California’s top educator should be an appointed expert, not an elected politician

Here’s something you probably don’t see every day: a guy running for office while making the case for abolishing that very same office. No, it’s not the governorship (that might be a popular notion in California these days). I’m talking about the office of state superintendent of public instruction.

California’s top elected education position, the state superintendent dates all the way back to 1849. Despite the fact that California’s Constitution is among the longest of any state, the document itself is actually pretty vague on what it expects of the Golden State’s top educator, designating the superintendent as chair of the State Board of Education and as head of the California Department of Education. But the members of the board, to whom the superintendent technically reports, are appointed by the governor, creating a dynamic where it can be unclear who’s actually in charge.

On top of that, through ballot initiatives and legislative action, the responsibilities of the state superintendent have been repeatedly reduced or reassigned over the years. Perhaps the most important of those changes was the passage in 1988 of Proposition 98, which ensures via formula the allocation of roughly 40% of annual state spending to education. In 2013, the office’s influence was further reduced with the implementation of the local control funding formula, which allocates funds to districts through a set of criteria designed to account for local conditions and needs.

At this point, the list of things the state superintendent doesn’t do may be longer than the things the person actually does. School budgeting and program funding? Not really involved in that. Developing curriculum, instructional materials and content standards? Doesn’t do that, either. Teacher training and credentialing? Nope. Building new or modernizing old schools? No again. Approving and overseeing charter schools? Not that, either.

So, if someone called superintendent of public instruction doesn’t directly oversee these things, as one might naturally assume, what’s left to actually do? Quite a lot, though most of it is fairly technical: monitoring districts’ compliance with state and federal programs, grants and applicable laws; collecting data on district spending and student performance; ensuring that funds are properly allocated under the local control formula; and overseeing the budgets of county offices of education.

This is grind-it-out stuff, especially considering California’s vast scale, with 5.8 million students in 977 school districts and more than 10,000 schools, spread out across 58 very different counties. Against the administrative and technical challenges presented by such an expansive system, there’s a strong case for filling the state’s top education job with an experienced administrator, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature, similar to other important Cabinet roles.

That case is further reinforced by California’s distinct lack of recent progress in improving learning conditions and student outcomes. From 2015-25, although California’s per-student spending increased by 30%, student achievement did not. A recent nationwide assessment found that in both math and reading, not only does student achievement remain below 2019 levels, but also the gap between high- and low-achieving students continues to widen.

If increased funding hasn’t produced gains, what’s needed to change the trajectory of public education in California? Accountability. California is among only 11 states that still elect their top education officials. Converting the role from an elected position to an appointed one would go far toward improving coordination and accountability between the executive branch, which already controls most of the levers on education, and the Legislature, which has too often been allowed to dodge hard choices on education by hiding behind an elected superintendent.

The idea of abolishing the state superintendent as an elective office isn’t new. As recently as 2023, then-Assembly member (now Sacramento Mayor) Kevin McCarty proposed a constitutional amendment that would have converted the office before next year’s ballot. That effort fizzled out in the midst of a busy legislative session and in the face of the usual political pressures. The merits of such a change, however, remain just as valid.

In the near term, Californians will be asked at least once more to elect a state superintendent of public instruction. Whoever wins that position — whether another candidate or I — should do the job well and work to replace it with a system that better serves California, its students, its teachers and its future.

Josh Newman is a senior fellow at UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology and a former California state senator. He served as chair of the Senate Committee on Education.