a way that helps the event feel organized, engaging, and championship-driven

School-Level Collaboration Will Be Essential

The elephant in the room is that California high schools are not all structured the same way. Some campuses may have a variety of dance performance groups including any combinations of the following :

  • dance team
  • pom or song team
  • drill team
  • hip hop team
  • all-male team
  • concert dance program
  • multiple performance groups competing for the same talent pool at tryouts
  • overlapping programs that all represent the same school in different ways

That means any future statewide system would NEED to recognize that reality. Schools may need to work internally to determine:

  • which school-based groups are eligible to participate in the adopted state competition system
  • how routines are selected for the state tournament system
  • how shared resources are managed at the school site
  • how all qualifying student groups are given a fair chance to participate (to avoid creating conflict between similar performance groups at the same school site)

This would REQUIRE collaboration between:

  • coaches
  • dance team directors
  • school administrators
  • athletic directors
  • activities leadership

This reality cannot be ignored, and it is one of the many reasons why any future statewide model would require thoughtful collaboration at the school level. Because a school-based state system should be designed to create opportunity, not internal competition between student groups on the same campus. These conversations may not always be easy, but they are not a reason to avoid the idea altogether. They are simply part of the work required if California wants to build a true interscholastic model that reflects the many different ways dance programs currently exist across the state.

All Male Teams and Gender-Based Hip Hop Divisions

This is a very California specific conversation… Our state has a unique history when it comes to All-Male dance teams and gender-based Hip Hop divisions. And that history deserves to be acknowledged as part of any serious discussion about a future statewide model. This is an important topic, but it should be handled in a way that respects the past without allowing it to derail the larger goal of building a more modern interscholastic structure.

Why this history matters

  • In 1990, Miss Dance Drill Team USA added a formal All Male Dance category at its National Championship, which at the time was the industry standard national competition for school dance team & drill team programs. That decision created a first-of-its-kind pathway for schools to recruit more boys into dance programs at a time when male participation was far less common than it is today.
  • That structure later evolved into separate All Male, All Female, and Co-Ed Hip Hop divisions under MDDT and the former CADTD system. This all played a meaningful role in helping many California programs build stronger male participation, expand team identity, and create performance opportunities that did not always exist in traditional school dance settings.
  • This history matters… And California deserves a ton of credit for helping create space for boys in high school dance programs long before that became more common.

Why this structure deserves re-examination

  • Today many California high school dance team programs already include boys and students of all gender identities across a wide range of school-based team models.
  • Gender identity policy in California Education Code aspires for inclusion of ALL students.
  • Most state-organized interscholastic dance systems outside California NO LONGER separate competitive dance by gender, and many national competitions outside California have moved away from gender-separated divisions as well. Collegiate dance team competition generally does not follow that structure either.
  • California is also already inconsistent on this point, since school teams may already include boys in other styles. This raises the question of why Hip Hop alone remains separated by gender in so many California-based formats. That does not mean All-Male dance team programs should disappear. Schools should absolutely still have the freedom to maintain All-Male teams, All-Female teams, Co-ed/All Gender teams, or multiple school-affiliated performance groups if that is what best serves their school community and program culture.
  • The question is NOT whether All-Male teams should exist. The REAL question is how a modern statewide interscholastic system should classify competition categories in a way that is fair, relevant, and aligned with where the activity is headed.

Why this is REALLY a judging & scoring rubric issue

  • If coaches worry that all-female teams may feel disadvantaged competing against teams with boys in a unified Hip Hop division, that concern should be acknowledged honestly. Many coaches have long believed that “boy points” exist, meaning that teams with male dancers often create a different visual and performance impact that can over-influence judges’ scores.
  • This concern may point less to a gender issue and more to a scoresheet model issue. If current scoring models used in California reward power, tricks, aggression, or novelty in ways that are inconsistent or overly subjective, then the real work may actually be updating scoresheet rubrics so teams are rewarded for clarity of style, execution of textures, musicality, synchronization, performance quality, and category-specific intent.

Reasonable paths forward

  • Option A: Adopt unified/non-gendered divisions at the State Tournament, which would align more closely with other state interscholastic models and the direction of collegiate and national competition format trends.
  • Option B: Allow independently-hosted invitationals to continue offering separate All Male Hip Hop divisions where appropriate, preserving legacy pathways for schools that want to maintain those teams and prepare for existing national formats.
  • Option C: Use a transition period in which California evaluates participation numbers, competitive equity, and scoring philosophy before deciding on a permanent long-term structure. This leaves the door open for an All-Male division to potentially be included at the State Tournament pending popularity and need (just like subdivisions in the Specialty category).

No option is perfect. Some could even be combined. But this issue should not be allowed to derail the larger goal. California can respect its history, preserve meaningful pathways for schools that value All-Male teams, and still move toward a more modern statewide interscholastic structure over time.

Important Topics That Would Still Need to Be Resolved

If California seriously explores this idea, there are several major issues that would eventually need to be addressed. These do not need to be finalized right now in order to begin the conversation, but they are absolutely part of the larger equation.

1) Outdated scoring rubric models

California has inherited a variety of scoring systems over the years, and some no longer fully reflect the technical and artistic expectations of today’s dance team landscape. From my research, scoring models have come a very long way nationally and California has unfortunately NOT kept up with best practices on this topic.

Thankfully, the non-profit National Dance Coaches Association has developed research-based frameworks to support state association systems in developing strong adjudication scoring rubric models that can be used as a reference point. They have earned Dance Team World Education Foundation’s endorsement as a result…

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. But a future statewide system would likely need to revisit:

  • score sheet rubric design
  • category definitions
  • weighting philosophy
  • rank-based versus raw-score models (to help eliminate potential judge bias or one judge’s scores overpowering the results of an entire division)
  • whether current systems truly reward the kind of excellence we want to encourage statewide

2) A separate California judges association

If California is serious about building a credible statewide system, there is a strong argument for forming a California judges association aligned with National Dance Coaches Association best practices.

The realty is that there is currently a MAJOR SHORTAGE of highly-qualified judges in California.

This appears to have contributed to the current statewide disunity. Coaches and Teams increasingly ONLY like to attend events WHERE THEY WIN (because what other options exist when adjudication standards have collapsed?)

An official California Dance Judges Association could help create:

  • pathways for judge training, credentialing, and vetting
  • more consistent adjudication
  • stronger judge training
  • clearer accountability
  • better educational alignment
  • long-term credibility for the system
  • equitable and consistent rates of pay

3) Rotating the State Tournament host region

The State Tournament could potentially rotate by California region each year (or every other year). That would:

  • spread travel burden more fairly
  • create stronger statewide ownership and coach “buy-in”
  • allow different parts of California to feel invested in the championship structure

Potential venue types could include:

  • sports arenas
  • large-scale convention centers with exhibition halls
  • or other championship-capable venues

4) Scheduling meets around school realities

School campuses are busy. Facilities are shared. Athletic practices and games already fill many weekday calendars. That means some meets may need to be scheduled:

  • after school
  • later in the evening
  • or even on Saturdays/Sundays in certain regions to not conflict with athletic practices
  • bussing/transportation availability

Schools interested in hosting would likely need to work closely with administration and athletic leadership in order to bid for and successfully host a sanctioned meet.

5) Communication and rollout timeline

California is too large for a model like this to launch overnight. It will not be resolved next year. If this is going to work, it will take:

  • listening
  • feedback
  • trust-building
  • coach buy-in
  • school-level planning
  • thoughtful communication

A realistic path may be to use the 2026-2027 school year as a planning and discussion year, with statewide and regional conversations happening well in advance of any formal launch.

6) Affordability and ecosystem balance

One of the strongest reasons to explore a meet-based and statewide-federation model is that it could provide a more affordable and school-accessible pathway for programs that cannot rely exclusively on high-cost weekend events.

At the same time, this should never be framed as criticism of the many for-profit and independently produced events that currently serve California schools. Those events have done a great deal to grow our community. They provide valuable opportunities that many dance programs love and rely on.

The goal here is not to compete with them or diminish them. The REAL goal is to add something California currently does not have:

  • a true school-based season
  • a more affordable local meet structure
  • a regionalized championship pathway
  • and a State Tournament model that complements, rather than replaces, the current ecosystem

The Bigger Goal

This conversation is not just about creating another event. It is about asking whether California is finally ready to build something bigger…

Something more structured.
Something more equitable.
Something non-profit.
Something more representative of the size and talent that exists in our state.

The ultimate goal is to create:

  • a true interscholastic dance team season
  • a model that supports both emerging and elite school programs
  • a system that gives more schools a pathway to participate
  • and a championship structure that helps California teams grow stronger not only at home, but also when they represent our state on the national stage

This is about celebrating dance education programs at every stage of growth. It is also about pushing our strongest teams to sharpen their best work, raise the standard, and proudly carry California talent into the many elite national opportunities that already exist across the country.

California definitely has the talent. The question is whether we are ready to organize it.

Join the Conversation

This is the beginning of a conversation, not the end…

If you are a California high school dance team coach, director, school leader, or stakeholder who cares about the future of school-based dance team in our state, I invite you to be part of this discussion. In the coming months, I hope to gather feedback through:

  • virtual statewide meetings
  • regional in-person listening sessions
  • direct coach/director input
  • ongoing collaboration with programs across California

The goal right now is simple:

To explore whether California is ready to build a statewide dance team system that truly serves its schools, its coaches, and its student-athletes.

If this is something you care about, I would love to hear from you!