California kids still struggle in our schools. Will this change help?
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — Recent news about literacy, education and general smarts in California and across the country has been somewhat distressing.
Along with claims that Americans are becoming illiterate, here in the Golden State there are worries that even the highest-achieving students aren’t prepared for our universities, and a study shows backsliding in civil rights protections in the vacuum created by federal changes under the Trump administration.
Despite being close to terming out of office, and also otherwise occupied with his ever-emerging presidential run, Gov. Gavin Newsom last week found time to announce a consequential, if controversial, move that has the potential to vastly improve educational outcomes for California kids: switching out an independent, voter-chosen leader for a hired gun.
In legislation signed last week, Newsom basically eviscerated the role of the elected superintendent of public instruction and instead shifted oversight of our K-12 schools to a newly created education commissioner — to be appointed by the governor.
The change, set to happen early next year, has been described as a “power grab” by some, and on its surface could be seen that way. The conservative candidate for state superintendent — Sonja Shaw, who says she is running to stop “political ideologies being shoved down everybody’s throats” — quickly claimed Newsom’s move was all about stopping her.
In reality, power grab or not, it’s the kind of reform we should all support — a long-overdue push to create accountability in a hot-mess system where there are too many people almost-sorta in charge of too many conflicting priorities.
Chabria: UC could go back to using the SAT and ACT for admissions. Here’s why that doesn’t add up
UC is not Harvard, and was never meant to embody that type of self-perpetuating exclusivity disguised as a meritocracy.
‘A’ for accountability
It’s to Newsom’s credit that he’s setting up his successor to helm a system that at least has a chance at coherence, even if it raises the stakes for the next governor to deliver.
For years — decades, really — streamlining the governing structure of schools “has been proposed by Republicans and Democrats and bipartisan and nonpartisan commissions,” Linda Darling-Hammond told me. She’s a professor emeritus at Stanford University, an advisor to the governor and, by any measure, one of the preeminent education policy experts in the country.
“It’s not at all political. It is really about making the system run well,” she said. “The world is changing, the economy is changing. There’s just a need to be very efficient and effective in making policy and then implementing that policy.”
“Run well” is the key there. California operates the biggest and most diverse school system in the country. We’ve got roughly 10,000 regular schools (depending on how you count), including about 1,200 charter schools, around 1,00 school districts and 58 counties, each with their own slice of local control over those schools, according to the Department of Education.
That’s about 5.7 million students, nearly 300,000 teachers and $150 billion in costs (counting the new funding in the next budget).
To be kind, this system does not always run well. That’s in no small part because oversight and control are fragmented, overlapping and confusing. Currently, the State Board of Education sets policies, but the elected superintendent implements them through the Department of Education. Then control runs downhill to individual school districts, filtering through local school boards and even principals.
The board can’t control how the superintendent does their job, and vice versa. In fact, they don’t always agree, despite (or because of) the shotgun wedding nature of their relationship. At times, it can feel like they are working against each other. Never mind the complexities of local control.
This has been especially true in recent years as Newsom and the Legislature have pushed through big changes, such as the new prekindergarten grade, that have required massive coordination and effort. At the local level, administrators often complain there is little clarity on what is expected of them and, too often, outright conflict.
“The idea of having policy in one place and implementation in the other is really crazy,” Michael Kirst told me. He’s professor emeritus of education at Stanford and the longest-serving president of California’s State Board of Education, serving under both of Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial stints.
Newsom’s proposed system promises “much clearer, cleaner accountability,” Kirst said.
Expertise counts
It also has the benefit of putting an actual education expert in charge of schools. Because the superintendent role is elected, it has too often been coveted by career politicians looking for a landing spot. Its incumbent, Tony Thurmond, had a background in social work before running for various offices, but that kind of experience isn’t always the case. Neither is experience running a major organization with thousands of employees.
While Newsom’s plan leaves many, if not most, of the details to be ironed out later (a frustrating strategy he’s used more than once to keep the ball rolling on policy without having the drag of actual detail), it does promise to put in someone with the kind of high-level educational policy experience that should be required when managing this vast and important endeavor.
Kirst points out that this will be a “powerful position” charged with making sure our schools are indeed run well, and at the end of the day, it gives us one person to blame if they don’t: the governor.
So if schools don’t improve and our kids don’t learn, voters will know exactly who failed.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: Trump ousts members of bipartisan election commission ahead of midterms
The California edge: The Work of Helping A.I. Destroy Work
The L.A. Times Special: In bed 23 at Adelanto ICE detention center, a terrified teenager missed his mom
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
First, the article argues that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to shift day-to-day control of California’s K-12 system from an elected superintendent to an appointed education commissioner is a necessary structural reform for a sprawling system that often operates incoherently. California’s school governance is described as fragmented, with overlapping responsibilities among the State Board of Education, the superintendent, districts and local boards, creating confusion and conflict rather than clear lines of authority.
Moreover, the column contends that unifying policy-setting and implementation under a single, expert-led management structure will improve accountability, especially in a state educating millions of students and spending roughly $150 billion a year on TK-12 schools.[1][4][6] By making the commissioner answerable to the governor, the piece suggests voters will have a clearer figure to hold responsible if schools fail to improve.
Building on decades of debate, the article notes that both bipartisan commissions and policymakers from multiple parties have long suggested streamlining California’s education governance, and it frames Newsom’s move as finally acting on those recommendations rather than engaging in partisan maneuvering. The piece suggests that aligning the State Board of Education more tightly with the Department of Education through the new commissioner follows these longstanding calls for modernization.[1][4]
In addition, the article argues that expertise should be central to the top job overseeing schools, and that an appointed commissioner is more likely than an elected superintendent to have deep experience in education policy and large-scale management. The column contrasts this with the superintendent’s office, which has sometimes attracted career politicians with limited education background, and presents the commissioner role as a “powerful position” designed to ensure the system is “run well” rather than as a political landing spot.[1][6]
Finally, the article portrays the change as clarifying the superintendent’s role rather than eliminating it, emphasizing that the elected superintendent will remain an independent statewide advocate while the commissioner manages operations. It suggests this division of labor could create cleaner accountability, with one individual responsible for running the system and another focused on championing students, families and educators across TK-12 and higher education.[1][4][6]
Different views on the topic
At the same time, critics quoted in other coverage describe the overhaul as a “power grab” that weakens democratic control over schools by stripping authority from an office chosen directly by voters.[3][5][7] These opponents argue that shifting real management power to a governor-appointed commissioner fundamentally alters the meaning of the superintendent’s elected role while leaving the title in place, and they contend voters were not asked to approve such a change through a constitutional amendment.[5][6]
Furthermore, the column’s framing of the reform as nonpolitical contrasts with concerns from conservative superintendent candidate Sonja Shaw and other education leaders, who argue the timing and design of the legislation are aimed at preventing an ideologically opposed superintendent from influencing policy.[3][5][7] These voices say the move allows an outgoing governor to cement control over education for years, limiting the ability of future superintendents to counterbalance the governor’s agenda.[3][5]
In addition, opponents highlight the process used to enact the change, noting that Assembly Bill 181 moved as a budget “trailer bill,” bundled with the broader state spending plan rather than debated as a standalone governance overhaul.[1][3][5] They contend this expedited route reduced public scrutiny, bypassed extended committee hearings and made it harder for families, educators and local officials to weigh in on a major restructuring of school oversight.[3][5]
Critics also warn that concentrating operational control in the governor’s office through an appointed commissioner risks politicizing day-to-day decisions in education, from curriculum priorities to intervention strategies in low-performing districts.[3][6][7] While the law requires Senate confirmation for the commissioner and tasks the role with recommending further governance changes, skeptics fear the position could become a partisan instrument aligned closely with the governor rather than a neutral administrator focused solely on student outcomes.[1][6]
Finally, some education advocates express concern that reducing the superintendent’s direct management authority could weaken an independent voice for the public interest at the top of the system, even as the law nominally redefines the office as an ombudsman-like advocate.[2][6][7] They argue that a superintendent with limited power and only one vote on an expanded board may struggle to meaningfully influence policy or challenge the governor-appointed commissioner, thereby diminishing the role of a statewide official directly accountable to voters.[2][5][6]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Kim, an attorney and former San Francisco supervisor, is running against State Sen. Benjamin Allen for the role of running California’s long-beleaguered Department of Insurance. In this episode she talks to Rebuilding L.A. host Kate Cagle about why she should get the job.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
