Assembly leaders redefine state superintendent’s role, demand more oversight 

This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to shift control of the Department of Education from the state superintendent of public instruction to a new education commissioner under future governors’ authority passed its first test in the Legislature last week — but probably not the way Newsom expected.

The bill, which the Assembly Education Committee passed unanimously, differed significantly from the governor’s proposal in redefining the role of the state superintendent and in tilting more power to the Legislature. 

The changes include:

• Making the elected state superintendent, freed from running the bureaucracy, an independent evaluator of the effectiveness and efficiency of state government programs;
• Eliminating 4 of 10 governor-appointed members of the State Board of Education and replacing them with members appointed by the Legislature;
• Requiring that the new education commissioner’s nomination be approved by the Legislature;
• Imposing an evaluation of any new education program, like community schools and transitional kindergarten, spending at least $500 million annually or $1 billion in one-time funding.  

Two education leaders in the Assembly from San Diego — Darshana Patel, the new chair of the Assembly Education Committee, and David Alvarez, who chairs the Budget Committee’s subcommittee on education finance, wrote the changes. 

Alvarez said the ideas emerged from a four-hour hearing last month on Newsom’s plan that Patel had organized. They appeared as amendments to Assembly Bill 2117 (see pages 20-22), which expands Newsom’s original proposal in his January budget for 2026-27. Alvarez characterized the amendments as “a significantly strengthened version” of Newsom’s proposal that “builds in specific accountability measures and transparency requirements” that previous studies and a recent report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office said were needed to fix a dysfunctional governance system.

Many previous calls for reform

Numerous studies and special commissions dating back a century have criticized what a 1920 report called the “double-headed system” of competing authorities in which the governor and his appointed state board, with the Legislature’s approval, create education policies and programs, while elected state superintendents are charged with implementing them, some of which they may disagree with.

Over decades, governors and legislatures have created workarounds for an underfunded California Department of Education, giving county offices of education more responsibilities, and in 2013, creating a small agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, to work with poorly performing districts. In a lengthy analysis published in November, the university-based research center Policy Analysis of California Education (PACE) also faulted the state’s governance system’s “unclear roles” and “fragmented authority.”

Newsom cited the study two months later in calling for the department to be transferred to a cabinet-level education commissioner. But Newsom omitted PACE’s call for transforming the state superintendent into an evaluator of education programs. Alvarez and Patel resurfaced the idea.

“The feedback we got was there has got to be a real role for the superintendent. We are not just shifting boxes on an organizational chart,” said Alvarez. “This bill now codifies that the superintendent of public instruction will be a true independent evaluator to tell us what is actually working and what is getting diluted by fragmented implementation so that this can be corrected before more dollars get spent.”

Jeannie Myung, lead writer of the PACE report, agreed. “As our report found, there is value in having an independent leader to look across the system, use evidence to understand how policies are working for students and help identify opportunities for improvement,” she said. 

Who’s for and against?

Because Patel and Alvarez submitted their amendments only a few days before the April 22 hearing on AB 2117, few of those who testified for or against the bill had a chance to review them.

It’s unclear who or which groups support the legislators’ alternative. The education organizations representing those who interact the most with the Department of Education — the Association of California School Administrators, California School Boards Association, California County Superintendents and California School Business Officials — support Newsom’s plan.  

The California Federation of Teachers and the California School Employees Association view the bill as a power grab by the governor and oppose it. The larger California Teachers Association has not yet taken an official position.

All six major candidates for state superintendent said during EdSource’s candidates forums last week that they, too, are against shrinking the job they’re seeking.

“I hate the proposed changes,” said former Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. “They’re awful and would be bad for California schools and bad for democracy to concentrate power in the hands of the governor.”

Richard Barrera, an 18-year San Diego Unified School District board member, said, “Voters elect the state superintendent to lead our schools. This is an end around to jam something through the Legislature to take power and responsibilities from the state superintendent.”

Former state Sen. Josh Newman added, “On paper, it gives you better alignment, but I am very doubtful it would give us better accountability. The governor’s proposal creates a third level of bureaucracy, which is not likely to improve the collaboration or responsiveness of CDE.”

Although Michael Kirst, who served as president of the state board during former Gov. Jerry Brown’s all four terms in office, endorsed Newsom’s plan for realignment, he said the idea of turning the state superintendent into an independent evaluator appears to have merit.

But he adamantly opposes giving the Legislature four seats on the state board. Currently, the governor nominates 10 of the 11 members, pending confirmation by the state Senate, and the governor appoints a student as a voting member from three nominees submitted by the state board. Under the amended bill, the governor would nominate five members, and the Legislature would appoint four; the full board would nominate the student member, and the state superintendent would serve as the 12th member.

No other state other than South Carolina has a hybrid system like the one proposed, with legislators having voting members on an executive branch’s operations, Kirst said. California’s Legislature already has the authority to direct the state board to implement policies as well as to reject or confirm a governor’s state board nominees, he said. Appointing their own members who may be out of sync with a governor’s perspective could “further fracture a system they’re trying to fix,” he said.

Newsom’s education advisers have not yet commented on the amended bill, which must pass the Senate before it goes to Newsom.

Management shift is only the first step

Alvarez said that over the decades, the Legislature uncritically approved funding and positions for an unworkable governance system. Now, he said, is the opportunity to reshape it. “There is absolutely no way we will just give away all of our authority and our oversight,” he said.

Creating an education commissioner is the first step toward a longer challenge of redefining how agencies can relate and work better, where funding should flow, and how the improvement and accountability process can be streamlined, Alvarez said. AB 2117 would give the commissioner six months after his appointment to create a restructuring plan, which the Legislature would review. 

The amendments by Patel and Alvarez also would:

• Dissolve the CDE Foundation, which former State Supt. Tom Torlakson created and current State Supt. Tony Thurmond has used to hire positions and fund initiatives not funded by the Legislature.
• Ban outside future education commissioners and superintendents from holding side jobs. CalMatters reported that Thurmond supplemented his superintendent’s salary by tens of thousands of dollars working side jobs at several Bay Area nonprofits during his tenure.

AB 2117 is on a fast track for passage. It goes next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and then to the Senate for consideration.