Report: Overhaul state’s schools

The expected cuts in federal education funding and transfer to states of oversight responsibilities by the Trump administration add urgency to reorganize a complex and flawed multiagency system, starting with the California Department of Education, the 94-page report titled TK-12 Governance in California: Past, Present, and Future argues. The state must now “meet the demands and opportunities of this moment,” the report said.

“Given shifting federal responsibilities, declining enrollment, and widening achievement gaps, California can no longer postpone reforms that have been overdue for a century,” Julie Marsh, professor of education policy at USC and one of the report’s three co-authors, stated in a press release. “We must take on the challenge of modernizing our governance system now.”  PACE, which stands for Policy Analysis for California Education, is a research center led by faculty at Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UCLA and USC.

A key and likely controversial recommendation would transfer control of the state Department of Education from the elected state superintendent of public instruction to the governor and the governor-appointed State Board of Education. The state schools superintendent, in turn, would become the independent ombudsman and “elected chief champion for students.” That shift in role would provide what’s been missing under the current system — an independent evaluator of the effectiveness of multibillion-dollar programs and school improvement efforts, the report says.   

Centralizing authority in the governor would clearly delineate lines of authority by answering a question that has confused Sacramento for decades: Who’s in charge of education and the bureaucracy that runs it? Is it the governor and the State Board of Education that sets policies such as academic standards, but doesn’t implement them? Or the state school superintendent, who is charged with running the Education Department and campaigns on policy changes without the statutory authority to enact them?

The California Department of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond could not be reached for immediate comment.

A long-standing debate

As far back as 1920, a report by a special legislative committee, called the Jones Report, argued that the “double-headed system” of competing authorities was counterproductive.

It “should be superseded at the earliest opportunity by a more rational form of state educational organization,” said the report, which called for abolishing the state superintendency by a constitutional amendment and replacing it with a commissioner of education, appointed and overseen by the state board.

Eight decades later, the PACE report notes, the Legislature’s Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education also recommended that the operations of pre-K12 be placed under the governor.

Proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the state superintendency have proven unpopular with voters, who may see the position as providing an independent voice. Four times between 1928 and 1968, voters defeated initiatives. One reason the idea hasn’t been proposed since is that the California Teachers Association, which has been a big campaign contributor to the last four state schools superintendents, would likely go all-out to defeat it. California is 1 of only 12 states that elect their state schools superintendent. 

CTA could not be reached for an immediate comment. 

The PACE report doesn’t endorse abolishing the office. Instead, since most of the state schools superintendent’s powers are defined by statute, it recommends rewriting statutes to redefine the job.

The report argues that shifting the authority over to the Department of Education presents the opportunity to better manage it. The state board would be charged with hiring a department director with expertise in education administration and management. If enacted, California would join 20 other states, including Massachusetts, New York and Florida, whose state boards of education choose their chief state school officers, the report noted. 

The current and previous state schools superintendents spanning three decades were previously legislators with no experience or showed an intense interest in running a large organization. Some had aspirations for higher office. The political nature of the positions “creates incentives” to overstate positive data and promising results “that raise visibility and public profile, whether to advance their reelection prospects or to position themselves for future opportunities,” the report says.

Thurmond announced in September 2023, one year into his second four-year term, that he planned to run for governor in 2026. Three of the leading candidates to succeed Thurmond are a former Assembly speaker, the chair of the Assembly Education Committee and a former state senator.

Effective leadership is not CDE’s only problem. The PACE report reiterated a 2018 study, which found that the department is underfunded and understaffed for guiding the daunting challenges of guiding new multi-billion-dollar efforts, like after-school programs, and helping underperforming schools close gaps in achievement. The department has had problems attracting and retaining experts in various specialties.  One reason, the report said, is that the main source of funding for schools, Proposition 98, cannot be used for administration. It must come from the general fund, competing with Medi-Cal and higher education, the study said.

And so the Legislature and governors have resorted to workarounds to avoid the department, such as creating a new semi-independent agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, to work with underperforming school districts, the report said.

One unnamed expert told PACE, “It becomes like this negative cycle or downward spiral where they don’t have the capacity to lead state-level work, so they don’t get the funds in the state budget because they’re not trusted to do a good job.”

Marsh and her two co-authors, PACE Director of Policy Research Jeannie Myung, the lead author, and Heather Hough, senior policy and research fellow at PACE, interviewed 16 prominent education leaders and presented preliminary findings to 30 experts in education governance at a February 2025 convening.

The co-authors granted anonymity to the 16 experts so that they could speak freely. The report included sharply critical assessments.

State graded

Referring to an overall lack of strategic thinking that leaves districts feeling overwhelmed, one expert said, “There are so many new shiny things that have incredible potential, but it feels a little like we are throwing spaghetti against the wall. We have community schools, expanded learning, teacher workforce initiatives, and all these things happening that have transformative potential. We have to think about: ‘What does it look like to implement them and learn to improve?’”

The 16 were asked to grade the effectiveness of state governance, based on a half-dozen key elements:

• Strategic thinking — Having a long-term vision for improvement

• Accountability — Establishing mechanisms for responsibility and continuous improvement

• Capacity — Ensuring people and institutions have the resources and training to do jobs effectively

• Knowledge — Providing data and research to inform decisions

• Engagement — Seeking diverse voices in the policymaking process to shape governance

• Whole-of-system perspective — Coordinating efforts throughout the system to achieve shared goals for students

The overall average grade of the 16 experts was 2.8 — in between poor and fair.