Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon. I am Chair Patel, and I'm calling this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Will the Secretary please call the roll? Oh, we will begin as a subcommittee and take votes once we do have quorum. I would like to welcome Committee Members and members of the public to today's hearing.

And I would like to extend a welcome to our newest Committee Member, Assembly Member Pellerin, who is on time. Look at that. It's gonna be a great committee for you. Thank you for joining us. In addition, for today's hearing, we will have Assembly Member Alanis substituting for Assembly Member Castillo, who is unable to be here today.

I want to note that we have a different format for today's hearing than usual. We will begin by hearing bills on file. Then at 2:00, we will either adjourn or recess the hearing in order to begin our informational hearing on state level education governance.

If we have not finished our file by 2:00, we will finish our agenda after our informational hearing has been completed. To preserve time for our informational hearing, we have placed an unusual number of bills on consent. We have 14 bills on file today, and we have 12 bills on consent.

They are AB 1572 with amendments, AB 1871, AB 2003 with amendments, AB 2056, AB 2067, AB 2107, AB 2191 with amendments, AB 2242 with amendments, AB 2248 with amendments, AB 2332, AB 2455, and HR 87. As a reminder, for each bill we will have up to two witnesses in support and opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes.

Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position. At the appropriate time, please come to the microphone, state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the committee's website.

And before we begin today, I have a statement to read regarding conduct at our hearings. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I wanna make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint that they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of our legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must be must relate to the subject being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. All of that said, we will now move on to our agenda. Madam Secretary... Oh, we will move on. Thank you.

We will now move to our first author, Assembly Member Pacheco, who has file item two, AB 1665. Please come forward with your witnesses or witness, and you may proceed when ready.

Now it's on. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you, as today I present Assembly Bill 1665 about student mental health training for coaches. Thank you to the committee for your work on the bill, and I am happy to accept the committee amendments. Children and teenagers are facing a mental health crisis.

More than twenty percent of children confront mental health issues, and three out of every ten teenagers face serious psychological distress. And these numbers are increasing. At the same time, more young people than ever are participating in school sports programs.

Athletics are intended to be a fun, physical, and mental outlet. But increased competition and pressure to perform at high levels can also intensify stress for young athletes. At our schools, adults in positions of authority are expected to have the training and tools to provide students with resources and guidance for mental health struggles.

We already require teachers to undergo youth mental health training to receive their teaching credentials. As we equip teachers with a training to support student mental health, we should also consider other trusted adults in students' lives who may not yet have the tools to do so. As trusted mentors, coaches are often the first to hear about student athlete mental health challenges.

They have the unique opportunity to spot mental health crisis and point students toward appropriate resources. School coaches are required to complete training to support student athlete physical health, including education on concussions, cardiac arrest, and heart illness.

Yet, these safety courses do not include any instruction about how to support student athletes mental health, even though physical and mental well-being are closely connected. AB 1665 requires school sports coaches to complete an approved mental health training course.

The bill will equip coaches who see and interact closely with student athletes to recognize when a student may be struggling. And with me today to speak in support of the of this bill is Danielle Domenichelli, former high school, college, and pro athlete and current Sport Development Director for the Sacramento Running Association. And I will hand it over to her.

Good afternoon. As, she mentioned, my name is Danielle Domenichelli. I'm a former student athlete, and I currently serve as the Sport Development Director for the Sacramento Running Association. I am here today in support of AB 1665. I grew up playing multiple sports, but ultimately found my greatest success in cross country and track.

After high school, I went on to compete at the division one level where I earned All American honors and later spent a year competing as a sponsored professional athlete. While I achieved success in my sport, I also experienced challenges that I now recognize could have been mitigated if my coaches had been better equipped to understand mental health concerns.

When I first started distance running in high school, I asked a previous coach if I should try to lose weight to look less like a soccer player and more like a distance runner. While I don't remember the exact words, the response reinforced the idea that I didn't yet look the part.

Throughout my running career, I compared my physical appearance to the women excelling in the sport. I became convinced that restricting what I ate was necessary to perform at the highest level. Looking back, I now understand that I was struggling with body dysmorphic disorder, which led to disordered eating and a condition known as relative energy deficiency in sport.

Although I had great moments of success in my running career, a significant amount of time, energy, and well-being was wasted worrying about how I looked in comparison to other runners. I eventually started suffering from stress fractures and experienced declines in my physical and mental health.

It took me many years to rebuild a healthy relationship with my body and my sport. I have met many athletes with similar experiences. And in today's world where social media amplifies pressure around appearance and performance, I believe these challenges are becoming even more widespread.

In my current role, I work with athletes of all ages, from elementary school to professional athletes. I see firsthand how critical mental health is, not only for performance, but for confidence, belonging, and overall well-being. Athletes are often their toughest critics, and the environments we create for them matter deeply.

You're at time. Please wrap it up.

Okay. I have one last thing. Providing coaches who athletes inherently put their trust in with training to recognize warning signs, communicate responsibly, and support athletes in accessing help is essential. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we will take public comments in support. Please step up to the microphone. State your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill only. Thank you. Ms. Barros, do you mind coming back and doing it again? The mic was not on.

Leah Barros on behalf of California Hospital Association in support.

Thank you. At this time, we will have opposition witnesses step up. Seeing none. Public comment in opposition. I see no public comment in opposition. Now to Committee Members for discussion. Are there any questions or comments on this bill? Ms. Pellerin. Assembly Member Pellerin.

Hi. No. This is a great bill. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. Mental health is something that's so critical to be reminding people of and getting the correct training for. So I'd be honored to be a co-author as well. Thanks.

Seeing no other comments from Committee Members. Do we have a motion? We're in a subcommittee, so we'll hold this, hold it open. Thank you.

I will be brief. When a time is appropriate, I would love an aye vote. Thank you.

We will now move on to file item number 11. Assembly member Hoover presenting AB 2316. Assembly member Hoover, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, madam chair, and members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2316. This is a very straightforward bill about fairness, ensuring that charter, public schools have access to the same financial hardship relief in the state school facilities program as traditional public schools. I wanna start by accepting the committee amendments, and thank you to the chair and the staff of the education committee for your thoughtful thoughtful consideration and improvements of the bill.

California has built a strong state partnership model for school facilities in the school bond program, but that partnership is not equally accessible to all public schools.

Today, all public schools must provide a 50% local match to access state bond funds. School districts can apply for financial hardship to reduce that 50% match to a lower threshold when they cannot afford the match, but charter schools cannot do this. AB 2316 strengthens the facilities program by allowing charter schools to apply for that same hardship designation. This is not automatic relief. It will be a fair case by case determination by the California School Finance Authority to ensure responsible use of state funds.

This change will make the program more equitable, providing many smaller or low income charter schools the opportunity to make building a permanent facility financially possible. Correcting this inequity will also help ensure that all public school students will have fair access to safe and modern facilities. With me today to testify in support is Carson Eades from the California Charter School Association, as well as, Marcus Malarkey representing Caliber Public Schools and Griffin Technology Academies. Thank you.

Chair and members, my name is Carson Eades. I am here on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, and thank you again for your collaboration on the committee amendments.

We're very we were very thankful for that. We are sponsoring AB 2316 as a simple fairness measure. It ensures that charter public schools have access to the same financial hardship relief, as traditional public schools that they already receive. Today, all public schools must typically provide a 50% local match in order to access state facilities bond funding. But when traditional school districts are unable to meet that requirement, they can apply for financial hardship relief to reduce that share.

Charter public schools have unfortunately been excluded from this option. This disparity matters. Facilities access is one of the most significant challenges that charter public schools face, driven in part by their lack of access to public financing tools. In most cases, school districts can raise local bond funds for their 50% match through voter approved local bonds, and they can also raise developer fees. If they cannot do that, they have the opportunity to apply for hardship, and reduce their match.

Charter schools, they can't raise local bond funding. They're often excluded from local bond revenues. They can't receive developer fees, and they also cannot apply for hardship. So as a result, charter public schools must often rely on private financing in order to raise that match, and then that diverts operational dollars away from student services towards facilities funding just to be able to afford it. You know, as a result, that means you're having less funding for your for your student services.

Many charters, especially those who are smaller or in low income areas, they simply just cannot afford this financing. They're locked out of the bond program altogether. AB 2316 will help to fix this inequity. It allows charter schools to apply for hardship relief when they face an undue financial burden. It authorizes the state to adjust that, match as they see fit, and as a to a to a reasonable level, similar to how it does so for school districts.

At its core, this is about parity, equity, and access. Charter schools serve over 700,000 students in California. They're public schools. Their students deserve equitable access to safe and modern facilities. AB 2316 will help to ensure that access. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam, chair, and members. My name is Marcus Malarkey, and I'm speaking today in support of AB 2316 on behalf of several Bay Area charter schools. Securing high quality permanent facilities is a challenge for charter schools across the state, especially for independent schools and underserved communities. Unlike our larger counterparts, we don't have access to public capital markets or large amounts of philanthropic funding. That's why the state school facilities bond program is such an important resource, but only if it's accessible and affordable.

As a CFO and fiscal consultant for several Bay Area charter schools, I've seen both the promise and the limitations of the state facility bond program. At Caliber Public Schools, I led one of the first district charter facility projects using Prop 51 bond funding. It's transformed our beta academy campus in San Pablo, creating a joyful permanent campus for 900 plus students there. But I've also seen how the program, as it's currently structured, often falls short.

At Griffin Technology Academies, we embarked on a similar bond funded facility project, but we're now on the verge of having to abandon it because the required 50% local match isn't financially viable.

As a result, students will remain in outdated modular facilities instead of the modern learning environments they deserve. The challenge is now more urgent than ever. Today's higher interest rates make 50% local match unaffordable for schools that rely on state loans to fund it. When Caliber completed our project, rates were near zero, and the project worked. But our project would not have penciled out in today's higher interest rate environment.

This bill directly addresses that affordability gap. It would make projects feasible for schools that would otherwise be locked out because the math doesn't work without some help. For Griffin, this bill would have been the difference between being able to move forward with our project and having to walk away empty handed. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 2316. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate that your witnesses were exactly on time. Thank you. With that, we will take public comments and support. Name, affiliation, and position on bill only.

Madam chair and members, Adam Keigwin on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any public comment in opposition?

Good afternoon. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We did have an opposed position on this bill. We were concerned about, equity issues with regard to having a comparable process for, charters and school districts. But our concerns have been addressed, and we wanna thank the committee staff and also the bill author for taking for the work on the amendments. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association. Also, just wanted to thank the committee staff for their work on the amendments. We had too been concerned about the lack of guidance for the regulatory authorities about what constitutes hardship. Grateful and look to see forward to seeing those in print.

Excellent. Thank you. While we have quorum, we'd like to establish quorum. Secretary, call the roll.

Patel? Patel here. Hoover? Hoover here. Alanis? Alanis present. Alvarez, Bonta, Garcia? Garcia present. Lowenthal, Pellerin. Pellerin here. Zbur? Zbur here.

We do have quorum. So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to members for discussion on this bill. Is there a second? I will second. And that brings us to the role. Oh, sorry. Assembly member Hoover, please close.

Yeah. Appreciate, again, the work of the committee on this and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

I would like to comment. Appreciate you working with our committee staff and getting this bill to where it is today, and thank you for taking the amendments. Secretary, call the roll

File item 11, AB 2316. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Aye.

Patel, Aye, Hoover. Hoover, Aye, Alanis.

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Alvarez, Bonta, Garcia? Garcia, aye. Lowenthal, Pellerin? Pellerin, Aye. Zbur? Zbur, aye.

The vote is 6-0. It is out, but we will leave the role open for add ons. And then we'll go back to our file item number two, AB 1665, Pacheco. Motion. And a second?

There's a motion in a second. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, AB 1665. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Patel?

Aye.

Patel, Aye, Hoover?

Aye.

Aye.

Hoover, Aye, Alanis? Aye. Alanis, Aye, Alvarez, Bonta, Garcia Garcia, aye. Lowenthal, Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Zbur? Zbur, aye.

The vote is 6-0. It is out. We will leave the roll open for add ons. We will now take up the consent calendar. Do we have a motion?

Move. Motion? Is there a second? Second? It's a motion and a second.

Madam secretary, please call the roll.

So the motions on the consent calendar are AB file item one, AB 1572 do pass as amended. File item three, AB 1871 do pass to appropriations. File item four, AB 2003, do pass as amended to appropriations. File item five, AB 2056 do pass to appropriations. File item six, AB 2067 do pass.

File item seven, AB 2107 do pass. File item eight, AB 2191 do pass as amended to appropriations. File item nine, AB 2242 do pass as amended to appropriations. File item 10, AB 2248 do pass as amended to appropriations. File item 12, AB 2332 do pass due appropriations.

File item 13, AB 2455 do pass due governmental organization committee. File item 14, HR 87 is be adopted. On the consent calendar, Patel.

Thank you, madam secretary.

Aye.

Aye. Patel, aye. Hoover?

Aye.

Hoover, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Alvarez?

Alvarez, aye. Bonta.

Garcia. Garcia, aye Lowenthal. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye.

Zibur. Zibur, aye.

The bill vote is 7-0. It is out. We will leave the role open for add ons. Assemblymember Alvarez, would you like to add on? We can take your add ons at this time, madam secretary.

File item two, AB1665, Alvarez.

Alright.

Alvarez, aye. That's now 7-0.

The vote is 7-0. We'll leave it open. Well, it is still out, and we'll leave the roll open for further add ons.

File item 11, AB 2316, Alvarez.

Aye.

Alvarez, aye.

And that one is 7-0. It is out. We will continue to leave the the role open for add ons. And with the consent calendar?

He voted on the consent calendar.

Okay. Perfect. So we will re recess this bill hearing session to reconvene at the close of the information hearing that will start at 2PM today. See you back at two.

Okay. Perfect. So we will re recess this bill hearing session to reconvene at the close of the information hearing that will start at 2PM today. See you back at two.

At this time, we're gonna reconvene the Education hearing for the purposes of taking up bills on file. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for add ons.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] File item 2, AB 1665. [Roll Call] File item 11, AB 2316. [Roll Call]

For the Members in the audience, we are gonna wait ten more minutes for a Member to add on votes from our bill hearing, and then we'll convene the information hearing.

Madam Secretary, please open the roll for add ons.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

The bill is 9-0. It is out.

File item two, AB 1665. [Roll Call]

9-0, the bill is out.

File item 11, AB 2316. [Roll Call]

9-0. The bill is out. And that adjourns the Education hearing for bill hearings. Good afternoon. I'm calling the information hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Governance of the state's public schools has been debated by policymakers and the public since the state constitution was established in 1849.

This year is no exception. Governor Newsom's January budget via the trailer bill includes several proposed changes to the state level governance structure. Given the significance of this proposed change, with the support of the Speaker to hear this in policy committee, we are gathered to discuss the proposal in this committee.

I wanna note that AB 2117, Alvarez, is a policy vehicle with the same language as in the proposed trailer bill. It is without endorsement, and no action will be taken on this bill at this information hearing.

My hope is for this time that we use this time to learn from the experts to better past and present of our k-12, tk-12 governance structure to make informed decisions about its future. We will hear testimony regarding the history of California and other states' governance structures and how the California Department of Education serves schools and students.

We will hear testimony from representatives from the State Board of Education describing the governance proposal as well as the most recent report bringing attention to this issue published in December by PACE, Policy Analysis for Public Education. I extended an invitation to the most recent Superintendents of Public Instruction, and Jack O'Connell provided a letter to the committee on the topic at hand.

A copy of that letter is available on the committee website and is included in the materials provided to the Members. Our current SPI is also here today to provide testimony. We are privileged to be able to hear the perspectives of several of the statewide associations on this proposal.

This includes the spectrum of positions regarding what the changes could bring for their memberships as well as the students that they serve. We are grateful to our panelists for taking the time to share all of their perspectives and recommendations with us today.

For my fellow Committee Members, I see the legislature as the fourth panel. Although we will not have an actual fourth panel today, and I am... Although we will not have an actual fourth panel here today, I'm looking forward to hearing your questions and debating the merits of this proposal.

As we will hear from our panelists today and as demonstrated by the last a 177 years of California history, there are many models to consider as we seek to improve student outcomes. At the end of this hearing, we will take public comment in person. We ask that members of the public limit their comments to one minute.

Comment may also be submitted in writing through our committee website. With that, we will proceed with our first panel. Members, please hold your questions until the end of each panel. At this time, I would like to invite Sara Cortez, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst with the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Kenneth Kapphahn, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst, Legislative Analyst's Office. Claus von Zastrow, Senior Policy Director, Education Commission of the States. As well as Richard Zeiger, Chief Deputy Superintendent from 2011 to 2015 in the California Department of Education. You may proceed when ready, Ms. Cortez.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ken Kapphahn, with Sara, my colleague, Sara Cortez, on behalf of the Legislative Analyst's Office. We're here to give you a brief overview of the evolution of education governance in the state, the major and minor players, and how governance works in some other state agencies.

California had no organized public school system when it gained statehood in 1850, but the framers of our first constitution thought it was a core state responsibility and set about creating that system by setting aside land that could be sold to pay for education.

Setting a minimum school year, initially three months, and by creating the elected position of State Superintendent. The legislature charged the Superintendent initially with building schools, proportioning funding, and overseeing teacher training institutes.

A few years later, the legislature created the State Board of Education to manage other aspects of the system. The board was responsible for approving textbooks, determining required courses of study. And at the time, it mainly consisted of state and local officials.

Including the Governor, the State Superintendent, some County Superintendents, and the heads of the state's teacher training programs. The balance of power between the State Board and the Superintendent shifted over time.

Both had some significant responsibilities initially, but in the late 1880s, the counties took over almost took over all of the board's statutory responsibilities. The board became an advisory body, and the Superintendent was the lead governance actor for a period of time.

The board eventually regained much of its authority, however, and once again, those responsibilities of those two entities began to blur. The most important development happened in 1912. That was the year the voters amended the state constitution to remove all of the board's ex officio members and give the legislature more control over the state's governance system.

And the legislature said, we've really had it with all the ambiguity up to this point. What we're going to do is make the board consist of appointees of the Governor. We'll make the board more of the head of the system and in charge of policy making, and the Superintendent is going to be subordinate to the board and function as an administrator of policies.

It wasn't very long before that arrangement came under scrutiny. The special legislative committee conducted the first formal governance study in 1920 and was very critical of California's system. It criticized what it called a double headed governance structure, specifically for relying on an independently elected official like the Superintendent to implement laws adopted by the legislature or policies approved by the State Board.

It said that would inevitably lead to conflict and inefficiency, and it recommended replacing the Superintendent with an elected, with an appointed commissioner. Many subsequent studies had a similar diagnosis and made similar recommendations.

In 1928, the legislature tried to implement that recommendation by asking the voters to approve the elimination of the Superintendent as an elected position. The voters rejected that idea, and as well as three similar ballot measures over the next several decades, most recently in 1968.

So the state today operates with much of the same governance structure that it established in the early 1900s. It has four core actors, the State Board, an 11 member body that's appointed by the Governor. The board adopts regulations and academic standards, defining what students should know and be able to do in various subjects.

We have the State Superintendent whose most important role today is administering and leading the California Department of Education. The Governor, policy making entity, as the architect of the state budget and the signer of legislation. Of course, the legislature, which is approving the budget and state laws.

Our state constitution requires California to have an elected Superintendent and a State Board of Education, but it says relatively little about their duties. And the courts have said that the legislature is the ultimate authority and the decider.

And the entity, through state laws, decides what each of those other entities does and how they relate to one another. California Department of Education is the main administrative agency implementing programs, allocating funding, and collecting data.

About 1,500 employees work on those tasks this year. That makes it midsize compared to most other state departments. Most of the department's budget actually comes from the federal government and various grant allowances for administering federal programs.

The state General Fund is only about a third of the department's total administrative budget. Outside the four core entities, the state has many smaller entities with governance responsibilities in some specialized areas. The most clear cut examples are the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which oversees teacher training programs.

The Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, which provides fiscal intervention and budget advice. The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, which provides academic assistance and technical support. And the State Allocation Board, which distributes school facility funding.

Depending on how we define governance, the state has at least a dozen entities like that, and potentially as many as two dozen, working on these very specific elements of governance and direction for school districts. One reason the states created the California Department of Education was to consolidate a lot of the independent agencies that existed at that time into one central administrative agency.

But over the past several decades, the states tend to tended to focus more on expanding the number of independent agencies. And there have been various reasons for that. Sometimes those are priority driven, where the legislature feels like some function needs a higher profile.

Or maybe the Department of Education wasn't addressing it, giving as much attention as they thought it deserved. Sometimes it was administrative, maybe a sense that a smaller agency could be more nimble. Sometimes it was fiscal.

The legislature might have wanted to use Proposition 98 funding for something, and they can't use that funding for the California Department of Education. Other cases, it might have been more about who the Superintendent and the Governor were at that time.

I think most of you know that the recent studies of California governance have been highly critical of the system, and a lot of that is focused criticism is focused on the role of the Superintendent. The smaller agencies haven't received as much attention.

But a few of the studies that have examined them have said that that system overall has become fairly fragmented and that a few of those smaller agencies could be consolidated. Lastly, we sometimes receive questions about how education governance compares with other state agencies and departments and programs in California.

And we didn't really find any mirror images of CDE, where an agency has both a policy board appointed by the Governor and a chief administrator who's chosen not by the board or the Governor. The most common model is for a department to have a director appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the legislature, and then serving at the pleasure of the Governor.

And that's obviously not a guarantee of a well managed department, but it does create a clear line of accountability around the implementation of state laws. The governance structure that probably comes closest to CDE these days is the other constitutional officers.

If you think about the Attorney General leading the Department of Justice or the Secretary of State as the head of the Secretary of State's Office, but those agencies are doing work that's quite different than the work that the Department of Education does.

They don't have these policy boards appointed by the Governor, and their governance structures haven't been studied anywhere near as much as education governance. And so there wasn't quite as much we could glean from studying those examples. That concludes our presentation. Happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Ms. Cortez, do you have anything to add at this time?

No. I'm just available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we'll move on to Mr. von Zastrow.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Claus von Zastrow. I am the Senior Policy Director at Education Commission of the States, or ECS. And for those of you who don't know, ECS is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tries to help state policymakers make better education policy through research and convening and counsel that we provide.

And so I'm actually here today not to speak in favor or in opposition to this particular proposal, but to help situate it in the context of what's happening in other states and also to situate it in the historical context of other states that have changed their governance structures over time.

You know, we at ECS have have done at least forty years of research on states' k-12 governance structures, so that gives us some insight into this. So first, let's look at sort of the that current landscape that I mentioned, and I think this is gonna have very be very complimentary from what you just heard from the LAO.

California's current governance model, which is, as you know, an elected Superintendent of Schools and an appointed board is not common in this country, but it's not unheard of either. And we know of eight other states in the country that have this particular model.

Now the proposed changes would actually be unique in the country, but that in itself is not remarkable because there are many states that are unicorns. Right? Like, a lot of states have their own unique structures that are theirs in their own structures only.

So that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But there are actual several actually several aspects of the proposed governance structure that have echoes in other states. I'm gonna just give you some of those examples right now. So, particularly, there are other states that have a cabinet level secretary and a Superintendent of Schools serving at the same time.

One, for example, that's changed rather recently to this model, and I'll say more about it in a minute, is Ohio, whose governance structure, at least in this regard, is probably closest to the proposal that we see here in California, at least that I've seen.

And so Ohio actually introduced a Governor appointed director of education workforce, the new state education agency, and reduced the responsibilities of the existing board appointed superintendent who is in the state constitution, sort of after the pattern a little bit of the proposal that we're hearing about in California right now.

Now Virginia also has a sort of dual structure. The Governor in Virginia appoints both a cabinet level secretary who has sort of policy oversight and a superintendent of schools who runs the state education agency, so the day to day operations.

In Massachusetts, similarly, the Governor appoints a cabinet level secretary who coordinates across early education, k-12, and post secondary education. And then the Governor appointed board selects the commissioner who then has sort of, again, administrative oversight over the day to day operations of the SEA.

There's also a handful of states that we've been able to identify where the chief state school officer has administrative oversight over both the state education agency and the State Board of Education. For example, the Illinois State Board of Education is that state's state education agency.

And the state superintendent of education in Illinois, who is a nonvoting member of the board, also has, you know, sort of staff oversight of the state board. Oregon appears to have a sort of a similar structure, in which the director of the Oregon Department of Education, who is appointed by the Governor, answers to the Governor appointed board while overseeing that board's daily operations.

So now I'm gonna talk a little bit about the change that you're proposing in light of sort of historical changes that have happened broadly in governance structures at the state level. And ECS is pretty well positioned to do this because we have about forty plus years of research on this particular issue.

I think it's fair to say that state governance structures broadly in this country have been fairly stable in recent years. But we went back to the very first report we could dredge up that we had actually digitized, which was from 1983, and we noted that 14 states have made substantial changes to their governance structures between then and now.

Only two of those states happened in the last decade, however. And in really all of those 14 states, the tendency was to move more influence into the hands of the Governor in all of those cases. So there are states that we found that had a structure like California's back in the 80s.

You know, so you have an appointed board and an elected chief state school officer, which then subsequently moved to different governance structures. So, for example, in the 1990s, Kentucky moved from an elected superintendent to a commissioner appointed by a board that is in turn appointed by the Governor.

In Oregon, which I know I mentioned earlier, they substantially overhauled their governance structure. I think it was in around 2012, removing the role of the elected chief state school officer entirely and designating the Governor the superintendent of education.

And the Governor in turn then appoints a director of the state education agency who oversees its day to day operations. More recently, Indiana abolished the position of elected chief state school officer and established a Governor appointed secretary of education, and now the Governor also appoints most of the state board.

So those are some more recent examples of what's happened in Indiana. But in the past decade, in addition to Indiana, the only other state that has made a change is one I already mentioned, and that's Ohio. Ohio, through the 2023 budget bill, actually established the Department of Education and Workforce as the state education agency.

That's, you know, there was a kind of a conglomeration of various kinds of agency efforts here. And the Governor now appoints a director of that agency who has administrative oversight of the agency. But as I mentioned before, the board appointed superintendent remains.

That person used to administer the agency, but now has a smaller portfolio focused largely on things like teacher licensure. Now, there was also a 2025 budget bill in Ohio that restructured the state board as well by reducing its size, eliminating the elected members entirely, and ensuring that all members of the state board are appointed by the Governor.

So it's fair to say that the model in Ohio represents a a stronger shift to the Governor certainly than the proposal in California does. So, you know, basically to sum up, state governance is complex. It is very unique in a lot of different states.

But I think having the sort of more historical perspective that we have at ECS, you can see that the tendency has been for influence of on education to move more into the hands of governors. Thank you very much. Happy to answer questions when it's appropriate.

Good afternoon. I'm Richard Zeiger. I'm gonna spend just a minute introducing myself because it's not quite clear why I'm here. I was, I was deputy chief deputy superintendent with Tom Torlakson during his first term, which was 2011 to 2015. First half of my life, I was a journalist.

I covered local government, and then came to Sacramento working for the Riverside Press Enterprise. I was editor of a magazine called California Journal, which is I think most of you probably don't remember anymore. It's went out of business, but it was a great publication to work for.

And eventually wandered into the legislature, where I worked in both the Senate and Assembly. Mostly, I was chief of staff to leadership in one house or the other. I think I may have the distinction of being the only person who had been chief of staff to a majority leader in both houses.

Although, I just made up that fact, so I don't know if it's true or not. And eventually, I ended up with Tom Torlakson when he was first in the Senate, then in a one year term in the Assembly. That was when term limits were in full force, and went over with him to the Department of Education as his chief deputy.

I do wanna make it clear as I have tried to do most of my life. I'm not an expert on education. I am a political operative at heart, and that was my task there. I had lots of people who actually knew a great deal about education over the department that could help with those issues.

Didn't pretend to... Well, I did occasionally. But I didn't intend to insert myself on those things, issues. So I've been asked to tell try to give you a little brief of what the department does. And I've kinda collapsed these functions. It has a whole bunch of things that it does. I've tried to collapse them into areas.

So the first thing that I think it it does, and it spends most of its time on is distributing money. A lot of money. The department may be middling size in terms of employees, but when it comes to dollars, it's right at the top. And these include both state and federal funds.

Some have extensive rules around them. Some you've made rules for. Allocating all those funds appropriately is a big task, and it does that. Its other big task one of its other big task is it collects and disseminates data. It's in charge of the testing program, the administration of the testing program, putting together the dashboard and sending all that information out.

It provides staff to a variety of folks in putting together policy so that it works with on standards and curriculum for the department. It serves the staff to the State Board of Education, believe it or not. It's their, actually their staff to do work.

And it operates a number of independent programs. Amongst the more interesting is the School Nutrition Program. It is a massive operation of receiving and distributing food to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of kids each day.

It operates three special schools as well, schools for the deaf and the blind. Now there are a number of things that it doesn't do, and I think it's important when you're thinking about these shifts to understand that. It doesn't make policy. Right?

It it makes policy for no one. It assists people, provides information in making policy, but it does not make policy in any area. It has people that are on the teacher credentialing and the CCEE and a number of other places, and it can provide them with information, but it does not make any policy.

And I'm gonna come back to this because I think it's a crucial thing to think about when you're making this change. It among other people it advises is you all. It is an independent source of information for you. And my experience is that over the its history, it has forged pretty close personal relationships between staff at CDE and your staff. It's a great pipeline of information.

When you're thinking about this change, you should be aware of the fact that that relationship will change if it becomes part of the Governor's office. Think about how you you and your staff interact with the Governor's office compared to how you interact with the department's staff. They're very different, very different sort of motivators going forward.

And you it's important when you're thinking about this to understand what you gain and you lose by this the program that's out there. And the other thing to remember is it has it doesn't even have full administrative authority over a lot of the things it administers.

It was mentioned earlier that it is not the state education agency as far as the federal government is concerned. That's the State Board of Education. I don't know. You may have a better idea of this. I don't know if that's unique or not.

I think it's quite unusual that the actual operating department is not designated as the state agency, that it is some other body. And so there are even a difficulties in interaction at the federal level in terms of what you can do and what you can't.

California has a very decentralized system of education, I think, compared to most states. There's a lot to be said for that. We shouldn't forget that we at bottom, we educate kids one at a time. No matter what the system looks like on the top, when you're on the bottom of the system.

When you're a student, it's done one at a time. And the central goal in my mind has always been you should set up a system that does as good a job as you can helping those people, helping teachers in classrooms do that work. I was fortunate when I was at the department.

This was actually quite a fruitful few four years of doing policy. They did a Local Control Funding Formula during that period of time. They created the CCEE during those times. And those are two programs that I think, by and large, have done pretty well over the last decade.

One of the things that I've been saying for some time is the Department of Education should be set up like CCEE is. It should be an agency whose task is to foster constant improvement. And the question you before you is will make the will making this administrative switch get you there?

So my thought is that the answer to that is potentially yes, but you don't know. And there are some risks for the legislature and its role in making changes without knowing if this, in fact, is going to bring about a kind of systemic change that will actually improve education. Changing administrators out in and of itself might not do it and may create problems.

There were Jack O'Connell's letter if you there were problems between him and the board, which were two different political parties where there's a lot of speculation about what happens if you get a Republican Governor. Those of you who are Democrats, does this look like such a good change to be making? I don't know.

So I raise these out there because these are the kinds of issues you have to wrestle with as you move forward with this. It has the potential to help. If you can centralize it, if you can find a Governor that wants to leverage that to change the system so that it becomes more proactive as a state, then I think there's a lot of potential in making the change. But it is with its risks, and it is something that you need to be thinking about as you're making your decision.

Thank you all for your introductory testimonies in panel one today. I have a couple questions I'm going to ask to kick off our questions for panel one. The first one is for the LAO. The LAO provided a briefing at a similar legislative informational hearing in 2018. How has the LAO's thinking evolved since then?

I wasn't here in 2018.

Thank you, madam chair. I was, the one who, led that testimony back in 2018. We didn't have any recommendations at that time, but the background and overview we provided was very similar at that time. One of the changes that has occurred in governance, this was already underway in 2018, but the state at one point had a secretary of education, some of the cabient level position that was appointed by the governor. That position was abolished by Governor Jerry Brown.

Governor Newsom also continued to not have that. A lot of those functions that were previously done by the secretary of education, the policy making functions were really transferred to the state board and its staff. So that was a change in governance that had happened relatively recently at that time. It doesn't seem like there's there's been much interest in reviving that position. But other than that, there has not been, released significant structural changes since that 2018 hearing.

Thank you for that insight. Related to the reenvisioning of the office of state superintendent, Please, if you don't mind, describe your recommendations, your specific recommendations. I know it was in the LAO report, but it's good for us to get a high level description now.

Yes. Thank you. Sara Cortez, LAO. So we, we released a report on the governor's budget proposal, and we lay out a vision for the office of super for for the new proposed office of the superintendent of public instruction. So we're really in the really, what modifying trailer bill to clearly define the SPI's SPI's duties.

And without clearly defining the role, we think, the risk is that the SPIs could change the what the SPI does can change, significantly depending on the individual, and we really wanna maintain or are recommending to maintain those clear lines of accountability when deciding to modify the governance structure. So our vision would be that the superintendent would be a public representative, advisor, and independent evaluator. Representing the public, the superintendent could focus on topics that are great of greatest interest to the public.

The rationale is the SPI is chosen because the voters found the policy platform compelling. So the SPI could have some flexibility on focusing on what are the most pressing priorities. One example could be technologies and technology use in school. And the second, advising would be reporting on the state of education. So we envision the SPI could travel across the state speaking with interested parties of the education community, which would allow the SPI to report on key issues, major challenges, and the SPI could make recommendations to address those challenges. And then lastly, it would be evaluate laws and programs.

We're envisioning, reporting to the legislature, governor, broader public on existing laws and programs and offering recommendations for areas that need improvement.

Thank you for that. And then finally, moving on to, mister Zeiger, Zeiger or Zeiger? Zeiger. Your introductory testimony, you said that, or you touched on that, it has to be more than just a change at the top, that the change in itself isn't gonna be sufficient. So, in your experience, what would you say are contributing factors to a high-functioning relationship between an SPI and a CDE?

We I I am a believer that accountability and policy setting and execution need to be integrated if you're not integrating these things. You know, nobody's setting the policy, or you've got an administrator who doesn't set the policy or you've got someone that sets the policy but doesn't administrate, you create problems. And we need to, I think, actually, in California, you just need to reorient how we look at our education system. It's been it's been created over the years in little dribs and drabs.

And I will say, just going into this, Prop 98 is the heart of a lot of this.

Because Prop 98 does not allow for the state as as an agent entity to receive money from it. The legislature has been reluctant to provide money outside of Prop 98 for education. They look at Prop 98 as the pot. And if you're not in the pot, you're very unlikely to get you're very unlikely to get money. And so we've created these agencies that are have a leave a legal overview of belonging to a county office of education, but in fact, they are performing statewide functions.

And you need to be kind of honest about what you're doing here. Jerry Brown had this notion of subsidiarity. You should move things down to the lowest possible level. That's okay, but as much as I admire Jerry Brown and I do, it's not right. Things need to be done where they need to be done, and sometimes things need to be done collectively.

If you're going to use data creatively, only the state can collect all that data, analyze it, and, and disseminate it in a useful way. So it's the question for me is, if you're just gonna change the person at the top, what are you getting? Your, the answer should be, you're changing it because you plan on doing X or Y or Z or a little of each. But those are the things that you really need to know is, why are we doing this?

What are we gonna get from this?

And there is a lot of conversation about, well, it'll we'll do some conflicts. Well, will with the governor. Right? Will it with you? I don't know.

Right? You have a role to perform here. And does it matter that you've given him more leverage in dealing with you? Because that's the truth of the matter. If he is also running the department, he has more leverage in his dealings with you under that system than he has now.

Not a lot more, and it's not that you couldn't possibly resist it, right, if you wanted to, but it is a change in those dynamics. So I would be if were I in your position, I am cautiously optimistic this could be helpful. If you've got the second piece, this piece about what are we gonna do with it once we've got it. And that piece is, from what I've read from the material, singularly lacking in terms of what's of what the governor has proposed.

He just hasn't said what he intends to do with it.

Now it's not gonna be his to do. Right? But he hasn't neither has he charted out a vision.

Thank you for that insight. It's certainly something that we are prepared as a legislature to consider and take action on. Appreciate that. Going back to Mr. Von Zastrow, you described a pantheon of different solutions that various states have come up with. You said many are unicorns.

Are any of them, or do any patterns seem to pop out as correlating better with improved student outcomes?

I'm gonna take the easy way out here and say that I have not seen research that actually attempts to establish that correlation. But I think one and this is something we live at Education Commission of the States all the time, and that is that state context is so diverse that it's very hard to say that this is the governance structure that would be best for Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina, etcetera. So, sorry to sort of wiggle out of that one.

What I will say is that states, as they consider their k 12 governance structures, really do have to consider carefully the lines of accountability. And then that's what I've seen in governance changes and what we've seen, I should say, in governance changes over the years, is very often they're trying to figure out if these lines of accountability are acting crosswise somehow, that that can actually at least inspire those changes.

I will say that there are some instances in which there were states that actually tried to create very new and innovative governance structures in which there was still need for calibration, you know, and I'm happy to go into this separately in another conversation. But where they realized that, you know, they're may maybe they didn't get to their stated goal as quickly, and sometimes it's political issues, sometimes it could be personality issues.

But that's it it it tends to be something you have to go through several iterations. The most recent changes are, of course, Indiana and Ohio. And and and since those are the most sort of present to us now, the jury, I would say, is probably out from a research point of view if those have changed created change because it just because it's gonna take more time to figure that out.

So apologies, but again, ECS is always happy to sort of dive into more detailed questions as you need them.

Yeah. That is interesting. Of course, the complexities are far and wide. We have so much more layered system in our public education system with a variety of programs and funding structures, and it's just a lot more complex in California, including our student population being very diverse and complex as well. Back to the LAO for my final question before turning it over to my colleagues.

I wanted to make sure we captured something that was specifically stated in your report. Your recommendation on page 11 specifically to require the legislature to have an approval process for the commissioner's appointment. Can you describe a little bit about that recommendation?

Yes. So part so just kind of backing up with our recommendation. So we do we do recommend adopting the proposal to shift management of CDE under the education commissioner, but we also make recommendations that we would consider refinements to the governor's proposal around preserving legislative oversight, clarifying those duties, and then there's, like, a fiscal planning compete. So, the port the the recommendation you mentioned around, we recommend that the education commissioner be senate confirmed, and that is in the spirit of legislative oversight.

Any governance structure under consideration, we would recommend that.

We would need the ability to maintain and, legislative oversight, the ability to monitor implementation, assert whether policies align with legislative priorities, and, in the spirit of having additional tools in the legislative oversight toolkit. We we we we make that recommendation.

Thank you for expanding upon that. I'll now turn it over to the committee. Does anyone wanna start with questions? Assemblymember Pellerin?

Thank you. So this is a major structural reorganization, and I'm just wondering about the corresponding fiscal implementation plan.

Yes. So as part of our recommendation, we do recommend the more details we provided on the fiscal implementation. So we are recommending given so we're so we're recommending that more details be provided. Given the scope of the proposal, we think that this, this could be done in a cost neutral way. But getting those details would, allow, the the legislature to to, to to oversee some of the the more practical details of of the how this would be implemented.

Would you anticipate the new structure resulting in eliminated positions?

Oh, so we don't have those details of the governor's budget proposal that would be best directed to the administration. We are recommending that more details be provided through a fiscal plan.

Okay. And then, it seems like this proposal preserves the office of SBI, but, strips it of a lot of the core administrative authorities. So what exactly is the SBI's role gonna be?

Thank you. Ken Kapphahn with the analyst's office. I think for speaking of the proposal, I think the next panel, can give can speak to the governor's proposal. Our recommendation is to focus that, position on being a public representative, an evaluator, an adviser. I think what we've heard from the administration is that they are thinking of this proposal as doing some of those things, and maybe more focusing more on a coordinator across different segments of education.

But, again, I think the next, some of those next speakers will be able to speak more to the governor's vision for the position. Alright.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you. Thank you all for being here today. Really appreciate the deep dive into this, I think very important and impactful proposal, but also one with a lot of, I would say, where the devil is in the details. And, you know, from reading the LAO's report, that's obviously very clear because even your breakdown of all the different studies that have been, been done on this topic have come to various conclusions on, on the best path forward.

I think the one thing I wanted to focus in on I do appreciate the chair bringing up what did you bring up?

The no. I don't even remember. Confirmation. The confirmation. I think that's really important and, certainly, maybe something we could discuss as a committee, but, certainly, would love to see a little bit more legislative oversight, from the governor's proposal.

But, but in terms of, sort of the piece that I wanted to focus on, you make a note in multiple places in your report where, you know, you mentioned that the governor essentially, this allows more opportunities for policymakers and the public to hold the governor accountable for educational outcomes. You also have a section that, you know, talks about how the current structure really does struggle, to to delineate lines of accountability and that no one entity can be currently held accountable for educational quality and results.

I was wondering if and anyone can comment on this, honestly, if if, any of you have thoughts on the accountability piece specifically, but curious from the LAO's perspective, how the governor's proposal could potentially help us, even hold a future governor, assuming, this governor will be gone once this proposal goes into effect, more accountable for the educational results.

Thank you, thank you for the question. So, so, yes, I just you mentioned some of the some of the things, we wrote in our report, that shifting to a a governor appointed commissioner would promote greater coherence and policymaker policymaking, having those clear lines of accountability given that everybody everybody is appointed by by the governor. And then better alignment between the policy-making process and then the actual implementation of of those process.

So when something goes wrong, then we know that the that, the it it, you know, it is on one of the appointees on the decisions that are made of those appointees or somebody within those within those bodies.

Currently, right now, there's a lot of different, different entities, confusion, and then also, like, potential there's greater potential under, under this proposal for, the clearer, clearer messages to, to district and support for districts.

And I didn't know if you, you either of you had comments on the accountability piece specifically, maybe based on your research or based on your experience, you know, in the superintendent's office. I mean, I do feel like sometimes the public doesn't really know who to hold accountable for different decisions. I think a lot of this was particularly evident during the pandemic when there was a lot of different directives coming from a lot of different places. So I didn't know if you had any comments on that.

Well, I can I'll make I can comment on anything. You have a very decentralized system. And the truth of the matter is if you if like I'm on parent, I'm gonna look first at my local school board, which may or may not have any say at any given moment, but they're who's in front of me, and they're gonna look like they're in charge.

And of course, we do extend to them in California quite a bit of authority compared to what happens in other states, which is they have a much more centralized event. So decentralization and with it, a lack of deliberate lines of accountability, is a feature of our system.

It's not a flaw. It's the way we built the system. Right? And the price you pay for that is it gets harder to point your finger at any particular person and say, " it's your fault. Because the fault is dispersed and it and it at any given time, it gets difficult.

This will make it a little easier. Right? Because you put one person in charge, and if you're in the minority party, Mr. Hoover, you can you can call it accountability, you can call it blame, but you can point your finger at somebody and say, it's yours. You own it now. Are there advantages to that?

Yeah. If your goal is to change the system and, and argue about it. One of the problems I think we've had in California and in many states over the years is that we are not united about what education means. And if for those of you may have bit more information on this, but during these years, these fruitful years that I talk about, we spend a lot of time visiting actually other countries.

And the hallmark of other countries that were doing well is how much unity there was about the approach, and how you could stick with that rep approach year after year after year until it started seeing results.

Education isn't something you can fix quickly with by making a change. The first thing you're gonna notice if you make this change is nothing's changed. That's the first thing you're gonna notice. So the question is, how do you, you know, if you've got you've got to have a clear vision of how you think the system should be put together, what your goals are, how you wanna do this, and you have to stick with it year after year after year till you get there.

We have never been able to do that in California.

This litany of the things we come back and and and complain about is proof of that. If you really wanna do this, all of you guys need to all of you need to get together and kind of work that out. Otherwise, otherwise, you're just gonna move the finger around. That's that's who you who you point at. That won't go away.

I think that's that's my honest answer to your question. It it accountability is still gonna be tricky, and then part of it is because we're not sure what we're doing. If we were clear about what we're doing, it might be easier to say who should be doing it, how should you be doing it, is it getting done. And until you can get that vision, you're gonna have a lot of this. You're gonna have this problem.

Thank you.

Coming out of backwards. Right?

No. I appreciate that. I think.

Not the.

Yeah. I appreciate that. And I think it also highlights an important point that, you know, it, it does the sort of education agenda becomes very dependent on who the governor is at the time. And so that could be a governor who is very passionate about educational outcomes. It could be one that doesn't prioritize education, and the legislature would then need to play a larger role.

So I appreciate the the thoughts, and that's all for now on this panel.

Certainly, we wouldn't wanna change without our difference, and even more certain, we don't wanna change that's gonna cause harm. Assemblymember Bonta?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for holding this very important opportunity for us to be able to dive into this, pretty significant shift. I have a couple of questions. The first is, I kinda just wanna take a step back from what we've all just been talking about and have you all just to define for me what you think the advantage of having a separation of powers is within the education context as it relates to the executive branch administration, the legislature, and the judiciary.

And maybe you can just focus on the it doesn't seem like judiciary is too, too implicated, but perhaps there is something to talk about, as it relates to policy making.

Ken, come on with the analyst's office. Sorry. It's a it's a weighty question, so I think that's part of the reason we're looking at each other. That balance of power, I think, is something that obviously has been reflected in our state's constitution since the beginning. The idea that, each of these, three branches of government, has some different responsibilities clearly defined, but with some ability to, check one another.

That is, we think, an important principle to maintain in this governance change. Under the rec under the governor's proposal, and, the governor would have more authority than today. That's an important shift, and that's why to be effective, it needs to be accompanied with strong legislative oversight so that there still are these these checks and balances. Having the legislature appoint the new commissioner is a core part of that. There are other sorts of oversight tools you could use too.

Potentially adding some legislative appointees to the State Board of Education is one option. There are certain kinds of things you could codify, reporting requirements or data. It'll be important to be diligent in the budget committees, policy committees because the legislature exercises a lot of its oversight through legislation and through approving budget proposals. So we do see a lot of value in having oversight and checks and balances, in whatever new system, you might decide to create.

And I'm gonna speak less specifically to the California context because I would, of course, defer to my colleagues on the panel about that. You know, Education Commission of the States, since we deal with policymakers in those various functions, of course, believes a great deal in the the reality of checks and balances and that sometimes even adversarial systems can produce good results.

The one thing that I would consider within that construct is what you're asking people to be accountable for and whom they're you're asking them to be accountable to. So I know in some states that made these changes, and again, ECS is sort of analytical. We're not endorsing a particular change.

You can have a group that is accountable to another group for carrying out administering a policy that that policy making group has created at the same time that that administrative body is accountable to someone else who is not necessarily the policy making body. Right? And so that can create sometimes and what what has prompted some of the governance changes in some states has been what people have perceived to be a disconnect there.

So it's less that they're trying to override a system of less checks and balances, but more that they're trying to make it clearer whom any player in the system is accountable to. And when those thing when there's dissonance in that, it can create the kind of discomfort that prompts some of these changes.

Not to say that the changes then necessarily resolve everything and everything's hunky dory, but certainly, I think that broader principle of having that balance of powers and having even sometimes adversarial relationships in that balance of powers is something that deeply embedded, of course, in our way of doing things in this country more broadly.

I I think the answer to the question as applies in education is more complex than in most other areas of government. You typically think about policy making body, you people, making policy, and an executive carrying it out. And a court every now and then come and and has by the way, courts in California have been fairly aggressive in dealing. The way we distribute textbooks to schools now is set by court order, not by anything any of you did.

And and so that that all of these things all of these things intervene in into the system.

You need in this system, you also have to layer out these levels going down that also create these issues. So is it something that should be done at the state level? Is it something that should be done at the county level? Is it something that should be done at the local level? Is it something that should be done at the school individual school level or in the individual classroom?

These are all decisions that complicate what typically in government is a more well, it's a clearer designation of who of who does what. And it's going to sort that out. Well, first of all, you're never gonna make it, but you can make little improvements as you go along. And and I would encourage you to do them around policy thoughts. This is the way we wanna pursue a kind of policy for education.

Now where does that need to be delivered? And and to the the fact of the matter is well, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Honig decision. When Bill Honig, the superintendent of public instruction, he sued saying, hey, wait a minute. You've cut me out of the action. I'm the superintendent.

I'm supposed to superintend the schools. Right? And the courts came back. Let's get them back in the game and said, no, you're not. The legislature, in fact, is the super is the is the school board for the state of California.

They get to set the policy. If there's doubt about it I know you guys you see that look on your face. There was a lawsuit about this and the courts ruled, oh, when was this when honing was superintendent of public instruction? Anybody have that one handy?

This

would have been the lawsuit was settled in 1993 with the appellate decision.

It's been a long, long time. But he he asserted I get to do this. I'm superintendent of public instruction. The constitution says I'm to I'm to, you know, superintend the schools, whatever that means. I get to do it.

And the court said, no, you don't. If there's a disagreement about who gets to do what, the legislature and the laws of the state of California said that. And and so you are that you are that policy may ultimately, that policy making body. If you don't like what the state board did, you change the law and make them do it somewhere else. Right?

And so this also goes to this question of who you who you point to.

Yeah.

And and I the question you ask is extremely complicated given the layers of that are in California system. It's not a like, it's not executive versus legislature versus judicial clear. It's all these other ones going up and down.

I I appreciate that. I also think that we have added in our own complexity in the past hundred years when we essentially decided to make a portion of the executive branch a policy making body. And I think that we've kind of have since struggled with that because it's very clear kind of in the health world that there's rulemaking that happens in different agencies, but there's not legislative kind of policymaking that is as, you know, so easily kind of just passed through.

And I I think that that is one of one of the major challenges that we have. I wanted to kinda just move to some of the operational challenges that are are highlighted in the LAO's report or kind of pointed to.

One is around the, the role of the, the CDE right now as it relates to basically running, as you mentioned, you know, several different schools, and evaluation arms. What where would that work go?

Thank you. We envision that CDE would do a lot of the CDE's work would seem to be focused on the same things it is now, apportioning funding, administering programs, implementing federal grants. We also envision that some of the administrative work that is right now under the jurisdiction of the state board could shift to CDE. If, for example, you heard about that the State Board of Education is often our designated liaison to the federal government, that work, we think, over time could shift the Department of Education.

That's how the we understand the model.

It's more common in other states, and they're in a better position as the administrative agency, I think, to be the the entity interacting, with the with the US Department of Education. There are also some other tasks that they do. For example, approving federal grant applications. The board does that. That's more of a that's typically not a particularly controversial item.

We think this the CDE under this new model could just approve those applications. So part of one of the advantages of the shift could be that the Department of Education is now doing, really a more cohesive set of administrative functions. Not significant changes to its responsibilities, but but really taking on some of the administration that right now is split across their role in the state board. Okay.

And as it relates to the the off the off the county offices of education, so this is a a query I have. So, right now, county office of education basically report into the C, the CDE as and CDE is essentially treated as an as an through SPI as an independent body.

In the proposal that we are looking at right now, if, functionally, the CDE's role and that oversight role would go shift from being kind of somewhat independent to being very squarely under the administrate under the scope of the administration wholly. So I don't know if you all know this, but sometimes the state and counties don't necessarily agree. And there's a lot of tension between the the work of the county offices and and the scope of what they are trying to achieve and the state.

And quite frankly, I think that it is a very healthy tension in some regards because it allows for there to be for there to be a sensibility of kind of local control of allowing there to be some ability for us to have oversight and accountability, but to have there be an a different kind of separation of powers, so to speak.

In this proposal with all of that function essentially coming under the role and the direct scope of the governor's administration, how are we preserving the relationship of or the role, I should say, of the county offices of education?

I'll take a a Ken Kippon again. I'll take a a take the first answer to that. One of the criticisms that we often hear from school districts is that they interact with the Department of Education, but they're often not really sure who's responsible if they have a concern with the state policy. Department of Education staff typically is the one doing that interaction, but they might be implementing a policy that the department itself didn't come up with.

They're not really the CDE doesn't really have a direct line necessarily to, whether it's the state board or the legislature or the governor, the entity that was responsible for creating that policy.

And so sometimes the that tension can linger unresolved because the districts don't know who's really responsible or who they need to engage with with their concern. I think one of the advantages of this proposal is that the department's CDE would be directly aligned with the governor as a policy making entity. And so when they're talking with the department staff, they would know that they're talking with the department on behalf of both the state's administrative and policy making, authority.

But this this issue about the relationship between counties and the states, I think is broader than what is directly addressed in the governor's proposal. I think in the most in the, report, that policy analysis for California Education did.

They talked a little bit more about this and whether the state might need some other structures. We haven't really looked at that as part of this report, but that is an issue. This state local relationship is another aspect of governance, that's come up several times in the report. Some of the other studies, for example, have said we should also, in addition to doing these state governance changes, make the education code a little bit less restrictive, decentralize some authority.

We don't have a recommendation, specific in this report, but it's definitely a topic that has been we've noticed in a lot of the studies that have been done on this issue.

Right. On the on this side, I would say that perhaps there has been the correct identification of a serious concern around accountability and, and kind of the oversight authority and the lack of clarity that has been provided to county offices of education in terms of knowing who to basically seek both counsel from and an expectation on oversight. I don't know that that necessarily translates for me into the need to merge the function of the CDE into the direct oversight of the of the administration.

I have always conceived of a part of the SPI's role to be essentially kinda like the chief of the of the county's offices of education. There's a significant amount of interaction that happens.

I know, in Alameda County between the SPI and the county office of education. And and that's a a very critical role. And to have that kind of be sidelined, if you will, and not attended to, is of some concern for me.

So I I want us to make sure that we're kind of diving a little bit more deeply into both understanding the nature of the concern, which is legitimate from the county offices of education, but perhaps not providing a solution that doesn't really address the the need to keep those functions separate.

I wanted to move on, and I will see it after this, although I have other questions, but for the sake of time, around the articulation of the superintendent of public instruction, either in recommendations from the LAO or in the proposal, that are somewhat problematic for me. I will divulge straight off of the bat. The reenvisioning of the SPI is the public representative, the advisor, and the independent evaluator.

Now a lot of that language having been in the public safety world for a while in the legislature as chair of the budget sub, especially in terms of oversight, sounds a lot like the role of the inspector general as it was constructed. So we have the CDCR.

We created an inspector general that sometimes has teeth in the, enforceability function, sometimes does not depending on both the individual who sits in that position as well as the authority that the legislature gives to that individual and sits kind of like outside of the outside of the system. Now there is so much wrong in CDCR, and, so much that needs to really fall under the oversight authority of the inspector general that I would hate to replicate.

And knowing that, I would hate to replicate that kind of the nature of that function in the in the world of education, and what we intend to do in education.

Because it sounds like in all that's been presented so far that the that the role as it's being conceived and maybe we just haven't had enough time to fully flesh out what the proposal is around that would kinda be just, you know, ranging from an ambassador to an evaluator to somebody who is able to kind of interact with and be an ombudsman for for the for the state and the state's educational system, but also largely just kinda sits outside of our educational system.

So I think that is an incredible kind of undervaluing of the potential power of the superintendent of public instruction.

And I don't think that we need another layer of kind of quasi bureaucracy, if you will, sitting somewhere as a as, you know, an appendage. I think appendage is the word I want. Yeah. As an appendage to be able to kind of inform our education policy and our education the execution of an implementation of our of our operations within the education arm.

If we have somebody who is an elected official, sits on a statewide ballot, voted by the people to be able to serve and support our educational opportunities, And regular Jane isn't sitting in hearing rooms every single day.

They are going to have an expectation around the function and the performance of that individual. And I think if we, on the one hand, have a a stated role in an elected position that has presumably these powers and authority, but have essentially gutted the relevance of that individual, we would be doing a disservice to the voting public and to every child and family who seeks or who believes that the SPI is somebody who has an ability to make change.

So there for me, there's a disconnect there. And I would just encourage us as we're looking through these proposals, if we are really headed down this pathway that we give a little bit more attention to the function of the SPI and not have it be something that is sitting outside of of the system. And I I will stop there with my comments.

I do have a couple of other questions, but I wanna make sure that others have the ability to weigh in.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta. I will come back to you after we do a round of questions with other members. Assembly member Alvarez.

Thank you very much to the panel, and thank you to the chair of the committee for allowing us to have this conversation. And I must also recognize and thank the speaker of the assembly for encouraging us to have this conversation. You all know this is a proposal that was put forward in a budget, and I think we often hear, from a lot of colleagues in, the legislature that there is, sometimes not no opportunity for us to provide input in policy making and budget.

And there's a clear example of us doing something differently. And so I I really value everybody's comments here today, and I appreciate them.

I'm gonna share some thoughts because, one, didn't make opening comments, but hope to only make comments now that really is is not a soapbox, but really is the foundation of the questions that I have throughout the different panels that we have before us today. I hope it gives context to the questions.

I I I think I would start off with the fact, mister Ziger, you can attest to the fact that you and I did not know each other for more than about an hour ago when this got started. Is that correct? K.

I have had conversations with various stakeholders, including, this morning, some stakeholders that I know are here, and others who will be presenting on the panel. And I have raised the issue of why. Why are we doing this? And there are some very good arguments, I think, from the administration, as to why we should do this from a administrative, process, from trying to align policy goals, objectives, and accountability within education itself in the department.

And I think that we should acknowledge that that is, I believe, but we'll let the administration speak for themselves, the spirit of of this.

And I think there's value, tremendous value to that. However, we can't just act on that alone. When I say why, I think about what are the outcomes we want to achieve with this.

In my opinion, this is such a a a an important conversation and a change that if we do not talk about what else we want to accomplish with this change, what are the objectives of this, then we will have missed an opportunity, and shame on us if we do not have that conversation today and as this process moves forward.

And so, I'm looking forward to the questions in the exchange to help us identify the not just why should we rearrange boxes on an organizational chart, but why are we doing it and with what in mind?

And everything we do in this committee, at least when I wear the hat of committee member of the education committee in the assembly is it should be student centered and outcomes focused. And if that's not why we're doing this, then we need to start to rethink why we're doing what we're doing, whether it's this proposal or any other. And so I think there is, some room to have conversation about how we're going to accomplish that.

And that's what my questions are, and that will be it for my soapbox. I will now get into the actual, questions.

I wanna start with the colleagues have been talking about something really important, which is they're alluding to this, maybe haven't said it, but we are essentially creating a different system. I was gonna say a new system, but a different system. And this opportunity for all of us, this is our chance to say what we think, you know, would make this a better a better system. And so let's ask those questions.

My first question would be to the LAO is, on the role of the superintendent if this were to be adopted.

I one, I have to acknowledge the the the the analysis and the the the document that you've produced dated March 2026, which is the one the most recent one on reenvisioning education governance is is very, very good. I I I have to say that because the question is gonna sound like I'm questioning or I'm I'm perhaps not acknowledging that. It's very good.

But I do think there is a little bit of lack of clarity and might I even say vagueness to your suggestions of what the role of the superintendent could be. And I'd like to ask you and I know we're gonna have my questions are gonna be consistent, by the way, across the panel, so the next two can get ready.

The most recent, the PACE report, talked about some specifics of what the role could be. The administration's proposal does not include that. Your language kinda sort of, to me, sounds like the PACE proposal, but not really. I'd like to give you an opportunity to talk about why, perhaps, you did not provide more specifics on what the roles could be. You you you you identify very clearly that there needs to be a defined role, clearly defined role, but not what that should be.

And I think that's where I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Sure. I think one of the challenges that we were thinking about is we want recognizing that there is still going to be a state superintendent, that person is gonna be elected with, some policies and priorities, and we want the role to be flexible enough that they can work on the policies and priorities that they were elected to do. So you might have a superintendent, for example, that's very interested in how students transfer from high school to college.

You might have a superintendent who's very interested in how students move from early education to the k 12 system. They might be interested in anything from technology in schools to to facilities, and it's we want the world to be flex enough flexible enough that they can work on those areas that are important to them and reflect their priorities.

On the other hand, we also don't want to just create some new actor in the system where it's not clear what that person is doing or when that school district should involve that person or who's responsible for giving direction in specific cases because then we haven't improved governance. We've just made it more fragmented. And so the idea of our recommendation is, well, how can we take advantage of the fact the superintendent, is independent of the governor? They're not directly answerable to the legislature, or the governor.

What are some thing activities that they can do where that independent perspective, is valuable?

And we think, some of the ways that they can be valuable is by taking a step back and looking at the system as a whole, how is it performing? Obviously, if you've got the governor developing policy with the legislature and implementing policy, the governor's staff and CDE aren't gonna be in the best position to tell you whether that's working well because they're administering it. Of course, they're gonna be thinking that they're implementing it it well.

So the role of the superintendent is to be that outside voice, that outside perspective, someone who's not directly answerable to those entities and can tell the public and and tell you and your oversight role, here's how we think things are going. I did wanna clarify back to the question about how we envision the role.

We we aren't envisioning this position being like, an inspector general like you have for CDCR or, the high speed rail authority or something like that. It's less less focusing on sort of, looking over, some of the sort of auditing work that those agencies are doing and more about, monitoring and assessing how well the education system as a whole, is performing.

And so the superintendent, under our recommendation, would have the authority to study how well that system is doing, to offer advice, analysis, commentary, all kinds of things that can become the basis for change or improvements. The superintendent could could continue to sponsor legislation to do advocacy in the legislature, to see how well bills are being implemented after they're passed.

So there's a lot of work that this new office could still do, but we wanna be clear that it wouldn't be an administrative role or a policy making role.

Those are gonna be done by the department, by the legislation, the governor, on the policy. So all of this is to say that what we wanna be clear about is the superintendent represents the public. They advise. They evaluate. They make recommendations.

They focus on the areas that are important to them. All the administration is done by the Department of Education, and the legislature can hold the governor responsible for that administration.

Thank you. And, again, I think there's there's certainly value in in that, but, the the the PACE report talks very specifically about conducting and coordinating rigorous formative evaluations to inform policy, program improve program improvement. Those are all again, it's the language sounds similar. I just wasn't sure if that's where you were headed as well. Sure.

If I may, I think there may be a little bit of a I think there are some similarities between what we're recommending, what the PACE report suggested. I think I think the PACE report is suggesting a much more ex a more expansive role for the superintendent and that they would preside over a larger office.

One of the considerations in thinking about the role as we did is that the state is facing, as you know, a pretty significant budget challenge, and this is kind this is not a great year for the state to be doing a lot of expansion of agencies or programs. And so the role that we're envisioning is one that we think could be done with a relatively small office, like the one, that the that the administration is proposing.

If you wanted the superintendent to do all of the things that the PACE report is recommending, you likely have to think about additional appropriations and and more staff to accomplish all of that.

I mean, look, you and I see each other almost every week at my subcommittee. So I we understand exactly where we are financially as a state. However, I'm not sure we wanna talk about building a new system to the limitations of what we got in terms of from a from a financial standpoint. I think we're building a new system or reimagining a system. Issued with the end goal.

Again, I go back to where I started. The end goal in mind, which is it should be about student outcomes. And if we're not creating that as part of this change, then we're missing the opportunity to to accomplish that. But we can have more more chat about that. I wanna give the other two, individuals who are before us.

You've heard this exchange about, what this role could be. I don't think, you you you said some, generalities as well. As you heard this conversation, are are there any other thoughts that have come to mind in terms of what the role specific role, statutory role of a superintendent if we were to make a change like this that you either seen in other states that you've analyzed, sir, or that you've that you know about in the work that you've done in the past?

Yeah. I mean, I'll just repeat that in this too. California would be a a unicorn in this regard, that in having both a governor appointed commissioner and an elected state superintendent sort of serving concurrently in different roles that that superintendent is elected. So the other states that we've cited, you know, Ohio, which made a recent change, Virginia and Massachusetts that all have these dual roles. In fact, the lines go back to the governor in every case.

So for example, in in Virginia, the governor appoints the cabinet level secretary, but also appoints the superintendent who has administrative oversight of the SEA. So I think that's a substantial difference. In Ohio where the change happens starting in 2023, Again, the governor appoints the director as it's called, but that's like like the commissioner that you'll be talking about in the in the proposal for California. And then a governor appointed board will appoint the superintendent who will have a much reduced role.

So, again, there isn't the sense you've had an elected superintendent whose role is being reduced.

And, again, the same in Massachusetts has been that way for a long time. The governor appoints a cabinet level secretary and the governor appointed board appoints the superintendent. So in a way, you you have a a a a different set of, you know, the genesis of these roles all kind of go back, you know, ultimately to the governor. Right? And so that creates, I think, a somewhat different dynamic.

And so that's just a long way of saying, I don't think there is a precedent for this. You know, ECS is probably gonna keep out of sort of an evaluative conversation about whether it's good or bad. But just as when it comes to looking for other exemplars, we'd have to dig a little deeper to see if there are other states that could Okay. Provide something Thank you. Clearer.

I

I don't know the answer to your question. I to be really honest with you, I think that you've got this you've created this and, like, set of something for this person to do because you couldn't figure out how to get rid of him. I mean, the truth of the matter is you've taken all the responsibility and moved it somewhere else. There is no role.

At best, you've created another lieutenant governor, but they don't even have to pick up the phone and find out if somebody's still alive.

I mean, it's there is no function for them. Or you've created a statewide elected gadfly, Right? About the system? Is that a role that you need to create? I so I I I mean, you can invent these roles, but the truth is you've you've taken all the responsibility away.

You just can't because it's a constitutional officer, you can't get rid of them. I it's not a bad gig. Right? For legislators that are termed out and looking for something to do, you get a good statewide job, you get to go to a few meetings, you could cut a lot of ribbons, people will treat you well.

But there is no I I cannot think of a nobody's going to, as PACE says, going to give this person real responsibility for oversight because that undermines what you've made the consolidation for.

Right? If you if you have somebody else. So I I the truth is I can't figure it out. It's just it's you can't get rid of them, so you gotta do something with them.

Okay. Thank you. Let me ask just one other question so we can move on, which was also a we nobody's talked about this, and I'm definitely curious from other states' perspectives. And the LAO wasn't in your analysis here. Again, taking from the PACE report and some of the recommendations, appointing a CDA director with experience and expertise, someone who's actually run schools and has that experience.

What maybe I'll start with the LAO, and then I'll work my way this way on at the panel here. Have you was that analyzed, looked at, comparison to other states? I'd like to know where where we would stand.

So in our recommendation to make the commissioner subject to the Senate confirmation process, we thought that the legislature could, you know, better understand the commissioner's credentials or past employment history, the key priorities for leading the department, but that could be part of the legislative legislative process if if that recommendation is adopted.

K. I will just speak anecdotally that I know that other chief state school officers actually have had sort of those administrative roles in other states. It's not universal, but it would be something if you really wanted to know we could dig into a bit deep more deeply.

K. Any experience that you can share?

I I can't help you with that. You could set rules.

If you could set something in law, you have to have x right. Like like you would with a judge. But the fact of the matter is the governor is probably gonna wanna appoint who he's gonna wanna appoint, and the question is whether you will agree with the governor or not. Okay.

Right. Right?

Yeah. Thank you all for answering those questions. Like I said earlier, the next panels, they will be very common questions throughout my my opportunity. Thank you, madam chair.

Mister Lowenthal, do you have any comments? I would like to just say we do have two other panels where we'll be able to integrate the actual proposal. So I wanna make sure we keep sufficient time to get into that. Miss Bonta assembly member Bonta. You're good?

Alright. Well, thank you. We will move on to panel two. We have the kthrough 12 tkthrough 12 education governance proposal. We'll have Brooks Allen, the executive director of State Board of Education, Jenny Myung, director of policy research, policy analysis in California education, and Tony Thurmond, the superintendent of public instruction.

Or is it Genie? Mister Allen, you may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon. Stretch break? Thank you for having me. We do have a handout that you should have in your folder that we may refer to. I probably won't click through the slides as we go. I just wanna share my comments, but feel free. I'll refer to a couple of them as as we proceed. So good afternoon. My name is Brooks Allen. I serve as the executive director of the State Board of Education and as the education policy advisor to governor Gavin Newsom. Thank you, Chair Patel, members, for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss, his historical proposal. For this hearing, I will focus my comments on governor Newsom's proposal to strengthen California's education governance system. Some of this ground has been covered a bit in the first panel, so I will try to move with some some speed, but not at the expense of some detail. First and foremost, and this really goes to Assemblymember Alvarez's comments, this proposal is about accountability for delivering results for our children. It's about where California state governance structure is aligned to support schools well, implement policy coherently, and allow the state to be held accountable for those results. With that as our frame, I would like to describe the governor's proposal, what it would accomplish, why it is needed, and why, as we've been just discussing just now on the first panel, why now is the critical moment for action. Notably, this proposal is not responding as you've now heard, to a new critique, but is finally responding to a very long standing one. In fact, I will bet as you all have a chance to hear various proposals on policy committees over the course of the coming months, that you will probably not consider a single policy proposal this year in any area that has been studied as extensively as this issue. As the governor has said, quote, California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for nearly a century. And the reason that message resonates is that California has heard essentially the same warning over and over again. For decades, as the LAO has done a fantastic job of laying out, every major nonpartisan and bipartisan review has identified the same fatal flaw in our structure. California's k 12 governance system is governed by different entities with overlapping roles that it sometimes in our state's history, we just heard about the Honig litigation, have come into a point of conflict with one another to the detriment of educational services offered to students. When the legislature governor and the state superintendent of public instruction called for the first series of getting down to fact studies in the early two thousands, the resulting governance report described California system as quote, a remarkably crazy quilt of interacting authorities that are not aligned for the purpose of accountability or action. And noted by the LAO, when it is summarized the government's reports published over the last twenty five years, all of them, although they have various prescriptions for how to land, all land in one central piece of trying to consolidate and streamline both policy making authority and implementation authority. I will not recite every report here because the point is not the length of the bibliography. The point is the consistency of the diagnosis. Again and again, California has been told that our structure fragments authority, blurs accountability, and makes coherent implementation harder than it should be for the benefit of schools and ultimately, the students we all serve. Every objective analysis has made the case for the reform proposed. The other slide, slide six, tries to capture some of this graphically. But as you see, and I think now that we've heard extensively throughout the first panel's discussion, today, California effectively splits policy administration implementation across institutions that must work together closely, but do not sit within a single aligned chain of responsibility. This creates friction where there should be flow, making it harder to link policy direction management execution in a way this legislature and the public can clearly understand or evaluate. For example, current law charges this office of state superinte of public instruction with quote, executing of the State Board of Education, the policies which have been decided upon by the board. It's been evaluated by the Court of Appeals in the Hohnecht litigation earlier referenced. The state board whose members are all appointed by the governor is, quote, in education code, the governing and policy determining body of the department, unquote. And is designated as the state educational agency as we heard earlier for purposes of interacting with the federal government. Moreover, the state constitution and previous actions taken by voters and the education code currently require that all of the superintendents, deputies, and associates, superintendents must be appointed by the governor or the State Board of Education. As you can see again, potential for friction, not for flow. The governor's proposal is designed to fix this structural challenge, lifting up the statutory solution that was proposed in the legislature's own 2002 master plan. The statutory solution would finally modernize the government system by unifying the policy making state board with the Department of Education implements those policies. We would be moving from a model of managed conflict to one of managed results. To do so, the governor's proposal assigns responsibility for the daily management of the Department of Education to an appointed education commissioner, envisioned as we have in many states to be an experienced education administrator similar to those chiefs in states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. And they would also empower the Office of State Superint Public Instruction with new roles and authority, which based on the questions we'll dive into here a little bit, that would help shape both how we align our education policies from early childhood through post secondary education. This two part proposal would thereby bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and our schools. By eliminating the often referenced double head system, the proposed bill would enable the coherent and consistent state level focus on implementation and support of local education agencies that will lead to improved student outcomes. The proposal aligns the Tigray k 12 management functions of the department with the budget and policy responsibilities associated with the governor, Therefore, improving the trans the transparency and allowing the state to be held accountable for carrying out its roles in support of education delivery. And I think that is a central legislative frame here. This is not changed for its own sake. This is not moving boxes for their own purposes. But yet, it is consistent with this the legislature's plenary authority that has been exercised regularly throughout our state's history to shape the roles and responsibilities of our State Department of Education entities, including, for example, as I noted earlier, the creation of the department itself in 1921. This proposal would help ensure that when the state sets priorities, fund them, and ask local educational agencies to deliver, there is a clear structure for support, execution, and again accountability.

Importantly, this proposal strengthens accountability while also seeking to build on a demonstrate successes of recent state superintendents of public instruction of as both public champions of key educational issues on behalf of the voters, while also seeking to increase the policy and making authority of the office of the state superintendent public instruction.

As was noted and you'll see on slide eight, they would become a voting member of the State Board of Education for the first time, which is was discussed earlier would become the only member who is not appointed by the governor. They would also gain a seat on the California Community Colleges Board of Governors in addition to existing voting roles as a UC regent and a CSU trustee.

As you see on the slide, I don't need to dive into now, but I'm sure for questions, there's also existing responsibilities in voting roles on other boards, other entities, as well as appointment authority that we think can really bring brought into greater coherence to provide a true policy making role while still also having coherence across all of those systems.

And as a result, the proposal would empower the state superintendent public construction both by statute and by having more time and capacity to foster the need alignment and coordination of education policies and priorities from early childhood through post secondary.

And perhaps most importantly, as superintendent Thurman has demonstrated repeatedly, the superintendent of public instruction can continue to serve paying essential function as California's independently elected education champion. Recent SPIs have sponsored legislation. They've worked with governors and legislatures to bring public attention to pressing issues facing students and schools.

While the proposal would shift administrative responsibilities, the Office of the State Super of Public Instruction would have unfettered independence as referenced by the LAO to focus on this critical role as the voters education champion with both legislature, the governor, and on the boards with which they would now have a voting role. They would also be able to build collaboration and coordination across these critical governing entities across all of higher education as well as TK through 12.

And thus, the Office of State Superintendent of Construction could move from a role of being an administrative chief within the department and SBE to truly continuing to serve and elevate as an independent voting architect of California's p 20 continuum. On this point, you've heard some concerns, anticipate we'll hear some later today, about voters expectations for the office. Remember, Bonta, I take your your comments to heart. We believe this proposal sets up the office holder to really deliver as a policy leader.

Right now, the Office of State Superintendents of Public Instruction does not have that voting role on the State Board of Education.

They don't have a role on the California Community Colleges of Education. This would give them voting roles in both places, exercising real policy authority. But this is the two fold proposal. And getting to question of timing, now is clearly the moment to act.

California has had the opportunity to finally deliver on what has been discussed for decades and at a critical time, Because 2026, as everyone in this room certainly knows well, is a transition year for both the governorship and the Office of State Superintendents of Public Instruction.

It's an optimal time to make the shift because executive staff, the only staff that this proposal would directly affect, will be in transition regardless. And while leadership may change, the legislature, all of you here with us and your colleagues, and the State Board of Education whose members have staggered terms, will continue to be sources of stability.

By unifying the policy making board and the department that implements those policies that you, the legislature enact, we can ensure that the legislature can set the next governor and state superintendent of public instruction up for success, not with a crazy quilt of interacting authorities, but with the solid sound foundation for improving upon California's transformative initiatives.

You can provide California schools with strong state level foundation of support to ensure the sustained success of support for initiatives such as all the things that Pupil in this room have have champion. From transitional kindergarten, community schools, universal early screening for leading reading difficulties, apologies, summer school programs, universal meals, before school, after programs, and more.

While there have been shared efforts at close coordination and successful champion of common priorities with superintendent Thurmond, yourselves, and the governor, California can be stronger and even more supportive of local educational agencies as demonstrated by the many other states have been highlighted here today and in the litany of reports that we've read over the past one hundred years. I didn't read them over a hundred years ago, we read them from that time. And they've been highlighted by all who've studied California system since that time.

And the proposal is not just conceptual, it is designed for implementation. And you'll see on the slide, we talked a little bit about the timeline in which this would take place.

The Department of Education, the State Board of Education have been working very well currently. In fact, I'd say that's true not only just in on the during the past seven plus years, but in the previous administration with which I also worked at the State Board. But that's what makes us an ideal time for seamless transition for staff to be coalescing and working together.

There's a transition in governance over the Department of Education that will take place regardless, and the goal would be to be minimally disruptive for existing staff. Again, none of whom except for those who are appointed who would be directly affected.

This proposal would change the structure of the depart would not change the structure of the department outside of the changes at the executive level. Notably, for the first time, for all of those working within the Department of Education, they would be represented in budget and legislative negotiations by the the executive branch.

It is also important to emphasize that while in a period of transition is the optimal time to make such a shift, it is also fair, and we've heard this wariness that due to uncertainty about future leadership, what might this look like? And to this point, I wish to again underscore that the legislature continues to have plenary authority to establish the policy making roles for the state board and the department to which they grant.

Things like the local control funding formula for which the state board was given a fair amount of authority to shape the local control accountability plan and others was a legislative designation by choice to say, we would rather have that done by another entity.

Legislature would continue obviously to continue to maintain that power. So the question before the legislature is not whether California has studied this enough, clearly it has. The question is whether California is prepared to act on what has been known for a very, very long time. The Gallup governor's proposal unifies the policy making board with the Department of Education that implements those policies. Consistent with the key recommendation of all of these reports leading right up to the what LAO recommended earlier today.

The governance proposal also provides the State Superintendents public instruction with additional authority and empowers that office to help align California's education policies again from early childhood all the way through post secondary. And ultimately, well, no governance change is a panacea by itself, there's no silver bullet. This is the point. Without good governance, good schools as we know, especially at the local level where we all see it day in and day out. Without good governance, good schools are the exception, not the rule.

This proposal is a serious effort to bring greater accountability and clarity and coherence to how California serves its students and schools. And for a century, we've inspected the problem. We've written those reports, we've diagnosed those flaws, and we've described the friction. Today, with this hearing, we have the rare chance to bring about an alignment. Let's not leave this for 2034 or even a later legislature to fix it, Let's solve it now.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Oh. Thank you. Good afternoon, doctor Patel, vice chair Hoover, and members of the Assembly Education Committee. I'm Jeannie Myung, director of POCI research at PACE. I wrote the report tk 12 education governance in California past, present, and future with my coauthors doctors Heather Hough and Julie Marsh.

A summary of our report is included in your packet. The report was motivated by a recurring pattern we observed coming out of the pandemic. Even when the state adopted bold student centered policies funded by historic investments, implementation frequently fell short of the policy's potential for students. We drew on historical research, systems analysis, and the perspectives of over 50 leaders from research policy and practice gathered through interviews and expert convening and external review.

Our report found that California's policy aspirations for students are increasingly equity focused, research informed, and student centered.

However, its governance system is not well aligned to move those goals from policy through implementation and into practice in ways that meaningfully and reliably improve learning for students across our state. Universal transitional kindergarten is one example of how a strong policy idea failed to deliver equitable learning opportunities for all eligible students due in large part to governance challenges. The same could be said for the expanded learning opportunities program, the English learner roadmap, or other ambitious policies that have resulted in uneven implementation and inequitable access.

A map of the entities involved in education governance in California appears on page four of the summary. The map evokes an insight from improvement science that every system is perfectly designed to achieve the results that it gets.

California's education governance system certainly is complex, but our mapping also suggests that this complexity reflects important Californian values embedded in the state's approach to governance, including plurality, collaboration, and democratic engagement. The challenge is to now more fully embrace those values by aligning them more clearly with the state's goals for improved student learning. First, plurality. California has built a governance system with many actors and many opportunities for inclusive participation. That plurality can be a strength, but without clear role definition, it can also diffuse responsibility.

It takes a village, but a village where no one knows who is in charge will not function well. And when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge. When no one has clear responsibility for results, ambiguity, delay, and fragmented action are predictable results. Our report's first recommendation is to clarify roles and responsibilities in order to reduce overlap and sharpen accountability. Second, collaboration.

California values collaboration across institutions and levels. In our map, some relationships are more tightly coupled through formal authority such as statutory compliance requirements, while others are more loosely coupled through voluntary collaboration and support. That looseness can be productive. It can allow for adaptation, local judgment, and learning across contexts, but it can also weaken the link between policy intent and policy interpretation. The challenge is not tighter coupling everywhere, but rather tighter linkages at the strategic points where being on the same page matters most.

Structurally aligning the CDE with the State Board is one way to better connect policy with implementation. Third, Democratic engagement. California values public voice and entrusts elected leaders with representing their constituents in decision making at every level of the system. This includes the state's eight constitutional officers, among them the SPI. Each constitutional officer is elected separately and carries an independent Democratic mandate across the state.

If the daily administration of the CDE were to be aligned under the state board, the SPI could more clearly serve as an independent statewide voice for system accountability and evaluation in education. More fundamentally, the current system relies on our independently elected SPI to serve as the chief administrator of policies shaped elsewhere by the governor, the legislature, and the state board. Arguably, this administrative role is mismatched to the stature of an independently elected statewide constitutional office that carries the power of the people.

Consider as an example, the state controller, a constitutional officer responsible for independent oversight of the state's finances, and the director of the Department of Finance, a gubernatorial appointed cabinet level official responsible for budget development and fiscal policy. Both play important but distinct roles in the state's fiscal system.

Just as California separates those two functions of fiscal oversight and fiscal policy for elected and appointed leaders, a similar principle could guide the relationship between the SPE SPI and the leadership of the CDE. Because the SPI is independent of both the governor and the legislature, the office is well suited to lead evaluation and feedback loops for policy improvement and system accountability on behalf of students, reducing reliance on implementers to evaluate their own work. This is not a diminished role.

It is a safeguard of democratic accountability and a role that official that an official directly answerable to voters is uniquely positioned to provide. Our report recommends that the state board appoint a director of the CDE subject to senate confirmation to strengthen both the administrative expertise at the helm of the CDE as well as legislative oversight.

This is about aligning authority, professional expertise, and responsibility in ways that the public can understand and hold accountable. This move will not, on its own, solve the state's broader challenges with implementation, evaluation, and capacity. However, it is a critical first step creating the conditions for more substantive conversations about how to build the capacity needed for high quality support for implementation and improvement. Thank you.

Proceed when ready.

Thank you, madam chair. And to the members of the committee, Tony Thurmond, state superintendent of public instruction. I wanna start first by thanking you, madam chair, for the opportunity to be in this conversation. This is a very significant proposal. And with all due respect to PACE and the state board staff and others, very few have asked us what we think about it.

And it doesn't mean that we do have to agree with it to be included in the research. That could be a minority position. But for the research to be complete, all perspectives should be, included. And so I am grateful, for the opportunity, to be before you all today. I wanna start out just by saying that right off the bat, I don't think that the proposal is a bad thing.

Anytime you can get a governor of any state to be more focused on education, that's actually a very good thing. The question that I ask is again about why and why now. And I appreciate you Assemblymember Alvarez for asking the question. Because what I cannot find in any of the proposals for this governor's shift is any explanation about why and how this will benefit student outcomes. I've not heard it in the presentation from PACE, from the State Board of Education staff.

I I have not heard it. And but you heard from the witnesses in the first panel that making this shift alone will not make student outcomes better. By itself, it will not do that. There is no question that we have a complicated system, and people often ask who does what. But of the more than thousand school districts in this state, I can promise you that those superintendents of those districts and those who run county offices of education, they know who make the decisions.

At the end of the day, everyone knows that the person who has the most influence over what happens in education is the California governor by virtue of the governor's ability to set a budget. That sets the conversation. When I sat in those same seats that you all were sitting in, I remember being told, you show your value by what you put in your budget. And when a governor articulates a vision for a program in the budget, it sets the entire conversation.

You know, I would I would just say that if you wanna make impact in something that's gonna change student outcome, look to the things that are proven, like making sure that every single student knows how to read by third grade.

Yeah. Madam chair, you and I have had these these conversations. California has piecemeal together various programs to support literacy, but has never had a statewide long term plan like many other states have had. And and it's time is now. If we wanna really make impact, we should be looking at programs that help us to close the achievement gap in this state.

No state in the nation has really closed this achievement gap. We should be providing coaches with those who have closed achievement gaps to work with each of our districts to make sure that they have the right elements in place to coach them through closing achievement gap. Just to show you that we are trying to approach this question objectively, We surveyed many of our staff, many who have served at the department for ten years, twenty years, thirty years, some even forty years.

And we asked them to give us feedback about their pros and cons about the proposal. I would say more than two dozen staff have shared intimate perspectives.

Those two dozen staff represent more than a 150 years of experience at the California Department of Education. Not one of those individuals was able to point to where the pros and cons were. They mostly said that they didn't agree with it, and they were concerned about the anxiety that it creates for them about what's going to happen to the department. What's gonna happen to their position? What will happen to the essential functions that have to be carried out?

You've heard references to the need for this for coherency and to lessen tension that exists between the governor's office and the state superintendent's office. But yet, you haven't heard anyone really give a single shred of information, example, or evidence of where that tension exists. You know, I I have to give this governor credit. This governor has leaned into education and done more for education than any governor in modern history. Coming out of the pandemic, programs to help us accelerate learning, high dose tutoring, expanded learning.

This governor has done more than any governor has done in modern times. And I'm proud of the work that we've done together. In the last seven and a half years, it's been cosponsorship of programs like transitional kindergarten, expanded learning funding, community schools funding, and we've had an incredibly close relationship with the state board president, maybe closer than we've ever seen before. Doctor Linda Darling Hammond is America's greatest education researcher.

It has been an honor to work very closely and hand in hand with her on so many of the questions that have come before the state board and the state.

And I can tell you that each of the 1,500 staff at the Department of Education consider and honor to help the State Board of Education prepare for every single meeting to go through every item that is on the board agenda and to help the state board members get clarity about that, to provide recommendations, to help them through some of the stickiest issues that might ever come before us. And so, again, the question of why keeps coming to my mind.

It's been hard for me to see where that tension exists. If you wanna really see impact in education, there are a few things that you can do. In addition to the programs that I mentioned specifically around literacy and closing the achievement gap, the legislature could make more investments in the California Department of Education.

The department has been underfunded and defunded for decades. I I I merely need point to the establishment of the California Collaborative for Excellence in Education, CCEE, A great organization, but an organization that was born out of a conflict from a previous governor and a previous state superintendent, an organization that has absorbed some of the funding that would normally go to the California Department of Education. The department's been asked to do more with less.

If you really wanna see impact, invest more in the department rather than create confusion about the department's role. Over the last several years, I've created new positions at the department because we just couldn't get funding to do it.

We now have two statewide literacy directors, and the only way that we could create those positions was to take existing positions and that basically change their function and turn them into literacy positions. We've done the same thing to create a position for statewide teacher recruitment and retention. We took a million dollars out of our operational budget to give it to school districts to have more money for programs like Freedom School and programs that accelerate mathematics.

And so if you really wanna see impact, make an investment in the infrastructure of the Department of Education rather than weaken it. I do wanna speak to the questions of accountability that have come up today.

You know, and people have said that there's no way to point to blame to any one individual. I'd like to invite you to take a walk with me in any grocery store aisle anywhere in the state of California. Anywhere I go, someone who's got a feeling about education, they are more than happy to share it. They see the state superintendent as being directly responsible for everything that happens within our 10,000 schools. That's not realistic.

We are a local control state as you heard from the presenters. We're not set up to manage what happens at every single school. But as a state superintendent, I accept those responsibilities. I accept even that blame. I just ask that people partner with us to find solutions to make things better.

And in all fairness, I think that the governor receives a fair amount of blame for what people feel should be accelerated progress when there isn't progress. And so I think that the accountability question is the wrong one. It's not who's to blame. It is what are we going to do that is going to move the needle in the state of California. With 10,000 schools and more than a thousand districts, it is hard to move a state in unison.

And so we have been experimenting at ways to move, the needle in math and reading by creating a cohort of districts that work together where where we provide funding to them and technical assistance on how to strengthen reading programs and mathematics instruction. We call it the cohort to move the needle.

There are over, 2,000,000 students in this cohort, many from small rural districts that need access to information about the best professional development that they need to make sure all their staff have to, help to see results in literacy. And so the accountability question has to be, what are we gonna do about it? Again, these proposals don't offer a shred of funding to help move any initiative.

They literally do a lift and shift, and that's it. It it is not fair. Anyone who tells you that we're gonna see better outcomes from doing a lift and shift without any investment in programs or the department itself is just not being honest with you, and they're not being honest with themselves. And so I appreciated deputy superintendent Zeigert's testimony. You all asked him what will the role of the state superintendent be, and you heard it.

It is unclear that as these proposals have it envisioned, the state superintendent would have very little to do. With all due respect, mister Brooks, being able to vote in one or two more committees really isn't giving this the future state superintendent any authority. It's it's really weakening a position that already is fairly structurally weak. But what has always allowed a state superintendent to counter those structural deficits is the ability to sponsor legislation, is the ability to work with the legislature.

As a state superintendent, I I pride the ability to amplify things that districts are saying that they need to members of the legislature and to help districts interpret the intents that are coming from the legislature.

To say that the state superintendent would essentially serve on four or five commissions really is not being honest about the the manner in which this position is being underfunded. If you wanna create an appointed position, do it, but don't create a way to put a person in limbo. If you wanna create an appointed position, acknowledge that the voters of this state have created the state superintendent role to be an independent position, and there are times when that might be necessary.

We may have future governors who are not so supportive of education. And when you have a state superintendent who's elected in an independent way, you have someone who can be a champion to fight back against those who might not, support education.

So we look forward to, you know, what comes out of today's dialogue in this entire conversation about these proposals. We want what is best for students in promoting student outcomes. And if there is some wisdom or some research or some experience that shows that this model is gonna support student achievement, I'll be the first to sign up for it.

Until then, I implore that this legislature focus on the things that we know will make a difference, like making sure we have a five year plan for helping children to learn to read by third grade. I submit this is the completion of my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the members of the committee might have for me.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all in panel two for your testimony today. Certainly, superintendent Thurman, you gave me an opportunity to highlight a bill that I have in front of the legislature, ab 2225. It's along with a package of bills that CSBA is sponsoring to close the achievement gap. And I would like you to take a look at those if you haven't already.

They are are it's a great package of bills to address some of the exact challenges you've been describing.

We'd love to work with you on it. And if you have me, we'd be honored to be a sponsor of the legislation.

Yep. You'll you'll have to work with CSBA who's our lead sponsor, but certainly would be open to those conversations. Turning to mister Brooks, for my first set of questions, I would like to read a brief excerpt from the letter provided by superintendent Jack O'Connell. It states, who's superintendent from 2003 to 2011. During my tenure, I witnessed firsthand how the structural independence of the superintendent's office serves as a practical safeguard for school funding and program delivery.

On more than one occasion, the governor's department of finance contacted my office and asked us to delay dispersing funds to school programs, suggesting that those dollars might be redirected to other state priorities. My response was consistent. My job was to get money out the door to schools as quickly as possible, and we did. That highlights one of the challenges that I think we might have to think about as we consider this shift.

As noted in O'Connell's letter, there has been value in the past of an superintendent of public instruction being independent of both the legislature and the governor.

Can you please describe the impact of the proposal related to the shift of power in in the education commissioner overseeing the day to day operations of the CDE, and how you envision the legislature continuing to have the same or I would prefer better level of input in its interactions with the department as it has today.

There is a lot of concern from my legislative colleagues that we're gonna see a sort of erasure or reduction in access and cooperation and collaboration, not necessarily with this governor, but any number of governors to come?

Appreciate the question. I think probably take a step back when we think about what would what would shift and what would change. I think as as we've heard the discussion across both panels today, I think one common theme has been in the act in actual policy making authority, borrowed the words of superintendent Thurmond. Folks see that the governor and legislature have ultimate budget authority, legislative authority. Right?

It's passed bills, governor signs the bills, goes to budget, you send a budget, sends it over. All of that does not change. Right? Nothing about this proposal shifts any of that. Any of the responsibilities that the s SB has and the CD have are really dictated by the legislature, and then ultimately the governor in terms of signing those pieces.

That does not shift. The challenge that can come up and, you know, I take some points made earlier, you can work together really well. The structure is not set up for that. We have all worked closely to try to make sure that's not the case. You don't have a challenge currently as they did in the early nineties, where you have a fight over appointments, where it has to literally get litigated in the courts to figure out what's going to happen.

You don't have a situation where you have a state board who is having to enact really micromanagement policies about every aspect of an operation of a management department because it's under a separately elected constitutional for day to day management, but not for policy. We don't have those conflicts. That's part of the reason why this is actually a pretty good time to do it because you have folks who've been working well together.

You have superintendent Thurman and governor Newsome really agreeing on if he had someone he wants to appoint, governors gonna appoint him. Right?

That that's been working out. That does not have to be the case. The structure is not set up for that to be the case. And that is why we see if we look back over the past hundred years, this continues to come up as a structural problem. We can do a workaround.

That's what we do currently, or we can really set it up to have effective success. To to your last point, now I wanna make sure I hit each of them. There is this question of and I've heard this from a number of members and we've had chance to go around have some visits.

That there is a concern that there would be less access to the expertise that the folks in the California Department of Education have when it comes time to either discuss your bills, talk about implementation, and those types of things. Obviously, I can't speak to the commitments to any future governors.

Certainly, you know, that from this governor, we show up to everything for his staff. But I'm here. But if there's anything else for future governors, clearly, there is some part of that that will be part of that struggle. I've actually had chance to talk to some of my colleagues who are agency secretaries and said, hey. I've been hearing this concern as we've been walking around talking about this.

Is this is this the thing that happens? They said, yeah. Occasionally, it is. Right? There is sometimes there has been this tension about, like, do we get full access?

So I fully appreciate the well, I more fully appreciate now. I haven't had those conversation that that is sometimes an active tension and and our area of concern. There's no reason under our current structure though, I would argue, and that there's any reason we don't have the same uncertainty about who comes into office. Should nothing come of this proposal after today. Nothing moves forward, doesn't move forward in the budget, bill doesn't move forward.

Status quo, the same thing that folks have found to be a problematic and broken for over a hundred years. So we look forward to future reports to talk about it. But that's where we are. Do you have the guarantee that you have greater access to staff, the expertise of the folks at the California Department of Education two years from now?

That will be dependent both upon who is elected as the office of state superintendent of public instruction at that time just in the same way that is who is elected governor. There's uncertainty in both places. And so that's why we've also talked about this being a really critical point of transition for the legislature to be able to enact these changes to the comments made before with a forward looking role of how we shape this. Because during this uncertainty, the legislature and the board, because of those staggered terms, are really our only point of stability. We have uncertainty in terms of what the executive branch will look like.

We have uncertainty about what the next office of sub superintendent of public instruction will look like depending who fills that role.

So I grant you that I think that that's a a valid concern. I realize it's been an experience that some have had, but I think that that uncertainty exists either direction.

Thank you for that. Those uncertainties certainly are in existence, and and that is always a possibility as well. We do observe a difference in interactions with elected offices versus the governor's office. And we just wanna make sure that we continue to receive the same level of transparent, open communication as we form our policies. We need that.

That that research, support, data, it's all very helpful. When it comes to, specifically, around the point of the SPI's role not being clearly defined in your position, that is very troubling to me. We heard the comments from assembly member, Vanta, that this essentially creates a vestigial organ or a vestigial appendage.

Appendage. Yeah.

Very concerned around that. Yep. As well as concerned around to extend the human body metaphor, preparing for surgery, but not really having a plan for for the surgery or for recovery. It it it it's a big concern that we're not thinking about that role and the power that that role has. Without power, it's hard to, have influence.

No matter how many reports you wanna, write and present, if you don't have that power, you don't have influence. So the LAO had some recommendations to include that, describe further identifying the SPI's duties, such as representing the interests of the public, reporting on the state of education, and evaluating laws and programs. Can you please share your thoughts as to whether and how these recommendations could align with the governor's proposal, especially considering you're not, adding any new staff or new budget to that rule?

Yeah. And I

I And are you open to further consideration?

Yes. And I think in in my role here today, I just wanna be clear. I think this understood, but just have to stay for the record. Obviously, I can't commit to anything that folks I report to make commitments to. But to that extent, I can say, yes.

I think that, you know, we had the opportunity to obviously read the report. Somebody member Alvarez noted very well, put together a report. I think the ideas that were raised for all ones that we think are good points, worthy of careful consideration. I don't think there was anything that was raised there that, we would view as being inconsistent with the the general direction of of where the governor's proposal goes.

I do think that with respect to this idea I'm not gonna at risk of really damaging that metaphor, so I'm not gonna go into it.

I will say, I think I wonder there's been reference to it being potentially just like two committees. I don't think that the governing board of the California Community Colleges is just a committee to have a vote on. I think that's meaningful. We think that's meaningful.

We think that a vote on the State Board of Education, not just because I've staffed it a couple of times, but because it is the policy making body for the department and for our California public schools that to date has only had gubernatorial appointees.

The changing that history to actually provide an office that has been referenced is not really having the policy authority, but only administrative authority is meaningful. It is one of 11 granted as one on some of these bodies where it's one of many. Just like every individual legislator is not, you know, a body and a two yourselves, You guys vote as a a joint committee, but having that vote is critical and it's important. It means you're making policy.

If you don't have that role and the current office of state superintendent of public instruction doesn't on the State Board of Education, It is an administrative role to implement those policies passed by the legislature or subsequently by the State Board of Education under a charge given by the legislature.

This would change that fundamentally, giving more voting power. It would also unify in a way that really we haven't seen across higher ed. Right now, the Office of State Supern Hub of Instruction has the ability to vote on the UC regents and as a CSU trustee.

By adding the California Community Colleges, you have an office holder who would be able to actually have a voting role and be able to bring a charge to all three entities across all of higher ed, which we know even outside of other folks know way more about higher than I do. I really work in the k 12 level.

Doctor Don Lee Hammond, who superintendent referenced earlier certainly does. Be really critical, especially when given the time and capacity, we're no longer having to worry about the management of a large bureaucracy with over 2,000 folks to really play an effective role about championing policies across all three of those governing entities for higher ed. In addition, also having on the k 12 side an ability to have a voting role. We know it's meaningful. Means you get to pull things off consent.

Means you get to be in closed session. Means even if you aren't in the majority of vote, you really get to make a difference. That's meaningful. And we would think this is part of the reason why I laid this out on the slide, but we couldn't even capture all the bodies that the office of state superintendent public construction gets added to.

Because the legislature often when wanting to say, hey, we would like there to be a voice for k 12 on an entity, Kinda writes in the office of state superintendent of public construction, puts it in there.

And yet there's no way, there's no human way that any one of our superintendents can can really serve in all of those roles simultaneously in addition to all of the other duties they have, and be an effective policy champion across all those on behalf of the voters. There's just no way. You have to send deputies, yes, and other folks. It's just an it's an inhuman task to say to be spread across.

So this is really saying, look, the voters elect the office of state the state superintendent of public instruction to be our champion in education, let them actually serve in those roles, be their present in those meetings, vote, have a meaningful voice in all of those various meetings and then be able to actually pull those folks together.

We think that that actually is a really meaningful role and isn't just kind of something would be left on the operating room table.

Thank you for closing out that reference. Appreciate that.

Glad to bring it home.

You're saying that the pro proposal would create efficiencies, and I see where it would streamline decision making and accountability. But how would this benefit the legislature? What's in it for us? I think that's very important to ask, and I'm gonna be very transparent about it. What's in it for us?

Yeah.

I mean, I I said earlier, and I think, you know, the the case was referenced earlier and it it I keep I'll go back to it because I do think that it governed so much of what the legislature has done with respect to educational structures where frankly what we live is that decision by the Court of Appeals in in the Hone case. And I returned to it because you read it, it repeatedly makes the point that you all have the power.

You have plenary power that you can add and subtract as the legislature has done repeatedly throughout California's history. Creating the entities. Right?

Taking them down, creating new entities. It was referenced earlier, new bodies that you created. You all have the authority to do all of that. The most meaningful task that the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education take on are charges that really come from the legislature. If those are the community schools grants, superintendent Thurman talked about is is one of these wonderful shared priorities that came from the legislature.

Right? With the governor. If it talks about everything that they do, you talk about curriculum. They've sent things over frankly, sometimes saying, hey, we don't want this to get into the details to figure out those that's thorny issues. Let's let the State Board of Education and CDE figure that out together.

Right? That gets sent over. Those are all things that are done with your delegation of authority, not without it. So to the extent that there are very limited exceptions to that, perhaps you could say like the State Board has waiver power. Right?

So there is an ability for local educational agencies to come up to the state board to ask for a waiver of existing code. That arguably is an exception. You all get to dictate the scope of that authority. You pass laws every year that say whether something is subject to a waiver or not. There are things when LCFF that say no, nothing with respect to LCFF can be waived.

That was some done by the legislature. So ultimately, at the end of the day, I'd say what's there for you, you guys have the power to dictate the terms of the arrangement. Have historically over time and can do so again.

Madam chair? Might I just offer something to the question that you just asked about what's seen it for the legislature?

I I am gonna get to you, but if you wanna put in a brief comment, I'm open to that.

It's real brief. I just think that there's actually more to lose from the standpoint of the legislature. When we come before this committee on any question that the legislative committees are trying to answer, we come having gotten information from school districts about where they need help. And, you know, Assemblymember Vonta talked about, it is true.

It is complicated to have county offices of education, But we use the county offices of education who can talk to 20 or 30 districts in their county, and we communicate with many diff large and small.

The legislature would lose that ability to hear what a thousand plus districts are saying they need help with and would lose the superintendent has the ability to convene ad hoc structures that ultimately inform the legislative committees. This happened during the pandemic. We found out immediately that there were a million students who didn't have a computer or access to the Internet, period. End of story. And we were able to bring in Internet service providers to say, hey.

You've gotta give Internet to everyone for $15 or free, especially for our low income families. From that grew a legislative proposal that ultimately secured $6,000,000,000 for broadband across the state. And so those two votes that the SBI would gain on those two committees, that is not gonna cement this sort of, you know, cohesion of all the different systems of education. They're just two votes. And think of all the things that's gonna be lost in exchange to get those two votes.

Thank you. Turning to our representative from PACE, miss Myung, I have a question for you. I'm gonna try to be brief so that my committee members can also get, get their questions asked. If you think of the potential elements of governance reform as a menu, you have outlined several options. The governor's proposal cherry picked some of those and left some on the table.

And we also didn't see any kind of prioritizing which would be best, which is dependent on another. Can you please elaborate on which parts of the proposal that the governor's office did take and what was left on the table that you might suggest we reconsider?

Thank you for the question. I would say that the first recommendation that we that we made that we thought was necessary but not sufficient was picked up in the governor's proposal, which is to align the CDE with the state board to reduce that that gap between policy and implementation. And so I I would say that that is the first step that would allow for a stronger implementation of the policies.

And I think that would circle back to your first question, doctor Patel, about what's in it for the legislature. I think the legislature has really done a fantastic job.

Like I said, the the policies passed are student centered, research informed, equity focused. But once the policies are written, once the press conferences are held, I would love for those policies to make more impact on students so that we could see that impact in the classroom on student learning. So I I do think that the next phase after,

should the this, governance reform happen, would would be a focus on, stronger support for implementation and improvement. And then, secondarily, I think, the I think something that's lost in our current structure is this ability for an outside entity to honestly evaluate how our systems are operating.

And, I think as was brought up before, I think by the LAO, we really have a terrific opportunity with an external independent, constitutional officer who could provide that sort of perspective and that evaluation capacity so that we're not relying again on the implementers to evaluate their own work.

Thank you for that. It's important for us to consider the whole body of your work. Your research was very thorough and appreciate that. Thank you. For superintendent Thurman, it's kind of a two sided question, and I hope you can answer on both sides of the question.

If the governance structure proposed by the governor had been in place during your eight year tenure, how would any of your initiatives turned out differently? And the flip side of that question is, would an education commissioner appointed by the governor not be able to conduct some of those same initiatives?

To start with the latter part of your question, a commissioner appointed by the governor won't have the ability to initiate initiatives that may not necessarily be priorities for the governor. And, you know, I'll give an example of two that have come in this way. In this very committee, it was impossible for a bill that would have expanded dyslexia screening to even get a hearing. And it's not that the governor wasn't interested in it, but the governor didn't weigh in on the subject.

And when I wrote a letter in support of the bill, the governor immediately put dyslexia screening fully funded into the budget.

Now the person who was appointed by the governor isn't going to write a letter to the committee supporting a bill that has some controversy on both sides if their boss, the governor, isn't weighing in on that subject. And so I, you know, I can give you countless examples of where something got got initiated. Doesn't mean that the governor didn't care about it.

You know, I sponsored a bill to make personal finance a graduation requirement that was not initially articulated by the governor, but the governor did eventually come on board and sign on to it. And he values it, and he speaks about it often.

And so you lose the ability of an independent individual to offer initiatives that maybe no one else offers. And here's the final example I'll give you. Coming out of the pandemic, we found that there weren't enough substitute teachers, but there were retired teachers who wanted to substitute, and they couldn't substitute because of the restrictions on being a retiree. And I sponsored legislation to change the rules around the length of time that a retiree can come back without being penalized.

They shouldn't lose their pension for being able to teach.

No one wanted that bill to be done. No one. Everyone said, don't do this bill. And if there wasn't an independently elected state superintendent, would anyone have brought that forward? Today, that bill passed, and it gives school districts the ability to hire substitute teachers, who want to spend more time helping us until we can find more substitutes to fill those vacant roles.