The governor’s education governance reorganization proposal was the topic at a special informational hearing of the Assembly Education Committee last month. The hearing featured ACSA President Dr. Daryl Camp, who conveyed ACSA’s support for the proposal with recommendations to ensure the intended goals of the reorganization are achieved.

In her opening remarks, committee Chair Dr. Darshana Patel acknowledged the many viewpoints in the room, including practitioners, labor organizations, the public and statewide associations.

“We are privileged to be able to hear the perspectives of several of the statewide associations on this proposal,” she said, adding, “This includes the spectrum of positions regarding what the proposed changes could bring for their memberships as well as the students they serve.”

In addition to the statewide organizations, the committee heard remarks from panelists who provided context for California’s current structure from historical and national perspectives and how the state agencies would be impacted by the reorganization, including the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). Speakers voiced both strong support and opposition to the proposal.

“Our current system lacks clear lines of authority [and] accountability which directly affects how policies are implemented at the local level,” Camp said in his testimony. He added that the discrepancies in direction and technical assistance from the state creates confusion and frustration for school leaders and the school community.

“Districts require timely, actionable guidance to support informed directions on budgeting staff and program implementation,” Camp said.

Several others expressed concerns over what they see as a consolidation of authority within the governor’s administration and noted the outcomes from “past executive branches that have had total control … over the education system,” said Jeff Freitas, president of the California Federation of Teachers, who added his organization’s perspective that this effort is going in the wrong direction.

ACSA in expressing support for the change and has made several recommendations, including one to create stronger checks and balances. The new Commissioner on Education should be subject to Senate confirmation so that it is not solely a decision by the governor. This recommendation has been uplifted by several stakeholders and by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in their testimony and report.

The proposal is one of several in recent years that seeks to improve state-level coordination, accountability and service delivery to LEAs. However, evidence of improved student outcomes that resulted from other states changing their governance structure to this model was not available. Committee members and public comments included that students need to be a priority as additional details are flushed out.

The education governance reorganization proposal would place the California Department of Education (CDE) under the State Board of Education (SBE) and would create a Commissioner on Education, appointed by the governor, to serve as the administrator of CDE. The SPI would remain an elected official and would become a voting member of the State Board of Education and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. While no specific duties would be assigned to the SPI, the position could play a prominent role in coordinating policy efforts from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Additional details on the SPI’s new role and specific duties assigned to CDE or the SBE are forthcoming as well as the proposed funding allocations to support the implementation and future responsibilities of the respective state agencies. This proposal could move forward through two different channels: through a budget trailer bill, which is a more expedited process or as a stand-alone bill authored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, which would undergo the more deliberative review process. The changes could be in effect as early as July 1, 2027 but this too remains subject to further debate and approval by lawmakers. The Senate has yet to hold a hearing on the governor’s proposal at this time.