Bill to strip state school chief’s power passes state legislature

A highly contentious move to revamp the California Department of Education has passed the state legislature, despite widespread opposition among education leaders across the state.

Assembly Bill 181 was crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature to shift the education department’s executive and administrative duties from the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to a new education commissioner, who would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.

The bill barely passed last week, receiving the minimum 21 yes votes in the Senate with a 21-4 vote and a 53-5 vote in the Assembly. In the 40-member Senate, 15 members did not vote, while 22 of the 80-member Assembly did not vote on the bill.

The reorganization is set to take place when the next governor, to be determined in November’s election, appoints the first education commissioner in 2027. Under the bill, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction would retain an office and become a voting member of the State Board of Education — the governing and policy-making body for the state’s K-12 public school system — and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Newsom first proposed the reorganization in his January budget proposal, following the release of a 94-page (PACE), which criticized California’s “fragmented” education governance system in which the governor and State Board of Education create policies and priorities, but the State Superintendent of Public Instruction is tasked with implementing them.

“A core issue at the heart of California’s problems of education governance is not simply that the Superintendent of Public Instruction is elected, but also that the SPI’s responsibilities are insufficiently defined and often overlap or conflict with the governor’s authority,” said the report, which recommended creating the appointed position.

Supporters of the bill argued the reorganization will resolve California’s fragmented education system, strengthen accountability and speed up decision-making.

“This structure brings policy and implementation into closer alignment, creating a clearer line of responsibility for results and a stronger foundation for supporting local educational agencies,” said the Oakland-based children’s health and education nonprofit Children Now, in an argument in support of the bill.

But opponents, including the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the California School Employees Association, argue the change is “unnecessary and counterproductive,” pointing out that four previous efforts to eliminate the position were rejected by voters.

“Democracy gives people a voice in decisions that shape their communities. Removing voters’ ability to elect a Superintendent accountable to the public who is running the Department of Education undermines this principle,” the California Teachers Association said in an argument opposing the bill. “Education is one of the state’s most critical issues and its leadership should reflect the will of the voters, not a single appointee.”

The 10 candidates vying for the State Superintendent position in June’s primary election also opposed the move, arguing it would consolidate more power with the governor.

Last week, Richard Barrera, one of two candidates to advance to a run-off election in November, called on state leaders to include educators in discussions about implementing AB 11 and criticized the “flawed process that led to the adoption of AB 181.”

“Proponents of this measure claimed that their goal was to align everyone around a common set
of goals for student achievement. Unfortunately, the rushed, behind-closed-doors nature of the
process has done precisely the opposite,” Barrera said.

The costs of the reorganization are still unclear, but estimated to be in the “hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars,” according to the bill, to establish the Education Commissioner position and create the transition plan.