Senate Standing Committee on Education

Education Committee and the Senate Budget Committee to come to order. We are holding this as a joint hearing intentionally. While the Governor's Education Governance Proposal has been put forward through the budget process, it raises a significant number of policy questions that warrant a more robust discussion than the budget process alone typically provides us. This is not a minor change. It is a proposal that would reshape how authority, responsibility, and accountability are organized at the state level for our public education system.

It's important that we take the time to fully understand both what is being proposed and what it is intended to achieve. At the same time, I want to ground today's conversation and what matters most, which is our students. California is a local control state. Decisions that most directly affect teaching and learning are made by school boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers across our communities. Central question for us today is, what does this proposal actually mean for students?

And will it improve student outcomes, respective committees fielded a range of perspectives on this. For some, governance structure is fundamental to improving outcomes. Implementation. We are also interested in understanding how other states approach education governance. Different states have adopted different models, and we want to better understand how those systems are structured, how they function in practice, and most importantly, what impact they had on student learning and the achievement gap.

And this is my guidepost as I consider this policy decision and its impact. Today's hearing is organized into three panels. The first panel will focus on the governor's proposal and the rationale behind it. The second panel will step back and examine the broader relationship between governance, the state's role in a local control system, and what that means for improving outcomes. Local education leaders who are responsible for implementing state policy and working directly with students every day.

I'm especially looking forward to that discussion as it is critical that we understand how this proposal would or would not change what happens on the ground. I also want to acknowledge that there are many important voices in this conversation, including those representing educators, administrators, student equity advocates, and others across the state. These perspectives are essential, and we value their role in shaping education policy. Given time constraints, we were not able to include every perspective on today's agenda. Politics.

It is about understanding whether and how changes to state governance can help us better serve students in California. We will take public comment at the end of the hearing. I ask that members of the public keep their comments to one minute. First panel on the Governor's Proposal.

And we have, Brooks Allen, who's the Executive Director of the State Board of Directors, and we have, the Executive Director of the State Board of Directors, and we have, And we have, Brooks Allen, who's the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, Amber Alexander, the Assistant Program Budget Manager for the Department of Finance, Sarah Cortez, the Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst for the LAO, and Kenneth Capahann, the Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst, also for the LAO. And you all may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, madam chair. I'll just Hi. Good morning. My name is Brooks Allen and I serve as the executive director of the California State Board of Education and the education policy adviser to governor Gavin Newsom. Thank you, Chair Perez, senators, for the opportunity to appear today, to discuss this historic proposal.

For this hearing, to the chair's, focus, I will focus on Governor Newsom's proposal to strengthen California's education governance system. And first and foremost, this proposal is about accountability for delivering results for our children to your point. This structure is one that we need to evaluate through deciding if it is truly aligned to support schools well, implement policy coherently and allow the state to be held accountable for 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 now is a particularly critical moment for action. Notably, this proposal is not about responding to a new critique.

It is finally responding to a long standing one. In fact, I bet the legislature will not consider a single proposal this year in any area that has been studied as extensively as this one even before we consider the multi hour assembly informational hearing that we've had and the relayed bill hearing for assembly members Alvarez and Patel's AB 2117. As the governor has said, California can no longer afford to postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for nearly a century.

And the reason that this message resonates is that California has heard essentially the same warning over and over again. For decades as we'll hear a little bit more, from the legislative analyst office, every major non partisan and bipartisan review has identified the same fatal flaw.

California's K12 governance system is governed by different entities with overlapping rules that at times in our state's history have operated in conflict with each other to the detriment of educational services afforded to students. When the legislature, governor and the state superintendent public construction called for the first series of getting down to facts 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. Unquote.

And as noted by the legislative analyst office, when it has summarized governance reports published over twenty five years, it is found that all studies have recommended, making the governor the clear head of executive functions. I will not, in the interest of time, 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 that they serve. Every objective analysis has made the case for the reform proposed. Turning to that proposed reform, and I've offered there are some slides. I'm like reading them through but I know you have these in your packet.

If you'd like to look at slide six, we provide a visual of what I'll be describing here which essentially is the status quo of how California's current system operates. 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 when there should be flow, making it harder to link policy direction and execution in a way this legislature and the public can clearly evaluate.

For example, current law charges the state superintendent of public construction with quote, executing under the direction of the State Board of Education, the policies which have been decided upon by the board, unquote.

The state board whose members are all appointed by the governor is quote, the governing and policy determining body of the department unquote and is designated as the state educational agency to carry out the purposes of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Schools Act which as you all know here is the primary federal law funding k 12 education.

Moreover, the state constitution and the education code currently require that all of the state superintendent public instructions, deputy and associate superintendents must either be appointed by the governor or by the governor's state board of education. That is our status quo. The Governor's proposal is designed to fix this structural challenge that's been recognized over time.

Lifting up the statutory solution that was actually proposed by this legislature's 2002 master plan to finally modernize the governance system by unifying policy making state board of education with the department of education that implements those policies. We will not be moving from a model of managed conflict.

We will be moving towards a model of managed results. And 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 an experienced education administrator similar to high performing states with appoint- appointed chief officials such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. And it would empower the state superintendent public construction with new roles and authority to help align our education policies from early childhood through college.

This two part proposal would thereby bring greater accountability, clarity and coherence to how we serve our students and our schools. By eliminating what has been called the double headed system, the proposal will enable coherent and consistent state level implementation and support to local educational agencies that will lead to improved student outcomes.

The proposal aligns the TK through 12 management functions of the California Department of Education with the budget and policy responsibilities associated with the governor and the executive branch. Therefore, improving transparency and allowing the state to be held accountable for carrying out its roles in support of education delivery. And this would be the next slide if you're looking for the visual of how this would work. And I think this is the central challenge that the legislature faces. It is not enough to change for change sake.

Consistent with the legislature's plenary authority that has been exercised repeatedly throughout our state's history to shape the roles and responsibilities of our state education entities. For example, the legislature created the department of education itself in 1921. This proposal would ensure that when the state sets priorities, funds them and asks local educational agencies to deliver, there is a clear structure for support, execution and accountability.

Importantly, this proposal strengthens accountability while also seeking to build on the demonstrates successes of recent state superintendents of public instruction as public champions of key educational issues on behalf of the voters to actually increase the policy making authority of that office. They will become a voter of, a voting member of the State Board of Education for the first time.

This would become the only member throughout state's history who is not appointed by the governor. They would also gain a seat on the California Community College Board of Governors in addition to their existing roles as a UC regent and as a CSU trustee.

As a result, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction's Office would be empowered both by statute and by having more time and capacity to foster needed alignment and coordination of education policies and priorities from early childhood through post secondary education for the betterment of California students. And perhaps most importantly, the state superintendent of public construction will continue to serve as California's independently elected education champion. Recent SPIs have sponsored legislation and worked with governors and legislatures to bring public attention to pressing issues facing students and schools.

While this proposal shifts administrative responsibilities, the state superintendent of public instruction who is elected in this next election cycle will have unfettered independence to focus on this critical role as the voters education champion with the legislature and the governor and increasingly serve as a force for building collaboration across all the state education governing bodies. And thus, the state superintendent of PUP construction will move from a role of an administrative chief to an independent policy champion of California's P 20 continuum.

And this is the two fold proposal. And now as I discussed is the moment to act. California has an opportunity to finally deliver on what has been discussed for decades.

And at this critical time, because 2026 is an election year and a transition time for both the governorship and the state super temp of public construction office, this is the optimal time to make the shift. Because executive staff, staff like me and the only staff who are actually affected by this proposal will already be in transition regardless. Those who are both appointees under the State Board of Education and appointees within the California Department of Education.

And while leadership may change, the legislature, all of you and your colleagues and the State Board of Education with their staggered terms will remain our sources of stability. By unifying the policy making board with the department that implements those policies, we will ensure that the legislature sets the governor and the state superintendent of public construction up with a system built for success, not this crazy quilt of interacting authorities.

You can empower this California schools with a strong state level foundation of support to ensure the sustained success, success of initiatives that transform the promise of public education in our state. From transitional kindergarten to community schools, the universal early screening for reading difficulties, the literacy coaches and unprecedented expansions in before, after, and summer school opportunities and universal meals for all students every day. This, ultimately, this proposal is about protecting the unprecedented state investments made by this legislature.

We're building a governance foundation capable of guiding and supporting long term implementation of these critical initiatives long after the current administration's transition. And while there have been close efforts at share at shared efforts at close coordination and successful champion of common priorities, California can be stronger and more supportive of local educational agencies as demonstrated by what other states have done and highlighted by all of those who have studied California systems over the years.

So after nearly a century of change, century of calls for change, California can now no longer can no longer afford to not respond to this call to respond to a better coordinated set of education governance systems. We must move to a model that most states have demonstrated can be more successful. And this proposal is not purely conceptual. It is designed for implementation.

The Department of Education and the State Board of Education are working together well currently which makes this again an ideal time for the seamless transition for the next governor and the nay next state superintendent of public instruction.

The transition in governance over the education is expected to be minimally disruptive for most existing staff. In fact, the proposal's impact will be at the executive level where transitions again will be expected with the upcoming elections regardless. And notably for the first time, the department of education will be directly represented in budget and legislative negotiations by the executive branch.

It is important to emphasize that while a period of transition is the optimal time to make such a shift because executive staff again, the only staff directly affected by this proposal would be in transition regardless. We also recognize it can be a time for some weariness due to the uncertainty about our future leadership in the state.

And to that point, I wish to underscore that the legislature and the state board of education remain these key sources of stability in either scenario that we face. So the question before the legislature is not whether California has studied this enough. It has. The question is whether California has prepared to act on what we have known for a very long time.

The governor's proposal unifies the policy making state board of education with the department of ed that implements those policy consistent with the key recommendations from so many reports right up through those that you will hear about today from PACE and the Legislative Analyst's Office.

And the governor's proposal also provides the state superintendent of public construction with additional authority and empowers that office to help align California's education policies from early childhood through college. And ultimately, well, no governance change is a panacea by itself. Of course, this is the point. Without good governance, good schools are the exception, not the rule. This proposal is a serious effort to bring greater accountability, clarity and coherence to how California serves its students and schools.

For over a century, we've inspected the problem. We've written reports. We've diagnosed the flaws and we've described the friction. Today, we you have the rare opportunity to align the terms, leadership and shared priorities to finally fix this problem. Let's not leave this for 2034 or an even later legislature to solve. Let's solve it now. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

It should be red like that.

I'm glad it wasn't just me. Good morning chair and members. Amber Alexander with the Department of Finance. I'll be focusing my remarks on the fiscal aspects of the proposal following the in-depth overview that was just provided by mister Allen from the State Board of Education. I'll begin by covering the staffing shifts from the State Board of Education to the Department of Education that will occur under the proposal.

These shifts are shown on slide 11 from the deck that, mister Allen was referencing during his presentation. Under current law, Education Code Section 33,043, the governor is authorized to appoint a total of six deputies to the executive director of the State Department of Education. The governor's budget proposal will transfer these six deputies to the Department of Education and they will report to the education commissioner as of 01/01/2027.

These six deputies are currently funded from within the State Board of Education budget item and can be seen in item 61,090,001 when looking at the budget bill. Recognizing that these positions will transfer halfway through the fiscal year 2026-27, the May revision will include budgetary and provisional language changes to reduce the State Board of Education item by an amount that equals the cost of supporting these positions for half of a year.

The Department of Education's main 100,001,001, will be increased by a like amount so that the positions are retained within the department and funded at the current service level. Beginning in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, twenty eight and beyond, the full costs of these positions will be carried under the Department of Education budget.

With some exceptions, all civil service employees of the State Board of Education that are engaged in functions that are transferred to the Education Commissioner will also be transferred to the Department of Education as of 01/01/2027. Cost to support these positions along with position authority will also shift from the State Board of Education budget item to the Department of Education main state operations item. The May revision will include changes to effectuate the cost neutral transfer of these civil service employees.

Additionally, as shown on slide 11, Education Code Section 33,143 currently authorizes the appointment of five deputy superintendents and five associate superintendents by the governor upon recommendation of the superintendent of public instruction. These 10 appointments are currently budgeted within the Department of Education's main state operations item. Beginning 01/01/2027, these positions will also report to the education commissioner and subsequent appointments will be made solely by the governor.

No budgetary changes are necessary to effectuate the proposed change in reporting structure since these positions will remain under the Department of Education. I'll move now to covering the transfers that will occur from the Department of Education to the proposed office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

This transfer is illustrated on slide 12 of Mr. Allen's slide deck that was provided to the committee. The California Constitution provides the superintendent of public instruction with the authority to select a deputy and an employee of their choosing pursuant to section four of Article seven. In addition, section 2.1 of Article nine of the California Constitution authorizes one deputy superintendent and three associate superintendents of public instruction to be appointed to serve under the superintendent.

Under the Governor's budget proposal, the superintendent of public instruction will retain these six constitutionally authorized positions and they will shift along with the superintendent to the proposed office of the superintendent of public instruction.

In addition, the governor's budget proposal authorizes the superintendent to transfer up to five positions from the Department of Education to serve as staff within the new office. These five positions, along with the constitutionally authorized positions mentioned earlier, are currently all funded within the Department of Education's main state operations item.

Once again recognizing that these positions will will transfer halfway through the fiscal year twenty twenty six-twenty seven, the May revision will include budgetary and provisional language changes to reduce the Department of Education's item by a May by an amount that equals the cost of supporting these positions for half of a year. The 11 staff members in the new office will fully support the superintendent in carrying out their roles and authority, including board responsibilities and advancing the superintendent's education agenda.

At the May revision, costs for the new office of the superintendent of public instruction will be shown under a newly established budget budget unit that has been set up in order to allocate funding and position authority to the office beginning in the budget year.

The full cost and position authority to support the superintendent, the six constitutionally authorized positions, and the five transferred employees will be reflected under the new budget unit beginning in 2027, 2028 and beyond. As mentioned previously, the transition in governance over the Department of Education is expected to be minimally disruptive for most existing staff with a direct impact at the executive level, similar to any other transition to the new superintendent that would occur at this time.

That concludes my remarks, but I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee at the appropriate time.

Good morning. Sara Cortez with the Legislative Analyst's Office. The Sergeants have distributed a report that we, we released analyzing the governor's budget proposal on education governance. It looks like this. I'll spend my time today discussing the recommendations in the report.

We recommend adopting the proposal to shift management to CDE of CDE to an appointed commissioner. We see a lot of benefits of this governance structure strengthened by a long history of research. In our report, we highlight the change in governance would promote greater coherence in policy making, clearer lines of accountability, better alignment between policy development and administration, and it could result in a clearer direction of support for districts.

In addition to this recommendation, we have a we have other recommendations with regard to the newly proposed education commissioner, the superintendent of public instruction, and the state board of education that I would characterize as refinements to the proposal. Our recommendation falls in one of three categories.

First is preserving legislative oversight. We think many of the potential benefits could be lost or eroded if the legislature does not preserve its oversight role, in the new governance system, clarifying duties of the of the entities, and fiscal planning. And I'd note that we've heard some new details today around the fiscal planning, and we look forward to analyzing these changes as part of the mayor vision.

For the education commissioner, we recommend adopt, but require adopt the creation of the newly appointed commissioner, but require the commissioner to be subject to the Senate confirmation process. This is a key oversight tool for the legislature to better understand the commissioner's credentials, past employment history, key priorities for leading the department, and also allow school leaders and the public to provide input on the selected individual.

We recommend that all this governance all of these governance changes, we recommend a cost neutral fiscal plan. Given the scope of the proposal, we think this could be done in a cost neutral way and we recommend we're recommending details on the fiscal plan. So what is shifting where, the size of the different, entities budget and position authority.

For the superintendent of public instruction, the SPI, we recommend adopting the proposal to create the new office of the SPI and making the SPI a voting member of the State Board and the board of governors. We also recommend modifying trailer bill to clearly define the SPI's duties.

And without clearly defining the role, we think there's a risk. The risk is that what the SPI does could change quite significantly depending on the individual holding the office. We want to maintain those clear lines of accountability, so defining the role so there isn't confusion about what the different entities are doing. So we lay out a vision for the SPI's role within our report. The SPI would be a public representative, an advisor, an independent evaluator.

The first of these activities would be to represent the public. So focus the SPI could focus on topics that are of greatest interest to the public. The rationale here is the chosen because the voters found the policy platform compelling, so the SBI could have some flexibility to focus on pressing priorities. An example we were included in our report would be, technology use in schools. The second activity would be to report on the state of education.

We envision the SPI traveling across the state, speaking with interested parties of the education community, which would allow the SPI to report on key education issues, major challenges, and the SBI could make recommendations on how to address those key challenges. And then the third activity for the SBI would be to 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.

For the state, board of education, we recommend refining the State Board's role to focus on major policies requiring public input and shifting administrative functions that don't need public input to the commissioner. For example, numbering new charter schools doesn't require the public forum that the state board has with regular public meetings and diverse perspectives.

We also offer that the legislature consider adding legislative appointees of the State Board of Education to enable the legislature to have greater oversight. That concludes my remarks. I'm joined that concludes my remarks. I'm joined by my colleague, Ken Kapphahn, and we're happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Ken Kapphahn with the analyst office. No additional comments, but here for questions.

Thank you all for your presentation. I will go ahead and get started. I have a a couple of different, questions. I think first and foremost, I I wanna speak a little bit to the implementation timeline that's been laid out and that you included, in the, PowerPoint presentation that you provided.

So, you know, part of the implementation timeline goes, obviously, through summer and fall while we're here, while this current administration is here, And then a large portion of it goes into January 2027, and as you know, we are about to elect a new governor.

Who that may be is still yet to be seen. And so, what happens then if we have a new administration come in who wants to go a different direction and doesn't agree with, this, change in in governance that, that you're looking to implement? And how does that potentially create challenges then?

Thank you for the question. I think if the question were to be that if the governor were the new governor were to come in and say, I actually don't wanna move forward with what the legislature has passed and enacted. There frankly wouldn't be much option other than they could choose not to appoint some folks in those offices which reflects a little bit of what we have in the status quo now. So if if we have maintained status quo, nothing moves forward with this proposal.

A new governor comes in who let's say is not a strong supporter of public education.

They would have the ability to essentially freeze, both state board and the department of ed because with a new state superintendent public instruction, pretty much their entire executive staff would have to be approved by the governor in terms of those appointments. And then of course with respect to making new appointments on staggered terms for state board, but that will take more time. So in either scenario, you potentially have something where if you have a governor just says, hey, I really wanna breeze everything out.

That is a potential shared risk. But the hope would be, that regardless of what they do, because of the legislature's plenary authority to dictate the terms of these things and given this is in the law, if they wanted to have anyone carrying out what they would hope to be their education priorities, they would need to fill those positions and move forward.

But I would just continue to emphasize that the points of stability regardless of what happens maintains the fact that or really rests in two areas. One is that all of you and your colleagues have the ability to shape the charge of what goes to the state board of ed and to the department of ed. Right? That that ultimately is the authority. State board doesn't get to do anything.

Legislature doesn't essentially give to it or to take away. And then with respect to those positions and appointments, everything that gets appoint all the people who are appointed to the State Board of Ed ultimately have to be confirmed by the Senate. So those are still two important points of control for the legislature.

Have have you all had any conversations with any of the potential folks that are maybe, you know, coming into this administration to talk with them about the changes that you're proposing here and to make sure that they're aware that this is an item up for consideration that they may be potentially looking at implementing should they be elected to this new office in this new role and some of the implications here because I think that that's really important to take into account, so that there's continuity given that the current administration is only going to be in office for the next seven months.

Yeah. So, we absolutely did reach out, to almost all, not every single one, but, most of the SBI candidates, to talk about this proposal, both around the time when the governor first made the announcement in January, both ahead of time and leading into it to discuss, what the vision was and what we thought the great opportunities could be for someone taking this office. Has been noted.

Most state super toughs about construction come in and speaks a little bit to what my colleague miss Cortez was discussing, have a policy platform. Right? We know that our current candidates have all espoused different ideas for how they focus that platform.

We think this proposal would allow each and every one of them an ability to be champions with the legislature and the governor on those issues that they think are really critically important and really free them up to play these existing roles like being a UC regent to CSU trustee along with the new roles like being a state board member who gets to vote and California Community College of Governors and have the time to do that.

One of the central challenges for our current state superintepla constructions that we've had over our our state's history has been they've also got this massive bureaucracy to manage. They got everything else. So to actually be actively engaged in each one of those governing bodies, is frankly just asking too much of any one individual.

So this would really free them up to do that and would allow any of the potential candidates right now, to really carry out some of their policy priorities through those voting rules.

So you said that you spoke to the SPI candidates. Have you spoken to the gubernatorial candidates about the potential of this proposal?

I have not.

Okay. Because they're going to be a part of the implementation process as well. Right? I mean, this is shifting authority under whoever is the next governor under under their role. Yeah.

You know, I I know that there has been a lot of talk. And as I started this too, I I discussed a lot the importance of student outcomes. Right? And I know we've sat down and had conversations about, that being kind of my guiding star, and this is what is ultimately gonna improve student outcomes, and and how this will benefit students. How would the legislature evaluate whether this governance change was successful?

Who do we hold accountable if this change isn't successful? What are what are gonna be our metrics of success if we were to move forward with something like this?

With with great respect, I I leave this to how, you and your and your colleagues would decide what you would choose as your metrics. If you'd those that I might suggest would be, you know, if we think about the same sorts of issues that have been identified over the past hundred years as points of friction when the legislature passes new programs and policy initiatives and seeks to see those implemented quickly and successfully.

Part of what has led to some of these critiques over the decades, again, trying to be forward looking, is we don't want to see that happen again. We want to see these things moving. If the legislature decides priority, we want to see it implemented.

We want to see it implemented with Fidelity and we want to see success coming out of that program. Ultimately, kinds of students level successes you'd want to see from those investments. And are the state structures, being successful in that? I would hope that, colleagues such as those I know speak on the third panel and those from around the state as local leaders would be able to tell you and and your colleagues we're seeing the kind of support that we'd hope to see.

We're seeing the kind of consistency and we know how we can hold folks accountable for those actions.

Those would be the kinds of qualitative results that we would hope you'd see as a metric of success. And then ultimately, in terms of the ability to pivot and change, this goes back to the legislature's plenary authority. Right? Even just the creation of the State Department of Education itself, let alone these kinds of governance changes that can be done statutorily if things need to be changed.

Some of the discussions on the assembly side was some discussion of, hey, this this could be a really important first step, but there's other things, that folks would like to see also streamlined and more coherence.

We've seen some programs that have ended up, in various parts of state government that we really think should be more centralized under one, educational structure. Maybe not over in gov ops and things like that that we've had to do. How could we do that? This could be the the door that opens to those conversations. And we we think they would open that up to iterate and strengthen, in such a way that we will see better student outcomes from seeing that coherence come together.

And my final question before I turn it over to my colleagues, you know, I know that there were a number of governance models that we looked at from other states, and I know that we've discussed this as well.

And I I just wanna understand why the administration thought that having a governor appointed education commissioner would work best for the state of California instead, for example, having the State Board of Education appoint the commissioner, and why you all found that out of all of the state models that you looked at, that this in particular would be the one that would be most effective for improving student outcomes.

Yeah. It's, I I appreciate the the nuance point. I mean, there is certainly those models where you have a state board of education who is appointed by, the executive who then chooses, the appointed by the executive who then chooses. We also have models where you have state board of education actually select a pool of candidates who's then selected by the governor.

Ultimately, we went with the one that we thought was cleanest and most streamlined But I think all of those are worthy of conversation in terms of trying to keep coherence.

The key thing is to make sure that you have that alignment and that's what we've seen in the various models between really the policy creation and the implementation side.

So you said you think the key point is making sure that there's alignment. So are you saying that you would be open to having an education commissioner that wasn't necessarily a governor governor appointed education commissioner that it could be up for consideration to have the state board appoint that commissioner?

So that hasn't been a question we've been able to address squarely with ultimately I have just the governor's proposal, I'd have to take that up. But I think in terms of that model also maintains coherence. So I'm recognizing that, that would also be staying in alignment because there you're talking about a state board of education who's all made up of governor appointees who is then selecting that education commissioner in those models.

And that would be something that at least would keep that all, consistent within the executive branch.

Okay. That's and it's interesting to hear that that's something that you will Willing to consider. Okay. I will go ahead and turn it to my colleague, Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you very much, madam chair. As one of the surviving members of the two thousand two master plan governance working group, and most of these other studies that have been in I've I've served on Little Hoover. I've been involved in this question for a few decades now. So I understand the the reasoning why it's here.

I'm I'm curious though, maybe to Mister Allen, is the I mean, the position is in the constitution. The voters four times have said they're unwilling to erase the position of superintendent from the constitution. Is there a reason why the proposal wasn't a constitutional amendment to bring that forward? There is there is no precedent in state government for a position that exists solely for one person to have an opinion about stuff. So both the way that you and LAO have described it.

So this would be a entirely new creature in California state government. But I'm I'm curious as to why why why this wasn't proposed as an amendment to the constitution that the people with themselves could weigh in on.

Yeah. And and I know that the 2002, looks like master plan also didn't propose a constitutional amendment. They proposed this be done statutorily. So that, obviously, they're there. I was not.

I've just only read the the good results of your work. But we really did build from that and said it took inspiration from the fact that it was proposed to be done something that was statutory and not constitutional. But I also the other critical point I think is that unlike those proposals that simply said, hey we don't see a point in having the office of state superintendent public instruction in terms of how this works.

Those are very distinct and we've tried to be very clear about saying that is not what we are proposing. What the governor is proposing is looking at the fact that there continues to be a recognition.

And I know Senator you've been a a huge part of these conversations over the years particularly in terms of our higher ed segments. We know we need to do a better job in California about aligning TK through 12 policy and our higher ed segments. These conversations even just in the the rough thirteen, fifteen years that I've involved in the state board coming back and forth, that's always been a conversation. How do we try to get better coordination?

And when we've looked across the structures and we've looked across the statutes, there are numerous examples of which we've touched on today and others that we're happy to discuss where the state superintendent of construction gets written in to have a role.

And yet the reality is when you look at what ultimately becomes dozens of these roles in this governing place, that's not feasible to actually serve that function. And yet we know that we do have a need for some folks who are serving sort of that, that cohering function and alignment and coordination conversation to lead.

And when we think about who better than someone who has been elected by the, you know, the people of the State of California as a champion with a policy platform to try to bring some coordination coherence, we see a lot of potential in that office.

And the last thing I'll say on that one is, when we thought about what that could look like, when we see the creation of new entities like we all had last year with the legislature, helped in, establish this new interagency working council. Previously we've had entities like CPAC.

Right? I mean all these things have come about. Everyone's seeking the same idea and the state super now public construction is placed on all of them and yet doesn't really have the time and capacity to engage in that meaningfully and we do think there's a real opportunity to do that here.

Okay. I I I wanna return to a couple of those issues in a moment. Aye, but in case I forgot, I just wanna flag. I don't think, the the superintendent's current duties are just so voluminous and complicated that they that no human being could possibly do them compared to the job of governor, which is far more broad scoped.

And and so it's not it's not I've not I've not in my own experience, both in the K-twelve system and and as vice chancellor of the community college system, it's never been my experience that the superintendent's just run out of bandwidth and time, on a consistent basis.

So I'm I'm not convinced in in that in in that, dimension of it. But the reason I say about the constitutional piece, is that, the ballots are out on the street right now. And the ballot pamphlet, that every voter in California is has is has received and may have already cast a vote, includes this description of what the superintendent of public instruction is.

Nonpartisan office as the state's chief of public schools provides education policy direction to local school districts and works with the education community to improve academic performance. Heads the Department of Education and carries out policies set by the State Board of Education and serves as an execution member of governing boards of the state's higher ed system.

So the voters are currently electing a superintendent, with the understanding that that is what the job is. And they would not be, you wouldn't blame them for thinking that's what the job was even without that description because the dictionary definition of superintendent is one who has executive oversight and charge. There is no definition on in any dialect, Australian, Scottish, Southern Valley, in which superintendent means policy champion, somebody with opinions or somebody that links up various boards. That's not the definition of superintendent.

And so, voters reasonably expect when they cast a vote for superintendent, they are that they are going to be responsible for what the ballot the ballot pamphlet itself says is that job.

They're casting that vote right now. The candidates have signed up right now for that job, and we are proposing at the last moment without a public vote, actually not even, you know, and through the budget process, to reconfigure our entire constitutional design for education including this elective office that is occurring and replacing with with an office that does not it exists only because it's it we have to fill the slot that's in the constitution.

It so to me that that it just it it feels very deeply democratically cynical, that because we don't I think we understand the voters four times before have said no to to, to making these reforms, that we're just gonna try to do it without them and leave in place the shell of what the constitution requires, in order to get around that.

So I'm I'm I've I've I've I've always been supportive moving in this direction, but I'm I'm very concerned about doing this in the midst of an election, and not doing it with the voters themselves who have previously told us we don't want to do that. Now, I'm optimistic the voters could could hear a case because it has been, what, since 1968 was the last time that we that this was before the voters.

So I I think we should be more confident in the voters' ability to assess these same issues that we're taking up today as a ballot measure rather than us trying to Jerry rig the entire system around what the voters have have approved. So this this this part concerns me, and and this kind of trying to invent a role for these for the superintendent and for the the constitution's assignment of all the of all these deputies to the superintendent.

Well, we've got to figure out something for them to do. They'll we'll just put them on more boards and they will somehow magically coordinate. That's not what that's not the Lieutenant Governor's outcome.

Lieutenant Governor serves on most of these boards as well. I don't think that in I haven't seen any academic study that said they are better coordinated as a result of that. So I I just that this this constitutional piece, this democratic piece to me is of is of significant concern.

I'm also just as a budget matter, given the amount of many of these reports have just have have described the duplication of functions, the the tensions, the, you know, the the state state board feeling like it has sometimes has to redo work the department has done, what have you, that if that's part of the case here, then it shouldn't be a zero cost proposal. It it should produce some actual savings, that could be deployed for the benefit of California's students, but it doesn't do that.

It's just moving all the pieces or moving the boxes around on the org chart, without producing any any any benefit on the fiscal side. So I I I hear the report and I and I get that it's not gonna cost anything, but it but it certainly seems as though it should be reducing our costs if we don't have as much conflict and duplication, in the system.

The interagency council that was mentioned, you know, I raised some of these issues last year and they they were actually born out, which is that we, we have and I have been a part of this for decades. We are obsessed with structure, as the answer to to student performance, with virtually no evidence to back that up, in any of the research that moving that changing administrative structures and whatever is a significant driver of educational performance. And so I'm looking forward to the to our third panel as well.

But we set up we we set up the Interagency Council last year and I think a month later, we were already being told, well, you know, they're really busy. You know, we've only we only want them to take on one or two things because they just, you know, there's just so much to do.

But what had been promised was, you know, this sort of like Nirvana of of alignment and coordination that was gonna happen and that's and and we were almost instantly told that the with despite our plenary authority that the interagency council just didn't have the capability or the capacity to accomplish that and it was brand new.

But last year was like this is gonna be the thing that is gonna make higher ed and k 12 like just work like swimmingly streamline like a well oiled machine and we don't have the results to show them. Last year we had the same proposal on our other budgets of the committee on the housing agency, same exact thing.

It's just going to be magic. Once we reorganize these agencies, you you will not believe how much housing we're gonna build. So I just I I have to say I'm skeptical in general of the claims. I I actually wish the administration would make less hubristic change claims about this.

There are a lot of good reasons for this to be on the table, but the the level of, like, the the I mean, it's the it's almost for sure this is over promising given what the the description of what the outcomes are gonna be here, and it doesn't need to be that way.

It could be this will make us more effective and more coherent, reduce the amount of, you know, friction and all of that. It doesn't everything does not have to result to claim to result in wild, fantastical, never seen before improvements in in in in alignment and student outcomes.

So I I would encourage the administration to like scale its claims about the the the proposal because it's really hard to evaluate because as once you describe those claims, then looking at the actual proposal, like, it doesn't really matter what it says, it cannot accomplish that, and we really need to get focused on the the details, here as well.

I I don't I think that, you know, just one other, you know, point in time that because since these reports over the last, thirty years that LAO has identified, it isn't as though nothing has changed in that time including from the 2002, report of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Master Plan, which the governor refused to implement almost any of the significant provisions at the top different governor. But governors have almost have almost, ignored every single legislative review of the Master Plan, since 1973.

But after that time, many changes have occurred, in the ecosystem of the of CDE and the superintendent and the State Board of Education. So even some of the authorities that have been cited today came about as a result of or subsequent to that period. So that appellate courts, this legislature, the governor, the budget acts have already shifted many of these things to the State Board and to the executive director of the State Board that before were matters of intense ambiguity and conflict.

And it's not the job isn't done, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's that finally, we're taking step one and that look, they were they were finally implementing these reports from from twenty five years ago when, we we we we have implemented some of the provisions of of those reports. We have large, you know, in in some in significant ways diminished that original the original role or at least the original claim to the role that the superintendent thought that they had.

So it's not this this is not the same situation that most of these reports other than PACE, were really analyzing, back then and those incremental changes have resulted in that. So, you know, I I'm I'm looking forward to the remainder of the panels as well and I and I and I do salute and appreciate the administration for bringing this forward. This this is a set of issues that we should be grappling with. I I don't love the timing.

I don't love the the the democratic problem of of essentially working around the constitution, and that the people have affirmatively chosen not to change multiple times.

And and I would like to see us here in the legislature exercising our planning authority to design something that really works. The governor Schwarzenegger, I think, is the one that appointed us a secretary of education. Before. Before Davis?

Wilson, Dukemajin.

Okay. Okay. So so and and George and

He was the last one before .

And and under the under the under under a similar theory. And I think at least one of the secretaries of education was also the president of the State Board of Education in order to maximize this alignment. I I

I I I'd I'd love to run the numbers with somebody. I don't recall there being any bump in student in student achievement during those years compared to to other years. But the idea I appreciated then, because it also it elevated education to a the cabinet, as a as a real cabinet level agency and it affirmatively included higher education, for which there is no there is no, executive branch function that is about higher education as old, one of the biggest gaps that we have in state organization.

So that is that clearly seems to be missing, and the interagency council can't provide that level of leadership that we have cabinet secretary for in every single other whether it's veterans affairs or or housing, or or resources or any other domain. And so that, you know, the the, that remains a significant gap here.

I also happen personally believe that workforce development, innovation and research, the latter of which has also no home in in state government, that those should be all located together. But this is the sort of conversation we would be having about this if it was a regular bill, and we were spending time on this that Aye, as opposed to doing it as a budget trailer bill. So, again, I look I appreciate the administration's bringing this forward.

I have significant concerns as we've been out as I've been outlining about the timing and the content, but I'm glad it's before us and I'm very grateful to the chair, for bringing this to the policy committee as well. I I I serve on budget subcommittee four, which oversees, a dizzying array of education entities that did not exist ten years ago, that now exist budgetarily, in the shadows.

You mentioned Cradle to Career, the Regional K14 Partnerships, the Office of Public School Construction, NCRD is the all the new anti discrimination coordinators. It's just a we we have been during this governor and the previous one, rather than deal with this problem that this proposal brings forward, we've just been saying, look, we don't wanna deal with this c b a CDE, SBE mess.

So every time we do a new initiative now in public education, we're gonna put it somewhere else and we will sacrifice any expertise whatsoever just to get it out of that morass. That is an argument for for for taking this on directly and so I appreciate the administration here. But it seems silly to not if if we're gonna reorganize everything and break the constitution that we might as well bring over the the, gov ops and NCRD agencies that are dealing with education back home, as well. So madam chair, I filibustered as long as I can for your return. Thank you

very much.

Thank you, Senator Kavaldin. Do we have members with other questions? I'm gonna go to Senator Choi and then Senator Archuleta and I'd like to note Senator Archuleta has, returned to the room.

This education, I wanna call it the reform attempt, is a plausible in that your statement stated that it was very complicated and confusing and contradicting each other. And local school boards, school districts would not know who's the direction they need to follow because they are coming from all different directions. Some are redundant. So that's the reason. That's align it.

So that's the attempt. Right? And so for that effort, I think this is a good movement, good effort we need to initiate. And the timing has been mentioned, the election time and the legal issue, constitutional issues maybe. But I think that this discussion has to begin somewhere sometime.

But why now is the focal point so far I hear is that I had the review of your proposal and then also I read it yesterday too. And that of effort is admirable and I would agree in at least with the intent to streamline, to simplify. But does it really achieve? Well, that is my still question because education for one thing, education commissioner is a new position under direct appointment of the governor. Right?

Is that the person on the top like a secretary of education? If there was no line of command, so to speak I I know education is a very at least the California model is a very complicated superintendent of education and senators, assembly members, governors' ideas, superintendent of public instruction, board California Board of Education, and that they are not coordinating. It has not been coordinating each other.

And so there was a separate effort to their best decision they are saying they are making and try to give the instructions to school boards. So that's the reason there's a redundancy and conflicting policies each other.

Now we are trying to realign it. By this effort of realigning, does that set up some type of coordination that all agencies will will implement the same policy, same instructions to to this local board who are the chain of command. And rather than simplifying the old structure, to me, education commissioner is someone added the position, isn't it?

Yes. It would be it would be a new position that is not

New position. So you have added another layer of bureaucracy to me.

You still have someone who's the administrative chief. And so they'd be taking over the administrative day to day executive functions that state superintendent of public instruction currently carries in terms of being the administrative and executive chief of the Department of Education.

Okay. Board of Education will have to listen.

to the education commissioner? Yes. So currently, under our current structure, with respect to the policy of the California Department of Education, that is set both by statute as the legislature has designated and has been recognized by the courts as was referenced earlier. The State Board of Education sets the policy for the Department of Education. The State Superint of Public Instruction by statute, administers the day to day management of the department under that policy direction of the State Board of Ed.

So those two things would essentially, the only thing that would change would be the day to day administrative chief would become this education commissioner. That part's true.

Isn't that the public superintendent SPI does the same thing that the commissioner is, going to do day to day administration?

That's that would He has a that would be a central piece of the change.

Layers of, officers on under him too. So this is all the power is still under the governorship. He appoints all the appointees and the commissioners and deputies, etcetera. So

if numbers are added, so if this is something that the new system reform we are looking for, definitely timing would be matter. if I if we, let's suppose, we agree, oh, this is a wonderful lesson for had implemented from January. And November comes and under governor and you proposed this, that this is a new system. Hey. What the heck?

It's not a reform to me. It's more complicated than even though intent was there to streamline and if he rejects. And he has a power of I will have the power of appointing everybody to listen to me. Okay? So timing is I think this is not really desirable time for that reform.

And our governor has been in power for eight years. For a long time, it will recognize that for decades that this problem existed. At the last year with the seven months left, and he's proposing this. So to me, this is not simplifying the chain of command. It may be more coordination, maybe increased by this system, but still I'm not clear about the education new position of education commissioner's role where SBI could do that.

And then also Chairman of the board of education, they set their policies and they will supervise whether that job is being implemented or not. And each school board will be all responsible to follow who okay. On the new system, is there any difference on old system, new system that local school districts will get the direction from one line or still will there will be many different sources of instructions or policies being imposed upon school districts?

The goal is 1 line. So it's completely clear that both the alignment of the policy authority of the State Board of Education and the day to day implementation within the department, that's one line. That would be the goal.

So Board of Education will be on the top. Correct. Setting the policies Correct. And the legislature enacts any new laws and that they will be part of policies that within that, the policies support of education will set the new policies.

Correct.

Yeah. And then that will be given instruction will be given to the education commissioner or or a superintendent?

Yeah. So the education commissioner would be doing the day to day management of the Department of Education under the policy direction of the State Board of Education. That would be the alignment, that would be cleaner and more coherent under this proposal.

And with respect to the timing, I would just point out one of the critical features and why to to your point I take as a question about the timing for governor Newsom is when he's looked at it, he did not want to be proposing anything that would be shifting the duties of existing elected officials during their time in office.

Either for him or for a state super and public construction and therefore it's critical to do that frankly at a point of transition like we have coming up now.

You know, when you're designing this new reform model, I feel like you did not try to simplify, eliminate in the to merge certain rules even cons new constitution amendment may be necessary. If a superintendent position is not necessary, we through the reform, we could have a ballot measure for constitutional amendment because it will take a big effort for achieving the realistic reform effort rather than reshuffling.

And under your statement, it sounds good, but in reality, I get the impression whether that will achieve the same prop achieve the same goals that you have described. So that is my main question. Yeah.

I think the goal is to both build on the studies and recommendations that we've talked about that happened at various points over the past hundred years taking the senators point about the circumstances change at the points of this recommendation have been made. And also looking at models from other states that have had very good results and that have a clean coherent system. So California would be moving to that system which is why we have some confidence that would work better.

Again, the earlier point and I know to the senators discussion, no claim that overnight it's a panacea. It's no silver bullet.

It simply makes it, more likely, that we will have, greater clarity and greater consistency in implementation of policy that is passed by this legislature in a way that, our local leaders can look at and hold us accountable for delivering on that policy.

When you're doing other states' policies and the systems, have you seen any other state as complicated as our state or more complicated than our state? Or did you look at the states that is a lot simpler and the student performance outcome is even better?

So and I will defer. We have colleagues coming up from the Education Commission on States who I'm sure can tell you about all the very complexities. I will say there's still a handful of states. I'll look to answer exact number. I think it's approximately eight, that still do it in a very complicated way we do.

There's generally been a shift since the early part of the 19th century away from the model that California has. 2, more coherent line model as we point out in a higher performing states. Some of the ones I've mentioned earlier, Connecticut, New Hampshire, others. But we certainly we wanna move more towards that more aligned, more coherent systems that had greater success and where we've heard from local leaders.

I know we've had discussions earlier from states where they said when they made that shift, they saw there was greater clarity. They kinda knew who to go to. They know who'd held accountable and that helped in terms of the 2 way conversations. So that's the goal is to get California more in line with those models.

There's 2 more questions I'm gonna ask. Would you say that the new education commissioner's role will be like secretary of education on the old system?

I yes. But I'll have to a caveat if you don't mind. So under what's considered in California, what we've had as a secretary of education is not what typically would be similar to what you see as secretaries in other agencies across California state government. As Senator Cabaldon pointed out, when we've had a secretary of education, it was largely a work around the fact that we have the structure that we do, and those tensions.

And so when a new governor comes into office and as both you and the Chair have, envisioned, you know, what may happen with whoever that that new governor may be comes in and looks at the structure.

They've said, well, I get to appoint members of the State Board of Education but of course that is on staggered terms. I get 2 of them every year. Who are my education people? And they largely have said, well, what we'll do are those earlier governors created kind of an offshoot office that did not have an agency underneath them, to serve as staff and leadership around issues of education. That's where we had these secretaries of education.

When Governor Brown came back into office for his second go round, he said, when I was here before, we didn't have that office. I think his specific quote is he said, Mike Kirst, who was his president of state board of ed at the time, he brought back as a state board president. He said, we can figure this out. I'm gonna collapse basically the functions of the secretary of education office into the State Board of Education.

And that's what led to the position that I have the honor of holding now is it's basically a collapsed function where, you know, to your point, when we have a cabinet secretaries meeting, the way the current structure works, I attend those meetings.

Essentially, it has that. But we do not have an agency where I have management authority of folks that are underneath us. An education commissioner would. An education commissioner would be elevated to the role where they would be taking part in those cabinet secretary meetings like our other secretaries across state government with that level of authority. So it wouldn't be a work around.

It would truly be actually correcting the structural problem that we've recognized over time and rather than trying to work around it solving for

it. Isn't the secretary of education prescribed in the constitution? It is not. It's not? No.

So that's why it can be used to work.

That's why past governors just sort of created it?

So name is a new name as a commissioner. So, obviously, under commissioner, he will have a what is the structure of his department, commissioner's department, employees, the number of employees under him?

Under this proposal, the education commissioner, he or her would have a, the day to day management responsibilities for the California Department of Education including as the current superintendent is now, state special schools and others. And again, consistent with our current

He's not gonna have his own department staff?

They would just consistent the way you would with a department head currently. So and that's what I know my colleague, Miss Alexander, has pointed out in terms of that structure. They would come in and along with the appointees that would shift over that happened at a point of transition, they would have an executive staff just like any of them.

Before I forget my thought train, is the board of education prescribed in the constitution or can it be abolished if you choose to?

So the State Board of Education does have roles identified in the constitution, and the composition that The Constitution says the composition says that

we shall have board of education.

I'm trying to remember the exact phrasing right now, but we have one, but then the composition is actually set in statute. I can I'll make sure to send over to you in the office all the provisions that

would be relevant to it. Yeah. Because so much every political candidate, when they run, either local to the president level, they always come up with the education as one of their policy improvement. Student education, quality education, back to basics or something like that all the time. And state legislature always comes up with so many different kinds of policies even though really quality of education curriculum matters and one more is more concerned with the social issues lately.

But the Board of Education, they are setting up all the regulations of their own policies within that. That's a redundant with the state policy state legislatures.

Within the charges that you and your colleagues give the State Board of Education. So in my role, I help staff our 11 members of our state board of education. Everything that they take on is either a charge that the legislature has given them or has shaped. So yes, they set education policy within the scope of that authority and those responsibilities given to the board by the legislature and then set regulations and policies consistent with those charges.

Yeah. So I feel that's a redundant policy making another body which is a wasteful and creating more complicated duplication. So that's the my opinion. I don't think, you know, we can, you know, decide which is the best, but I am just expressing my opinion.

I appreciate that. I will say from staffing that board, I have to say, I believe they bring great value. I think the point of having a State Board of Education legislature is able to give charges with broad charges to the State Board of Ed who is able to have, long engaged discussions with our local leaders, our parents, student bodies to further refine those policies.

So when you pass large reforms like local control funding formula, the local control and accountability plan provisions, developing curriculum, If I search about math, other things that come our way, has a board that can consider all those, refine those and pass the more detailed policies within the broad charges given to it by legislation which I think performs a really critical governing function.

Okay. For the benefit of other senators who ask questions, someone my final question would be, if I was the superintendent of local school district or board member with the question regarding policies coming coming down to local school district. Do I have to sort out which agency to call? What will there be line one person either superintendent's office or Education Commissioner's office. Will that be streamlined?

It will be streamlined. I want to refer to my colleagues on the third panel who serve in those roles currently to be able to speak to you about what they think would be the benefits or the or challenges. I'll leave it open to what

Under your structure, will it be commit day to day operation or be a commissioner?

It would be clear. Correct. And I think the the key piece of this, I think is why you see the governor's proposals supported by all of our statewide school administrator associations. So, AXA, California School Association of Business Officials, some of the sub entities or African American administrators, Latino administrators, is that across the board our county superintendents have recognized, that this structure would bring greater clarity and more accountability.

I just try to quote from their letters but I'd really defer to that third panel to speak to it directly.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. I know Senator Archuleta is next and has some questions and comments. And then Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Good. Well, thank you for your presentation. I think all of us are just as confused as you walked in now that we're still confused. And because of the fact that it's clarity that we're looking for. You know, my colleagues might have some great points, but let's walk the clock ahead.

It's November. The election happened. Somebody won. Does that mean that he takes on a position? And at that same moment, does the governor appoint his commissioner? And then what do we do at that point?

And then what do we do at that point?

So currently under the status quo, if nothing were to change, just to kind of share or compare and contrast. New elected Governor, new elected State Superintendent of public construction get elected in November. During the, the period between November and January, both would be, in the current status quo trying to figure out who what I'm gonna do when I take office, who do I want to have as my key deputies, right, who are gonna staff those pieces just like if new governors figure out.

I want different cabinet secretaries, all those pieces. That happens regardless.

This proposal essentially would make the shift that a new state superintendent of construction would come in and understand they have a different charge where they would now have new voting roles to look forward to. They know that when they come into office in January, they often have an opportunity to have a voting role on the State Board of Education.

They know they have a voting role and they're gonna get up to speed on what's happening at the California Community Colleges because they'd be a part of governing that function. They would not be considering whether they would need to staff up all the deputies for the day to day management of the California Department of Education. That would shift to what the governor would be coming in.

And unlike now where a new governor would come in and say, you know, am I gonna think about who my new members of the State Board of Education are gonna be? Am I gonna see like do we wanna put new people in my position, right, in terms of staffing the State Board of Education, to do that? Those would be current questions. The new questions they would face is who would I like to have as my education commissioner? Right?

And who would I like to have as the deputies of that education commissioner? And I'll be making those decisions between say November and January. So with it, when both of those officials come into office in January, after the second Tuesday in January, both the governor and the state super public instruction would be able to say, here are the folks I wanna have. For governor, they'd be able to start making their appointments immediately.

For state super tenant public instruction, and frankly, another issue, they would be able to put forward the people they'd like to see in those offices for governor to appoint or in the case of some of these deputies to have the State Board of Education appoint for the SBI.

And our commissioners that go through rules committee and then onto the Senate floor for confirmation, would we rules committee and the Senate be able to confirm this commissioner?

So under the current proposal, that's not a piece of it. It is a piece of what the legislative analyst office has proposed would occur.

Okay. And questions that keep coming up, the local board, Should they be should they be concerned about their budget, their curriculum, their future, and and the betterment of our children throughout California when it comes to education because of this. And if the door opens, who walks in the door first? The commissioner or the newly elected superintendent?

So I think I would expect all of our local boards would be concerned about all those things moving forward. The California School Board Association has expressed support for this proposal because I think they've see greater clarity and greater accountability in the streamlining of what would occur here. Again, there's no shift in the ultimate policy authority. The policy authority right now is recognized by the statutes that your colleagues and others in the past have adopted.

The policy authority for the Department of Education sits with the State Board of Education.

That would not shift. The question is who has shifting responsibility for the day to day management of the Department of Education to execute upon those policies enacted by the legislature and ultimately then refined by the State Board of Education. That would change. That would become the education commissioner. So if you were a local board member and you have questions about what's going on, you wanna know what's the legislature enacting, how is the State Board of Education refining those policies and going to advocate with them.

And ultimately, if you want to know about the day to day implementation like how are state staff going to be interacting to provide support and guidance, you would be going to the education commissioner.

So the commissioner has the, the power to overrule some of the issues and policies from the board of education

No. Or not? No. Okay. There'd be no shift in terms of the policies authority.

Just like right now, the elected state superintendent of public construction does not have the ability to borrow your phrase to overrule the State Board of Education with respect to policy statute enacted by this legislature says the State Board of Education sets his policy.

And he would have a seat at the table, this commissioner as the as one of the members of the cabinet. Correct. And he would. And he would direct access Yes.

He would. Yes.

To the governor when policies or questions and budget issues would come up, he would have direct access to the governor. It's one

of the critical pieces that we think in terms of the alignment. We think that's why it works well in other states. And as I sought to emphasize, I think one of the things that we have not seen over our state's history is that when it comes to those critical negotiations with you and your colleagues around issues around budget, in those budget negotiations right now, the State Department of Education doesn't have their champion in the room. Right?

They've independently elected champion but they're not there in the room to make that negotiation.

Governors have skin in that game. Right? So they would be wanting to make sure that hearing from the education commission what those needs are and so that's part of the negotiation.

Well, if the position actually opens up a line of communications with the board of education and the teachers and everyone else, they feel that they have a voice to get to the governor. I think it would be a great idea and to move this thing along. And to move it along, obviously, you've got others that have got to come before us and, so I'm gonna go ahead and and turn it back over to the chair so they can proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cholera. Senator Ochoa Bogh? Thank you. Obviously, there's been a lot of conversations

around the why and the how this is happening. So I think it's important to ask certain questions so that we could have clear clarity for many of our our constituents in our state. So since the introduction of the governor's proposal, as I mentioned, lot of confusion on what this exactly the superintendent does, currently. It has been mentioned that the superintendent is elected with a policy platform. Right?

They run and they said, this is what we wanna do. This is our plan. This is how we're gonna change things. This is what superintendent candidates are literally running thinking that they have the capacity to do. Under current structure, can the superintendent even do anything with those platforms?

Yes. Although, you know, it gets into the details of what these are, and this gets a little bit to the misalignment of expectation versus the ability to deliver, which I believe, Senators, where question's driving. I know what Senator Cabaldon is talking about in terms of this misalignment.

What you see in a voter's guide and what can actually be, and I frankly think is what has been fundamentally unfair to many of our state superintendents public construction. Is it creates a set of expectation perhaps still like the idea of a valley interpretation of a pronunciation. But what does it look like to look at the definition of superintendent?

What does that mean? Because we know in a local context, we all have a lot of clarity about what it means to be a local superintendent. You understand that they have district officials under them. You've got principals. You've got site staff and you have teachers.

They interact with their local governing board. One of the great challenges in the state of California has been that the titles and the structures lead us to a certain level of perception that over time has been recognized is not aligned with reality. Right? That's not how it actually works now.

So frankly what many of what we see many of our state superintendents public instruction who I think have been quite successful in taking those policy platforms and translating them into something is it takes the form of legislative advocacy. Right? It's taken, hey we will champion a bill. We'll work with many of you and we'll sponsor a bill to do this piece.

Because that is the ability to still move the policy lever because otherwise the day to day job is about implementing policies that the legislature passes. Or implementing, you know, rules and regulations and policies the State Board of Education adopts. So that is part of one of these points of tension and some friction and where focus can sometimes get a little split.

Thank you for that clarity because I think, it's been assumed that as the superintendent, you come in with your platform and you automatically implemented it. It's not exactly that way. And, for anyone that is outside of education and many folks that are still within in education think that, especially as a superintendent. Where you were talking about local school boards where the superintendent is managing, but is under the direction of the board and their direction. So I think that's important to note.

So that's on another note, I think it's important also to note that as the legislature implements... I wanna just for clarity purposes, I want I want either the LAO or yourself to explain currently what the legislature can actually pass as far as legislation impacting education because there's also the understanding by the general public that, as legislators, we are able to direct curriculum.

There was at some point, well, I'll let you explain what the course has been as far as curriculum goes. Because I think for many, many Californians when they're looking at a superintendent and the ability to vote for a superintendent, they're looking at platforms and what the platforms are, which in their mind has to do a lot with curriculum.

So what does that look like as far as curriculum, the legislature, what they can and cannot do, what the superintendent can and cannot do, and who ultimately actually decides on curriculum for the state of California students?

I can answer that. Ken Kapphahn with the Analyst Office. So the short answer is that the legislature's authority over that is incredibly broad. The legislature has chosen to delegate some authority, significant authority over curriculum to the State Board. I think recognizing that the what students should know and be able to do in each course, in each grade level, that involves hundreds, maybe thousands of considerations for each course at each grade level.

It's not something the legislature could review individually. So the State Board has this process to go on and review all of that, hear the public input. But under the constitution, the legislature's authority over education is essentially unlimited except for some narrow exceptions.

For example, to, Senator Choi's point, it requires there be a State Board of Education, it requires there be a state superintendent, but beyond some of those basic parameters, education is one area where the legislature has close to unlimited authority to make decisions and decide who's going to act and implement those decisions.

And with that, could you bring a little more clarity as to the role of the... What is it? The Instruction Quality Commission?

Yeah. That is part of the, that's a commission set up to assist the State Board in its curriculum functions. Some of the staffing and the administrative work is done by the Department of Education staff. But ultimately, the curriculum decisions, the recommendations, those get adopted by the State Board. But that structure is something the legislature created.

There's nothing in the constitution that requires the commission to work in that way. Just through budget language or through statute, you could you could change to a different process. If this governance reform proposal goes forward, you could give the commissioner more or less of a role in that process, State Board more or less of a role. Those are all things that you could change through implementation.

And when you said the legislature gives that authority or delegated that authority to the instruction or the commission on instruction... What is it? Instructional Quality Commission. On that end, was that done legislatively through bills or was that it was done?

Yes. That's right. That was done through statute.

The reason I wanted to bring that up also is because, once again, when we're looking at, both legislators and the public and what they think we can and cannot do, I just wanted to bring clarity that, as legislators, we have been instructed not to introduce curriculum. We cannot direct and introduce legislation that actually directs and states this is what we're going to address in our curriculum in the state of California.

And that happened within, I think, the last two or three years, three years probably. As legislators, we can only when we actually introduce bills regarding subject matter or curriculum, we can only advise and counsel to the... Would it be the Board of Education or would it be the Instructional Quality Commission?

IQC if you want.

I know. IQC. But I hate, like Senator Laird, the acronym for the general public is very hard in different spaces, especially in the legislature. There's so many of them. So on that end.

Yes. That's right. I mean, I would hate to be the legislative staffer who would have to tell you, like, in detail, here's exactly what should be taught and, you know, all of the in each grade level. But if you wanted to give more guidance on a particular standard or instruct the IQC to look at specific things or even it's probably not a constitutional reason you couldn't be as prescript as detailed as you wanted. It's just something legislature hasn't chosen to do in the past.

Okay. I just want clarity. Yes. You...

Senator, those are our rules, at the committee. There's nothing that prohibits any of us from introducing legislation to remake the entire curriculum in our own image if we, if we choose to, but it's the rules adopted by this committee, maybe Assembly as well.

But certainly by this committee that simply says the committee strongly discourages Members from doing that. But there's nothing in the law or the constitution or the Department of Ed or the State Board that limits our ability to to try except except ourselves. It's an internal rule.

Okay. So for the benefit of the public, I think it's important to note that when we have those rules, we can introduce. And and this is important for the public to understand, that we can introduce legislation that actually addresses curriculum.

But in order for it to be successful in committee and pass through, we can only recommend at this point. And those are our, I guess, I did not know that those were our personal roles on the committee, I just thought that that's how the system worked.

But I think that's important to know because the public sometimes expects the legislators when they see something that they're not in agreement with as far as curriculum goes or the educational system goes, guess who they look to?

They either look to the superintendent of schools to change that, which is why they, you know, they run on a platform and folks, the general public is voting for a superintendent based on that platform, which at this point it's important to note publicly that they really don't have.

Except if they go through the legislative process, be able to direct curriculum. And the legislature, or at least us here as legislators, we could introduce legislation regarding curriculum but we cannot, it won't automatically be implemented because we can't direct the Department of of Education or more specifically the Instructional Quality Commission to actually implement that.

We can only encourage and suggest. And I think it's important for the public to be very clear on what we can and cannot do. So I think our, you know, we are limited on that and on various on on various reasons I can understand why.

But the public, in general, based on conversations I've had with the public, they don't agree with that. And then most people don't understand that. So I think that's why it's important to to know the differences on what we can and cannot do and what the superintendent can and cannot do.

And my one last question as I think you have inference the following, but I think it's also important to to just frame it a little differently in that, and this can be for the LAO or the... What is it? The State Board of Education. Do you see the governor's proposal is actually giving the superintendent more influence than the role it currently has?

So we certainly have proposed that we believe it gives a greater policy authority than it currently has. Because for the first time, that office would have the ability to have a voting role on the State Board of Education, which currently has 11 members, all of whom are appointed by the governor.

So this would be the first time that you have a non gubernatorial appointed member of the State Board of Education that sets that k 12 policy under the legislature's charge, who is not gubernatorial elected. So they have an ability to actually be in a policy making role. And then of course, would also have a policy making role as a governing body member for the California community colleges.

Yes. Senator Cabaldon. Yes.

Yeah. Thanks so much. And really appreciate all the comments of our colleagues on this as well. And I wanted to make just two follow ups. One is I'm less concerned. I mean, I am concerned about the candidates who are running and and what they're saying they're doing.

And they're and they're running for a job that will not be the job that, if this were all to occur, that the job will be radically different from what they ran for. But I'm mostly concerned about the voters who are who are casting their votes today based on a set of platforms and an instruction about what this job is.

We could have passed this legislation last year and had it take effect at the end of this year, which would have resolved the problem of changing an elected official's duties midstream. But instead, we're doing it right in the middle of an an election that people are already voting on and and not fixing the problem.

If we took the attorney general's job and transferred all of its duties to the governor's legal affairs secretary, but kept the attorney general's position in the constitution and said, hey, this is the job of the attorney general is to be a champion for justice and to speak up and to maybe sponsor some bills.

If we did this locally in my own city, we said, hey, we're gonna we're gonna create a chief of police position, but his only job is to advocate for racial justice in policing. Voters would be, first, confused. They would most likely be fooled.

And then they would be angry that that what they are that their process of democracy in selecting their elected officials isn't producing any real accountability because they're voting the dictionary definition of what a superintendent is.

The only superintendent that non New Yorkers ever hear of is school superintendents who run districts or run county offices. So voters, it's not their fault. They are perfect, it's perfectly understandable why a voter would expect that the superintendent of public instruction for California has something to do with the management of public education in California.

And so I there's a to me, there it's a bit of a hoax on the on the people to have this position, right now, certainly during the election, but even on a long term basis, to have a position that implies so much more than what the job is gonna be.

And then the corollary, which I'm hoping the other panels who will, I think, on the natural are going to obsess on the education commissioner, appropriately so. But I'd like to, if we had elected if we had elected positions in state government. If we said the insurance commissioner's only job is to, you know, fight for consumers, without but not manage insurance, which they don't. Right?

The insurance commissioner has not that much more power than the than the superintendent in managing the Department of Insurance because of Proposition 103. But if I can't imagine a state government where we elect policy advocates, who have no responsibility, only opinions.

Where there have been tensions between the superintendent and the governor, it's always been in that space. It's rarely been management issues because the governor's always had the ability through the budget and through approval of travel requests and approval of of deputy superintendent appointments. Plenty of leverage over operational issues and conflicts that might arise with the superintendent.

They've always been policy debates. And so it I can imagine if I'm the superintendent of El Dorado County Schools having this, like, kind of leftover superintendents, state superintendent, no big deal. That's not what I'm not gonna have to deal with them anyway.

The people who will be dealing with them is us and the governor and the people who will think they are electing somebody that is doing it while only mostly being an appendix, with no real function and only the chance to become inflamed, in state government, which is not a precedent we should be...

We don't need to be electing a statewide officer just to give our opinions about climate policy or the rest. So this piece just feels very problematic from a state government organizational perspective and certainly from a democratic and constitutional one.

So I hope that some of the folks that are telling us what the commissioner is gonna do and how that will help in terms of creating alignment and coordination and coherence will give us some insight as to what really the value is of having a random agent in state government that's not an ombudsman.

Has no subpoena power, is not an inspector general, who will have no power to do anything to hold the system accountable or to ensure in order to ensure coherence other than sitting on boards, which many of us already do as well.

What exactly the value is gonna be, especially given that we're gonna continue to call it an executive title, that is clearly understood by voters as being something in charge of education. So I hope we will we will continue to dive into the, delve into this issue as we get further in.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Sorry. One more question. So in the recommendations from the LAO, they note that re-envisioning the superintendent as a public representative, advisor, and independent evaluator. It is also suggested that the superintendent's duties can be clearly defined in the proposed trailer bill language.

For the LAO, when I read the proposal, one of the first thoughts that came to my mind, was the suggestion that the superintendent be sort of an educator auditor. Can you expand your the suggestion to your, your office noted in the report because I was really intrigued.

And I actually really appreciated that because we don't have anyone in that in that capacity, and we've had many conversations in this committee with regards to programs that we've been implementing, funding, and whether or not they've been effective in accomplishing their, their goals.

And so when I read this, I thought that would be a phenomenal idea to have something within the system that would allow us to automatically look into the program, see if they're working. And if they're not working, just, eliminating them.

Yes. Thank you, Senator. That's something we thought a lot about in re-envisioning this role. And we could I think you could almost think about the role as being sort of the independent eyes and ears of the public and the legislator, legislature. One of the questions is, well, you have this independent person.

How do you take it, how do you envision the role so that independence of everyone else is a strength and not something that leads to fragmentation. And having the superintendent be separate from the governor, I think, gives the gives that individual more of a platform or a perspective where they can say something that might not be...

They can bring up an issue, say that might not be the governor's highest priority, but they're independent and they're elected separately and so they can bring that up. I think another important perspective here is that the state has historically had more than half a dozen agencies.

Part of state government that analyze education issues and write reports and make recommendations. Obviously, our office is one, but there have been many others over the years. And for various reasons, almost all of those agencies are producing fewer reports and less output than the states received in the past.

So you aren't getting the same kinds of recommendations and advice and analysis that you have in the past. And so part of the advantage of envisioning this role is the superintendent could make up for some of the loss of expertise and reports and analysis that some of those agencies have been doing in the past.

I really appreciated those those thoughts and those and those, that suggestion. So, for the superintendent, what are your thoughts on the LAO suggestion for the new duties of the superintendent as an advisor and independent evaluator? For the department, sorry.

Just for clarity. With the State Board of Education.

Yes. I apologize.

Just want to clear. That's why we're here. It makes a point. I appreciate it. I think that I think having a role of having some independence and we've, you know, I think this is in the governor's proposal highlighted the ability for the people to have someone who is independently champion issues that are of concern to them with the legislature and with the governor makes sense.

I think with respect of doing evaluations, we have wrestled with that a little bit of I don't know that you necessarily need an evaluator in chief. But I do think that having some independence involved when it comes to evaluations that take place could make some sense. Right? Having them involved in that process, but that's one that we're currently studying further.

Okay. Well, I personally, just my personal opinion, I think that's incredibly important, especially with the amount of funding that we are implementing or implementing, just not implementing, but actually contributing to education and where we are right now with our educational goals.

I think it's incredibly important to start evaluating. And I know that when I was first elected in 2020, some of the conversations I originally had in the Committee on Education was the whether or not programs were being effective.

And so being that as of right now, I don't think we have an automatic system in which we're evaluating many of these unless we are actually directing it. So I think having someone actually responsible for that would be incredibly helpful.

Since we're developing a new system right now, a new a new organization, I think it's important to have that those conversations moving forward. Just my personal opinion, and I was actually very, very intrigued and excited about the note that you folks made. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Yeah. I just wanna ask before we wrap up because I think, you know, the point has been well made just in terms of the timing of this and obviously the major transition that we're going through right now.

Were there discussions happening last year about this potential proposal, and why was it not proposed last year so that we could go through the regular policy process to try to get this implemented in time for the changeover with the next superintendent?

I think this this proposal came forward. Governor wanted to bring it forward at a time when, asking questions about some of the structural challenges they've seen over time in office, made sense. And we look back and reflected on the lessons learned of these studies in time and looking at this at a point of transition.

So that's that's when it has come about. Recognize and appreciate dealing and looking backwards about the better ideal times to kind of if we'd be able to sort it all through. But frankly, we have what we have at the time we have it and seek to move forward with it.

Because if it's not now, the next best time for a discussion is an additional eight years. And that is frankly why we're stuck in the situation we're in now where people talk about some version of this for nearly a hundred years and we still haven't actually made progress.

No. I certainly understand that, but I do wanna underscore that I think both you and the governor are very aware of the legislative timeline that we have, both for policy considerations as well as for the budget process. Right? And including something that's so significant like this in the budget and wanting us to go that route forces us to make a decision.

Come up with considerations under a June timeline rather than giving us until October, allowing this to move as a vehicle through both houses, provide amendments, provide feedback for us to really have a robust policy conversation instead of having this kind of single discussion where both houses are then inviting you in.

And we're really not able... We're discussing a lot of ideas right now, but we're not looking at hard language, code sections, my staff isn't reviewing anything. And to me, that creates a real problem. So this is his final year. It's been eight years. So I do think from a timeline perspective, there is a better way to go about doing this.

And honestly, I think if this was something that we had considered last year through that appropriate process, that there wouldn't be so much frustration that you'd be hearing from Members in both houses and also concerns about who the next governor might be and how that might impact this proposal.

I think one of the greatest challenges that I've heard from folks is those considerations, right? Like, who is going to be the next state superintendent, who will be the next governor, and how that might impact this decision. But what I would like us to do is to consider the policy change and the impacts that this is going to have overall on student outcomes rather than the politics of who might be coming next into that office.

And because you've chosen to put this consideration before us around the same time that we're making a major decision on two executive offices, now those things have become interlinked. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I do. And I think there's great appreciation from colleagues in governor's office and in our office about this. It's part of the reason that we have sought to be as collaborative, as open as we can throughout this process and both meet with individual Members, leaders like yourselves, Members in both houses, from the very beginning. As soon as the governor made his announcement, why we've put ourselves forward for informational hearings.

Like I said, whether it's the five and a half hours we have in Assembly side as well as a bill hearing on that side, the hearing here today, was with an appreciation for the appropriate role for there to be a policy discussion in addition to the budget discussion.

And that's with, you know, both clarity of direction from the governor about to let's engage in that process and participate recognizing some of the challenges of the time. The other piece I would offer in recognition of the challenges that you identify is the fact that we would have some of those challenges with talking about the timelines, electoral timelines no matter what because these things have to happen at a point of transition.

Taking the point about, hey, if a conversation could start even earlier, right, in ideals format or in deal timeline. But we either way, we'd have to be wrestling with the idea of the nature of those offices changing at a time of transition.

Certainly. Well, I'm not sure what's going to happen with this proposal and I know that we're still in active discussions, but if this is not something that's successful this year, I agree with you and that the next time that we'll be able to discuss this will basically be in the next potential seven to eight years.

And so should you still be in this role, Mr. Allen, I don't know if you will be, but hopefully we will consider this policy proposal through the regular policy process and come at it a year ahead of time having had this conversation and this being publicly recorded. So yeah.

I appreciate your time and put the record. Given I'm one of those people who's been transitioned, that is unlikely. But I will still be deeply interested in continuing to see how we best serve our students.

Excellent. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate you all being a part of this presentation. We're gonna go ahead and move on to the next section, which is the governance and the state's role in a local control system. And I believe we have with us today our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Tony Thurmond.

As well as Jeannie Myung, Director of Policy Research and Policy Analysis for the California Education at Stanford University. Claus von Zastrow with the Senior Senior Policy Director for the Education Commission of the States. Great. And you all may begin whenever you're ready. So yeah.

Madam Chair, do you have any preference on the order of the presentations?

And just as an FYI, Klaus is going to be joining us via Zoom. So I think we'll have you both go first, and then we'll transition to him last.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Jeannie Myung, director of policy research at Policy Analysis for California Education and lead author of the report TK-12 Education Governance in California, Past, Present, and Future, which I which I wrote with my co authors, doctors Heather Hough and Julie Marsh, which was published in December 2025. So since 1913, California's school system has operated under what's been referred to as a double headed governance structure.

A governor appointed state board of education serves as the state's primary t k 12 policy making body while an independently elected superintendent of public instruction is responsible for carrying out the board's decisions.

When policy authority and administrative responsibility sit in separate offices with separate public mandates, accountability becomes hard to locate. For more than a hundred years, California has struggled to answer a basic question. Who is ultimately accountable for the performance of the state's education system? Clarity in response to this question determines the extent to which state policy can be translated into coherent action on behalf of students. An unresolved answer to this question has practical consequences for

students because when authority is divided, students experience the consequences through uneven opportunities and outcomes. California's policymakers have adopted many ambitious education goals and have invested billions in programs that are equity focused, research informed, and student centered. The challenge is not that California lacks aspiration or commitment to students. The challenge is that the state's governance system is not organized to reliably translate state goals and investments into coherent implementation and practice across schools and districts in our state. California values local control, and for good reason.

Our state is too large and too diverse for a top down mandate to work everywhere without local adaptation, but local control depends on state capacity, coherence, and accountability. Districts have been asked to carry greater responsibility, often under considerable administrative burden, without consistent coordinated guidance or support for implementation. This is why appointing an education commissioner to administer to the CDE would be an important step toward aligning authority, implementation responsibility, and accountability for outcomes.

California expects its education leaders from school administrators to county superintendents to have professional preparation and administrative credentials. Those expectations suggest that the person administering the state education agency should bring comparable qualifications, including experience managing large education agencies, instructional and school leadership expertise, and practical, credible understanding of how districts and schools operate.

At the same time, this shift could strengthen democratic accountability by clarifying the role of the elected SPI. Across state government, voters elect officials to represent them and set policy direction, and then they hold them accountable at the ballot box. While day to day administration is generally carried out by appointed leaders and agency professional staff. In that context, our elected SPI can and should continue to play a vital public role.

Even when polling suggests voters have limited familiarity with the office, voters have historically affirmed that they want to retain the position of the SPI.

Rather than weakening the SPI, this proposed shift could create a clearer and more valuable rule for the office, helping the public, policymakers, and educators understand how well California's education system is serving students and where there is need for improvement. California spends tens of billions of dollars each year on public education. Given the scale of that investment, the State would benefit from a stronger independent mechanism for assessing which major initiatives should be improved, phased out, or expanded.

Beyond advocating for students, an SPI office focused on public reporting and student outcomes could strengthen transparency and system accountability. In that role, the office could help engage the broader research community, including universities, in more systematic evaluation of major education policies.

The office could also help bring greater coherence across California's siloed education system, connecting early childhood, TK-twelve, higher education, and workforce preparation around a more connected trajectory for student learning and opportunity. Ultimately, this proposed change should be evaluated by whether it clarifies responsibility, strengthens CDE administrative capacity, and improves the state's ability to provide guidance and support to schools and districts.

As revisions move forward, attention should be given to whether proposed changes reduce or add to fragmentation in a system that is already difficult to understand and challenging to connect to meaningful improvements in student outcomes. I'll conclude by noting this proposal should be understood as one step in a broader discussion of education governance reform. Clarifying responsibility for leading CDE may help the state address related questions about the Department's capacity, resources, and role in supporting LEAs.

Future priorities may include strengthening CDE's capacity, improving implementation and evaluation of major initiatives, and identifying ways to make education funding adequate and sustainable at the state and local levels. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with state superintendent, Tony Thurmond. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Members. I have listened to the hearing thus far, with great interest. I think that each of the members of this committee have raised important questions about the constitutionality of this decision and about what the true roles of the office of state superintendent really are. And I would just say that everything that you all have asked and asserted is very much on point. I don't think that this proposal in and of itself is a bad thing in terms of concept.

If in concept, you want to say that you want a governor to be closer to what happens in education, that's always a good thing. But here's the facts. No single elected official has more influence over what happens in California's education than the governor of this state. By virtue of what the governor can do in the budget, by virtue of what the governor can do through executive order, veto, or signing of any proposal. Let's be honest.

What is before us is an end run of what's in the state constitution. For better or for worse, the people of the state have said they want to have an elected state official. If there's gonna be a change in this office, it should happen through the ballot process and making a change to the constitution. Not creating this new hybrid state superintendent position that essentially weakens it more so than it already is.

As you pointed out, madam vice chair, there are very few direct, opportunities for the state superintendent to affect the platforms that the state superintendent advocates for.

It is only through sponsorship of legislation, relationship with legislators and the governor, a whole lot of advocacy, and a lot of work with the county superintendents. This structure is not perfect, and it is very, very layered. There's no question of that. But let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who works in education at any level knows who makes the decisions when it comes to education.

They know that the governor makes the majority of the decisions. They know that the state superintendent becomes an advocate for districts and superintendents and charter schools and speaks on their behalf, speaks to the legislator legislators as a buffer to say, hey, here's what we're hearing from schools about what they want. Here are the concerns that they may have about the legislation that might be proposed. But everyone knows. As layered as our system is, everyone knows where the decision making lies.

Everyone. And so, you know, the proponents of this proposal just aren't being honest. They're just not being honest. And I and I have to call it for what it is. And if there was any single stretch of data to show that this would change student outcomes, I'd be the first person to sign on board.

If you notice, the chair asked a question directly to Mister Brooks. What metrics will let us know that this pro proposal is bringing success when implemented? And with all due respect to mister Brooks, he punted. He said, gee, we don't have one. We expect the legislature to come up with that answer.

Since when does the legislature get into that level of detail about how any agency would operate? The proponents have brought you a proposal making the promise of making education better for our students without giving you a single hope of what you can expect in terms of outcomes. In that way, this is the biggest distraction that we've had in education all year. What we should be talking about is how do we make sure that more of our students can read by third grade?

How do we invest in more dyslexia screening programs?

How do we invest in more programs that have high dose tutoring for students who would benefit from the additional support? That's the five year plan that that I'm offering. But when I sent that letter to the governor to say, hey, would you put this in your budget proposal? The answer was no. We don't have the dollars.

And so I'm relegated to trying to create a public private partnership and asking foundations and corporations to pay for the things that the state should pay for, that other states have done. You all heard of the Mississippi miracle. Other states have done this long term planning with metrics built in and seen the trajectory and increase for their students. And it's time for California to do the same. We should be talking about that.

We should be talking about reducing chronic absenteeism. We should be talking about how more students get access the personal finance and financial literacy instead of what looks like really just a lift and shift. It's lifting the responsibility of the department without providing any resources to actually improve outcomes for students. If you want to have a superintendent or a commissioner who reports to the governor, fine.

But do that through the ballot process and recognize that there is not a single state where there is a commissioner who was appointed by the governor who does not oversee the Department of Education.

And recognize that what has been proposed today for the new duties of the state superintendent is a woeful excuse for what a state superintendent would do. Essentially, to serve on a couple of commissions and essentially weakening the position instead of strengthening it. Weaking the Department of Education instead of strengthening it. The State Department of Education has been systematically defunded for decades. For decades.

And new entities have been created that have usurped the work, the efficiency, the authority of the department of education. The commission CCEE, for example. More dollars have gone directly to CCEE to implement work or to the State Board of Education. You know, with all due respect to the folks at PACE and to the folks at the LAO who have said that this is important because of friction that exist, have you noticed that they haven't provided a simple example of what that friction is?

At least in the last eight years, there has been none.

I think that this governor has actually done more to help California education than any other governor in terms of what he has championed in terms of funding for educational programs. And there has been no daylight between this governor and I on any of those programs. We jointly sponsored programs like transitional kindergarten. We jointly sponsor programs like universal meals, programs that have community schools, programs that have broadband in parts of the state that go without it.

And so as you all hear these proposals, I would suggest that you ask the proponents where is this so called friction that they're talking about?

Because it hasn't existed. And I would also ask you to consider that if you strip the office of state superintendent from being the independently elected position. Just know what you're gonna get. It doesn't have to be a bad thing to have an appointed commissioner, but know what you're gonna get. You will lose the ability to have someone who will give an independent viewpoint.

They will have to do whatever it is that the governor directs them to do or not to do. Let me give you an example. If we had an appointed commissioner, we would not currently have the dyslexia screening funding that we currently have. Some of you might recall that for two years, a bill that originated in this house, in the Senate, that would fund and support dyslexia screening couldn't even get a hearing, couldn't get a hearing.

And the current state superintendent wrote a letter of support, and that proposal went from no hearing in opposition to being fully funded in the governor's midyear revised and ultimately by the legislature.

Again, I'm just gonna say it. I'm just gonna lay out the facts. When people say that the governor doesn't have any influence and that there's not clarity over who has the decision making, think back to the pandemic. There were calls for the governor to directly open schools in the state to reopen. Now that might have been difficult, but it is within the authority of the governor to do so.

The governor has the most authority on matters related to education of anyone. And if you create a position of a commissioner, you now have someone who can only act within the authority of the person who is governor and can never operate in a way that is different no matter the case. I do wanna just bring in the perspective of some of our employees at the Department of Education who are, as you might expect, quite anxious.

They're wondering what does the future hold for them and for students? I, I would just tell you, we you know, we've asked.

But again, if someone could just point to one outcome that will come from this, that will come from this, you'll hear no opposition from me. In that way, we've tried to be open. We've asked our staff, what do you think about this? What do you think could be good? What can you think that would be a problem?

I have more than a 180 some individuals at the department who represent probably a hundred and eighty years of experience. 81% of the staff were opposed to this proposal. And no one, not PACE, not the LAO, not the Department of Finance, not the staff in the the State Board of Education took the time to even ask anyone at the Department of Education, what do we think? You think that we don't spend our time thinking about how to better serve the districts?

This notion that this will somehow create some accountability that doesn't exist, it's a farce.

And here's why I say that. I invite you to walk through any grocery aisle with me anywhere in the state of California. When people hear state superintendent, they play their hopes and dreams and responsibility on the state superintendent's shoulders. And I accept that. We are in a local control state and there are many things that the state superintendent cannot do as you pointed out, madam vice chair.

But by virtue of being elected to this office, the state superintendent should take the viewpoint that he or she is directly responsible, directly accountable for the for the betterment of our school system and for helping our kids. That is how I approach it. Period. End of story. And for anyone to suggest that somehow we get this greater level of coordination that's gonna move a thousand districts and 10,000 schools, everyone marshalling marching to the same beat.

Again, we're in a local control state. And so the proponents of this proposal are not being fully honest with you about what the current reality is in in education. You know, the PACE report, and others have said that the Department of Education has been slow to implement. They've given one example. They said transitional kindergarten.

You know, the Department of Education put out guidance right away on how to fully implement transitional kindergarten in the state. If there's any delay, it's the kind of delay you would expect. You have to hire more staff to staff the classes. You have to build out facilities, you know. And so you can't just make a headline and expect it to happen overnight.

These things take time because we are a big system. All these comparisons to New Hampshire and, and to Vermont, you know, those are great states. But with all due respect, they don't serve nearly 6,000,000 students. They don't serve in a state that has 40,000,000 constituents. They don't have the same level of complexity and diversity that we have regardless of what our our our our governance systems are.

And so I, I would just submit to you that this proposal is really an end run on making change through the constitution. And maybe it passes But you can't tell me that in six months, there will be a successful transition into this new system. I, I, I just don't believe it. You know, some years ago, the administration decided that it wanted to be in charge of certain childcare programs. And it lifted them out of the Department of Education.

This is maybe five years ago. And it is still struggling to implement those programs. And so the reality is is that any change takes time. And to move a proposal like this, really, fails to acknowledge how difficult a change such as this would be. Again, I, I hearken back to the point that I think I've heard each of you make.

The most important thing is what's best for our students. And if the proponents can't give you a single outcome measure that they hope to achieve, a single metric of what would be success, Doesn't that tell you something? They can't give you an example because they don't have one.

The reality is if we want to make things better for students, we should be investing in programs that address chronic absenteeism to make sure that every student is in school every day that they're healthy enough to be in school. And so, you know, we'll see what happens with this proposal.

I know that there's a lighter set of proposal that calls for the same thing. But I'm gonna be honest with you and lay out the facts here. This is an end run to what's in the constitution. There are no outcomes proposed for it. It is simply a lift and shift that by itself will not make things better.

But if you wanna have a real conversation about what builds better outcomes for kids, we would love to talk with you about our reading by third grade plan. We would love to talk with you about our plans for addressing chronic absenteeism in our state. We would love to talk to you about things that are meaningful and will have real impact on the lives of our students. California has cobbled together with your support some of the best programs to move us in the right direction.

Stay the course.

Stay the course. Help California students don't create one more disruption when what they need is actual clarity. And for, you know, with all due respect again to our friends at PACE who have suggested that somehow this creates greater coordination. There is great coordination. The staff at the Department of Education advised the state board staff and Board Members for every single meeting.

They don't take a vote without getting a recommendation from the staff at the Department of Education. You know, it's not perfect but our agencies staff work seamlessly together on behalf of the students. And so, I would I would submit to you that what's before you is not telling you the whole story. It's not telling you the real news. And it's a distraction and it's and a disruption, in terms of what California students really need.

They need programs that are proven, like phonics and science of reading and dealing with chronic absenteeism and that's what they need in the state. And if those are the things that you'd like to engage in, we would love to work more closely with you on those. Thank you for the time for this testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Superintendent. We'll go ahead and move on now to our final panelist who, as I mentioned, is going to be on Zoom, Claus von Zastrow. And Klaus, you may begin whenever you're ready. And let's go ahead and test out your microphone very quickly.

Alright. Can you hear me?

Yes. I can hear you.

Very good. Well, thank you, madam chair, madam vice chair, and committee members. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on state k 12 education governance. I'm Claus Von Zastrow, senior policy director at Education Commission of the States. And for those of you who don't know, ECS is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to informing and supporting state leaders as they strive to make better education policy.

Now, we've been scanning state and K-twelve governance structures for more than years. And so that's going to motivate some of what I'm going to talk about today. And I just want to be clear, I'm not speaking for or against the California governance proposal, but rather offering a brief overview of how it compares to other state models, where it falls in the history of governance changes over recent decades, and what current research tells us about which governance structures, best support student achievement.

And, you know, spoiler alert, there isn't a lot of research at this point, but I'll have a little bit more to say that about that in a minute. So, let's look at the proposal in the current landscape.

So, California's current model where the governor appoints the board, and the chief is elected is shared by eight other states. The proposed model would make California more distinctive, you know, but I should say many States have unique governance arrangements. So being distinctive isn't necessarily something that would make California unique on its own. That said, there are several aspects of the proposed change in California that other states have embraced.

So, for example, the proposal to maintain an elected superintendent alongside an appointed commissioner would truly make California very unique among States, but there are several States that have both the cabinet level secretary and a superintendent.

So for example, Virginia, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are examples of this, but only in Oklahoma is one of those positions elected. And in addition, Oklahoma's elected superintendent has administrative oversight over the state's education agency, which of course is quite different from the proposal, that we're discussing in California. In some ways, Ohio's model may be closest to California's proposal. In 2023, the legislature introduced a governor appointed director and reduced the responsibilities of the existing board appointed superintendent in that state. Now I have a little more to say about California in a minute.

So, let's look also, for a minute or just a very brief moment in time about the discussions regarding changing state board selection in California. So, I know there have been some suggestions that there could be, you know, some governor appointed Board Members who would be replaced with legislator appointed members in California. And if it were to do so, California would join a handful of states where the legislature directly appoints at least some Board Members or at least, you know, a good number.

These include, for example, New York, whose legislature appoints all 17 regions, South Carolina, where the legislator legislature appoints 16 of 17, and Tennessee where appointments are split among the governor, the speaker of the house, and the speaker of the Senate.

So I'm gonna take a minute to look at California's proposal in historical context. As I mentioned before, ECS has been reviewing state governance models for more than forty years. And in that time, we've identified 15 states whose models are substantially different now from when they were in 1983, and only three of those shifts occurred in the past decade. In almost all of those cases, not in all, but in almost all, more control went to the governor.

So, for example, three states that once shared California's broad model, right, an appointed board and elected chief moved away from it.

Kentucky in the early 1990s moved from an elected commissioner to a board appointed commissioner. And in 2023, the legislature added a requirement that the Senate confirm the commissioner. Oregon designated the governor as superintendent of public construction around 2012. And that governor now appoints a deputy superintendent to manage the day, agency's day to day operations. In 2019, Indiana abolished the elected chief entirely and established a governor appointed secretary of education.

Now, in the past decade, only Ohio has joined Indiana in making such a substantial change in its governance structure. A 2023 budget bill in Ohio created the Department of Education and Workforce with a governor appointed director taking administrative oversight of the agency and the board appointed superintendent retaining a narrower portfolio that focused on things like education, educator licensure. A 2025 budget bill in Ohio then restructured the board, phasing out elected positions and moving it to an all governor appointed membership.

So, in this way, Ohio's model, you could say concentrates even more control in the governor's hands than the California proposals would. Now, I should note that Wyoming attempted to make similar changes a while back and it ended differently.

Wyoming Supreme Court struck that down in 2014, finding that the state's constitution guaranteed the superintendent the supervisory powers that the legislature had denied her. And so that was, really a conversation about the, the language of the state constitution. Now I was asked to to address which model is most likely to improve student achievement. And unfortunately, the research base here is very thin. There it's and it's also old.

There was some research more than ten years ago suggesting that more centralized control lessened achievement gaps without affecting overall achievement. So, you know, lessen the gaps, but overall achievement didn't much change. But to be honest, the effects weren't super large and also, the relationships weren't especially strong. Now, I don't want to say with that that that governance isn't important or can't affect student achievement, Just that the effectiveness of any given model could depend on the state's particular context.

So, you know, to conclude really overall state K-twelve governance models remain very diverse across the country.

ECS has online resources where you can get an overview of them and few States have made substantial changes in the past decade. But the general thrust of changes since ECS started keeping track years ago has been a shift of control in the direction of the governor. So thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, for your presentation. I'm gonna go ahead and, turn it over to Senator Cabaldon. I know he has, some questions he wants to ask before he has to leave to the meeting.

Madam Chair, thanks so much, for the for the indulgence to do so. And I I think my principal questions might be for from, from mister Bonsastro, but also for for for PACE as well. And it's to follow so the the research base that's referenced in the ECS brief and the entire literature review is about essentially one professor in one state doing three studies, I think, if I'm getting this correct.

And that is as as has been said from 2005, essentially until 2013 or '14 when the re people just stopped researching this all altogether.

I should say I'm not surprised, in being a, you know, the university professor or myself, I I would have a hard time green lighting a a a graduate student research project on this because the the theoretical foundation that the or the boxes on an org chart and a couple of reporting relationships were more explanatory or equally explanatory as things like Prop 98 or the demographics of your student body or local governance structures, like all the other things.

The 50% law, which is all every other statute and and rule that exists in California, it's hard to imagine any theoretical basis to think that state administrative structure would be a substantial significant or that you would be able to detect that in the research.

But the research that has been done, by mister Manner that is cited in this, I I was pulling up and it and it and it supports the notion that that more gubernatorial appointment authority, leads to better results, but only up to a point, I quote, the advantages of the executive power are not absolute.

However, the models consistently show that concentrating additional institutional authority in the governor's hands, and in this case, the the references to where the governor is appointing both the board and, in this case, the education commissioner, so that where both entities are appointed by by the governor. That concentrating additional authority in the governor's hands is associated with lower student performance, and, indicating that, gov where governors can appoint both chiefs and boards is negatively signed in all models and statistically significant in six of eight instances.

It's really the only that and a couple of follow-up studies are the only research in this space.

So I'm just curious for both for both patients in ECS, One, whether there's a reason for us to what would be the theoretical basis to believe that we could detect a systemic research based statistically significant difference between states on this particular indicator it not have that be swamped by all the other stuff.

And then two, the fact that nobody's researching this, is is that is that telling us that the research community that schools of education and others have essentially reached the same conclusion that there's there's no point in in in encouraging PhD students or faculty themselves to research a topic that that is not likely to produce any meaningful outcomes in terms of showing a a meaningful relationship between state organizational structures and student achievement and the achievement gap? Maybe either for both ECS and for PACE.

I'm happy to take a stab to start. I'll defer the the part as to whether why why researchers aren't really tackling the issue right now because I I don't necessarily know what would motivate them to do this or not to do this. But I think broadly speaking, the kind of complexity that you described is right. I mean, it's extraordinarily complex. There are so many variables, creating a research study that does this that takes into account also the different contexts in different states, might be challenging.

If there were more research that would look at, for example, the longitudinal changes within any given states after they make a change, that might be a slightly tighter analytical design. But even that would be a challenge. So, you know, researching some of the biggest and most important questions sometimes in state policy can be difficult for those reasons. So, yeah, and I'll just say that the research based on this is, as a result, very thin.

Be before we turn to base, just on that point. So, I think from the brief, Kentucky, Oregon, and Indiana, as as you noted, all have had they have made a shift. So we have not natural experiments, but we have, you know, the closest thing we're gonna get.

Do you are you has ECS or are you aware of anyone else that has looked to see if there was, any, of the expected or hoped for, impacts on student achievement or equity or any achievement gap in any of those states as, following their the adoption of their their organizational change?

Yeah. ECS hasn't certainly done anything like that. We we confine our research more to policy research and are less inclined to do that sort of research that you've described. I have not encountered any other research on the experience of those particular states.

Thank you for the question, Senator. With regard to the theoretical underpinnings of why we might expect a change like this to lead to differences in outcomes, I think at a high level, you could think of a metaphor of a car that has a destination or a driver be at the driver's seat with a destination in mind. We could think of the destination being reducing achievement gaps, literate increasing literacy, reducing chronic absenteeism at the steering wheel, but the steering system is disconnected from the wheels.

And that and what that looks like is, as the superintendent was mentioning, decision making authority does sit with the governor, agenda setting authority, funding authority, but it's disconnected in in light of the the fact that the superintendent of public instruction is, independently elected and does not directly report to the governor or the state board. So the decision making does indeed lie with the governor, but then administration implementation lies with the independent SPI.

So that so if you were to then connect the steering to the wheels of the car, the car would be better positioned to head towards its destination. So that I think in in there are situations in which collaboration does occur given who is elected at the time, but it's not guaranteed given that kind of structural independence.

Yeah. For me, the the the the challenge is that is that if if if an auto manufacturer was making a set of cars that in which the steering wheel and the rest of the car were not connected, we would have evidence about the outcomes and we'd be very clear. Right? If we and we'd be able to assess that. We'd say, like, how many crashes are there when you can't steer a car?

Right? So that there's all there's a very strong theoretical basis that the steering wheel driving the car is absolutely critical to the car to getting to your destination also to safety. So the theoretical foundation is very strong and that should be a very strong one. If on the other hand you said, okay, well, you know, some cars have their speedometers in in meters and or in kilometers and some have them in miles, You know, what what does that affect? That might I would suspect that's a that's probably not what an effect.

But if somebody positive that it was, we wanted we had a bill before us to require everybody to put their car their speedometers into kilometers, we would we would we would we would wanna find out, well, how will we know if that had any impact or not? And that that so I'm part partly struggling with this question because we don't have the longitudinal data here.

We have because of the answer to the chair's question to, mister Allen about what are the metrics, how will we know if this is working, and now we're looking towards other states for for insights.

But this other state, like, the folks who would be asking the questions are not asking them about this particular lens, whereas people are investigating the impacts of school finance systems, of Serrano models, of of Prop 98, of all the the re very active research in a lot of domains about what predicts and what affects student achievement, but there isn't in this space.

And so that's that's more of the question I was trying to get to is then how will we be able to assess and evaluate whether or not this is likely to have an effect here in California.

And and I think with regard to that question about, the the absence of the research studies, I think as ECS referred to, as you know, with valid research studies, there are variables that you need to keep constant. And then with the diversity and differences across states, it would be hard to come up with RCT per se for for that the impact of that change.

So I think that there's definitely things we could learn descriptively from cross data analysis, but it would be hard to, come up with an empirical answer to that question.

Alright. The and just to the to my last comment on this is just and it relates to the earlier panel, which is that that that should imply a lot of humility, for PACE, for LAO, for us about the claims that we're making about about this.

Because if if it was if it was, likely that changes in state organizational structures, were predictive in in in in any sort of substantial way in student achievement or equity, we would it would be much more likely that we'd be seeing researchers and others actually devoting their devoting energy to this. They haven't that doesn't mean there's no that doesn't mean that that there's no possibility.

But the claims that that we've that we heard in the first panel about what will likely to occur without without metrics or an evaluation framework or an evaluation plan for this that would allow us to design it properly towards that towards that metric.

It is it is it is concerning and I just, again, would encourage folks to be have be humble about what the claims are here, and if it's efficiency and effectiveness and just clear signals for the beleaguered, superintendent of Sacramento County Schools to not get two different letters, That that's also valuable that's still valuable to be more efficient, to be more effective without without making broad unsubstantiated claims about student achievement in the equity gaps. Madam Chair, thank you so much.

And it looks like our superintendent wanted to comment possibly on, the question that Senator Cabaldon was was raising and concerns.

Thank you, madam chair. Just on the point of research, while it's been noted that the research in this area is so thin to show how this organizational change will have impact. There is clear research in another area that we should follow. Clearly the most important, aspect to supporting our students is a well trained, well qualified educator and all the educators who go along with that who help the teachers and the classified staff.

But the research is is so clear that the principal as instructional leader is so important to how that work happens.

And so I've spent the last eight years trying to figure out how do you move a state that has a thousand districts and they have their their own systems, and we and their own boards. And the reality is is we all have accountability, but what is clear is that we have to give districts guidance about what works and the resources to do it. And I'll give you an example. Los Angeles Unified, our largest district, has made gains in every single category of education.

And they attribute that to having programs like a phonics based instruction program.

And every student gets it and every staff person is trained in it. We now train every new teacher in, you know, phonetic awareness. Whereas before, this was a debate that people were having and they were afraid to talk about the science of reading. Now, by law, every new teacher gets it.

So what I'm saying is, well, the data for this proposal, its impact is so thin, there is data that we can actually rely on and that we should double down on and support more resources in that area rather than entertaining something that arguably would have no impact at all on our kids' success.

Alright. Do we have any other questions or comments? Yes. Yes. Senator Choi?

Thank you, mister Pentagon and and then also, doctor Myung. Must be a Korean name that I can understand, pronounce better. You are from policy analysis for California education. So you've been analyzing all the policies regarding the education. So number of questions I have is that we are basically speaking about the structural governing change, how we can implement the education policies and the streamline, which definitely it may it may not impact the education outcome.

What I was more concerned about initially supporting this movement of so called reform, hopefully, to the right direction improvement, improving the current system, which I described a while ago, is that a lot of redundancy, a lot of contradicting policies, and the school districts or local school districts do not know which rhythm to dance to. So many different expectations or outcomes, etcetera. So we can streamline it. That's that's the purpose.

And by streamlining, they can simplify the reporting, the man state mandated the requirement compliance, and that they can focus on education, which will hopefully improve the education out out out outcomes.

But I think this structure right now being proposed is more organizational structure. Pal on on the the gov governor's desire, he sees this model will improve. But now I see, our superintendent that is disrupting what we are doing well. No no problem. Why do you disturb what we are doing?

So that's directly contradicting from my context and the reports I heard from local superintendents was that too many boards or too many supervisors. So we don't know where to report to, who whom to listen to. So there's obviously some problem in there. So we need to I agreed. We need to reform in that regard.

But you are mentioning that we have no trouble. That's the illusion. I I am getting getting it. Why do you I I know you are resisting because of I'm I'm I'm not at this time condoning any change or not changing. Obviously, your authority, your power, to me, I get a lot of conflicting statements.

One is SBI's authority is expanded because you will have a chance to sit on the CSU board, UC regions, and such that there'll be more power, more input. Maybe you can accept it or not accept it as more authority. But the other structure structure changes that under the current system, governor appoints six deputies And and under the superintendent of public instruction, you have five deputies and five associates.

But under proposed governance structure is that governor will appoint us all combined the same number altogether, but the title will be all deputies. On the 16 deputies, that will go to on the education commission.

So your employees who you used to work with will be all transferred to education commissioner. Right? So, obviously, you will have a less a less authority over over deputies that you have assigned certain works. And other than this, what reasons are you saying that your authorities diminished under the new proposal?

Through the chair, I wanna be clear. As it relates to this proposal, it doesn't have any direct impact on me and my my time as a superintendent. I'm in my final year of my second term and I cannot continue in this role and but I do care. And what I've learned, I I feel I have to share, you know, and I wish that the PACE folks had asked.

Yeah. You are the right person right now because your term is being expired. And not to speak of your your personal desire, but Yeah. Objectively speaking after eight years of experience, what will be the ideal? So my final Yeah.

Question I had, let me throw it out. I wanna hear from you and Yeah. Doctor Myung

Saying that having analyzed all these current policies and then having experienced on the current system Yep. Were you both sides, the superannuation and the public policy analysts were contacted by governance office as a consultation. This is what we would like to do and what suggestions do you have. Were you con consulted? And that's the first part question.

And the second part is that regardless of answer yes or no Yeah. If you were to come up with a new proposal as an independent body, not as a governor, not as a superintendent, as a neutral body, how would you how would you Modify this or come up with a new set of a restructure restructure restructuring reform policy In organizing this education system, which is so complicated.

You know, nobody seems to know who who the line of authority is or whom to report, who know who's requiring what to the local local school districts. This is, right now, so confusing and time consuming and the money wasting and the resource wasting right now. That's what the the school districts are experiencing and complaining about.

To your question, the governor's staff mentioned an interest in this policy maybe a year ago and then again right before it was introduced into this year's budget proposal. Actual input? Not input. And interest on behalf of the administration. Informing.

Correct. And, you know, and I I I would think that PACE would also reach out to someone at the department to make the research balanced. Even if people at the department said, we don't agree with this or that. That creates for balanced research. And, you know, why not consult those who work at the department and understand it, both its its strengths and its weaknesses to get the full picture.

And and so I would just say that the input process has been limited at best. I think it's possible to reduce the bureaucracy that school districts deal with. I think they're right. There should be less paperwork. There should be less bureaucracy.

I don't think that means that you should receive a grant and never have to complete a report. If you give dollars if you get dollars from the state, you gotta be able to say, is this program working or not? But I think that process can be streamlined. It can be simplified. And it doesn't require a structural change in the organization.

Give me realistically your simplification proposal.

Okay.

Yeah. I've already developed a one page template that could be the same across every grant that districts receive that really just ask one question. Is anybody better off and how do you know? The data doesn't lie. And so the process can be simplified.

That requires coordination amongst, the Department of Education, the State Board of Education, the legislative staff, and others who and the Department of Finance who all work together to create the requirements that go into reporting. More times than not, it's the department of finance that we creates creates the requirements around reporting as they should. But that can be simplified. If we if we commit that every district has the same template for every grant, it could be simplified. It could be a one page process.

And I would take it a step further. This will require legislative approval, but we can make it possible for small districts.

Simplification means elimination of the elimination of a certain entity. So which ones would you

It doesn't mean elimination of the entity. It just means eliminating different reports. So there aren't so many reports. Just create one that says that students get better or not. How many?

What's your data? And then for small districts, what we should be doing for small districts, and this requires legislative authority. Small districts shouldn't have to fill out a grant application. They should have automatic eligibility if they meet the goals of the grant. Low income students, students on free and reduced lunch, whatever the the goals are.

We should because the small districts have a superintendent who also is a principal or a principal who's also a teacher.

So you are speaking of a more policies streamlining rather than entity streamlining?

I think that the structural changes are are the wrong it's an idea at the wrong time. Where we should be putting our energy right now is making sure that our kids have the resources to read. California is making a huge shift that it has has not had before. We have to make sure that every educator is trained in the science of reading. We have to make sure that families have access to books in multiple languages, that they have access to resources.

We we have to address chronic absenteeism. We have to address the fact that we have 300,000 homeless students, 10,000 who are teenagers on their own. And so I'm just saying that this is an idea that is being inserted at the wrong time when we should be accelerating and focusing on other things. As as to your point about the confusion that superintendents feel, the county superintendents play a role that the state superintendent will never play.

The county superintendents organize each of the 20 or 30 districts in that county.

And they know to go to the county superintendent for questions about that. They know to go to the department when they need help with guidance. But sometimes they need more than guidance. They need answers that only the legislature or the governor can answer. And so that sometimes is frustrating to them.

And I understand it that they can't get an immediate answer because what they seek an answer to is something that only the governor and the legislatures can do. Perfect example. Right now, every single district in the state is begging to have the prop 98 that were withheld in the governor's midyear in the governor's January proposal. It's almost $6,000,000,000. If I could give it, I would just say, yep.

It's yours. But I can't. That requires legislative approval and the governor sign off. Right? And so while it is not a perfect system, there are benefits to having a county superintendent who helps to organize all of the districts in that region and a state superintendent who can be the buffer between them and what they need from the legislature.

And so it's not perfect and sometimes people are inconvenienced but that's not a reason to create a whole new structure.

... ideal structure will be.

We'll PACE laid that out in our December 2025 report on TK education governance that was referred to in the governor's budget proposal. And it it does mirror or it it bears a strong resemblance to the proposal that we've been discussing.

I I do wanna say that the, the reason why we have the superintendent of public instruction in our constitution really kinda goes back to the first constitutional convention in 1849 where we there was many representatives at that convention who were from Iowa, and there was also recency bias. Iowa was then, at that point, the most recent state and that was that joined the union. And so we copy and paste it before there's copy and pasting a lot of that language into the California's California's first constitution.

And so which is why we have that language about the superintendent of public construction. And then, essentially a few years later, iOS struck that and they now directly have a gubernatorial appointed director of public instruction. And but to say, I think there is some confusion about how strongly our constitution represents the role of the superintendent. Beyond, establishing the title and the conditions for election and their term, the constitution does not give detailed operational authority to the superintendent. That is all defined by the legislature.

So the definition, the responsibilities of the SPI are determined through statute by by legislators. And so, I think it is up to the legislators to determine how coherent we want our governance system to be, and then it's up to you to accordingly define the role of the superintendent.

Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Thank you for appearing. You're doing a great job and I really appreciate your articulation and your passion. So let's throw something on the table here for a minute. You're staying on as superintendent, election's over, and the commissioner comes in. Now you're both on board.

How do you see that working and how do you see it not working? Give us a a dating thing. What what do you perceive would happen with what you've been trying to do, what maybe they'll come in to do because your mandate is on the ballot. It's there. We can all read it.

His, we don't know. But what is your perception that you'll be able to or not be able to work together? First day on the job. Here we go.

Well, Senator, I, imagine that it would be the same as the circumstances where you had a state superintendent and a governor who come from a different party in a different orientation which we've had before. We've had, it's not about politics but we've had democratic state superintendents at times when we've had Republican governors. And there is just by default in philosophy a difference of a philosophy about how much money to spend on education, how to shoot, how to treat immigrant students, you name it.

Any number of things, could be a disagreement. And so essentially, the state superintendent even under the current structure is locked out if they are not in alignment with the governor.

I, I mean, I knew on day one when I took this job, the only way to be able to get anything done is to work closely with the governor and the legislature. That's why I sponsor 20 bills every single year. And in other states, the state superintendent has so much more authority to, you know, to approve a contract to help move revenue to schools. In in this in this state, the state superintendent has none of that.

And so this proposal by default is in terms of what it proposes for the future state superintendent is in fact weakening the position.

A position that already is somewhat structurally weak is weakening it instead of finding a way to strengthen it, instead of finding a way to make it have more resources to work with. And for the last decade or more, the positions at the Department of Education have been unfunded. And new responsibilities settled at the department without any additional resources by and large.

And so I think on day one, there could be depending on who becomes the governor and who becomes the state superintendent, there could be there could be real friction. You know, this proposal talks about eradicating friction that hasn't really materialized.

But under this system, there could be real friction if at any point you get a governor and a state superintendent who come from a different ideology.

But wouldn't that commissioner, again day one, be able to promote, the budget, promote issues that that you've pointed out, you know, over the years. Yeah. Remedial education, making sure our kids are fed. In some cases, LA unified feeds the kid three times.

Three times.

During the day. Others too. But all the things that we're looking at, ROP programs Everything. Wouldn't he or she be able to enhance all that?

Only if the governor agrees. Because governor's her boss and they take their authority. Just like any other secretary of any education of any agency, the commissioner would take their authority from the governor. I'm not saying that has to be a bad thing. All I'm saying is that when there is time and the need for independent action, that's where there's a benefit to having an elected state superintendent.

And I, I made a, I, I, I wanted to clarify something I said earlier. I, I meant to say that there is not a single state that has an elected state superintendent who does not oversee the Department of Education. Not one. Not one. And so this is highly unusual in what's proposed.

Again, if, if it's the will of the people that have an appointed commissioner instead of a state superintendent, then so be it. But do that through the ballot box, not as an end run to what's in our state constitution. And then by default, I just feel bad for who will be the next state superintendent, really creating a position that, you know, to to answer Doctor Choi's earlier question, yes, it gives him a vote on some commissions, but that is one vote.

It is and it's saying, here you go. We're gonna take away the Department of Education from the superintendent.

But what we're gonna give you are these commissions that you get to sit on and you get to be one vote on. Seems to me that is completely weakening the position.

Good. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. I have a couple of questions. I think, and it's, it's been great to just hear the kind of discussion that's happened amongst my colleagues as they've had questions and comments. And, you know, I, I, I wanna emphasize, I think I'm meeting this proposal with a very open and critical mind at the same time and trying to figure out, as I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation, what is best for students and student outcomes.

I do wanna highlight and, and you talked a little bit about this, Superintendent Thurman.