Here’s what you probably don’t see every day: He’s a man running towards the office, insisting on abolishing the exact same office. No, it’s not the governor (it may be a popular concept in California these days). I’m talking about the state secretary of public leadership.
In California’s elected education profession, state oversight dates back to 1849. Despite the fact that California’s constitution is the longest in any state, the document itself is actually rather vague about what is expected of top Golden State educators, and has been designated as the chair of the school board and as head of the California Department of Education. However, board members create dynamic locations where technically reporting board members are appointed by the governor and who are in fact in charge.
Additionally, state oversight responsibilities have been repeatedly reduced or reassigned over the years through voting initiatives and legislative measures. Perhaps the most important of these changes is the passing of Proposal 98 in 1988, which guarantees the formula to allocate approximately 40% of annual state spending on education. In 2013, the impact of the office was further reduced due to the implementation of local control funding ceremonies.
At this point, the list of things the state supervisor doesn’t do may be longer than what a person actually does. School budgets and program funding? I’m not actually involved in that. Development of curriculum, educational materials, and content standards? I won’t do that either. Teacher training and qualifications? no. Do you want to be a new or modernized old school or modernized? once again. Charter school approval and supervision? That’s not the case either.
So, if someone doesn’t call the supervisor of public leadership, and if they don’t directly oversee these things, what do they actually need to do, as they naturally assume? Quite a lot, most of which are quite technical, but surveillance of districts, grants, and applicable laws to state and federal programs. Collecting data on district spending and student performance. Ensure that funds are allocated appropriately under locally managed forms. Oversees the budget for the County Office of Education.
This is Grind It Out, especially considering its vast size in California, with 5.8 million students in 977 school districts and over 10,000 schools spreading across 58 very different counties. For the management and technical challenges presented by such a vast system, there is a strong case for fulfilling the state’s best education jobs to experienced managers, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature as well as other important cabinet roles.
That case is further strengthened by California’s clear lack of recent advances in improving learning conditions and student outcomes. From 2015 to 2025, per student spending in California increased by 30%, but student performance did not increase. Recent national assessments have shown that not only student achievement in both mathematics and reading levels are below the 2019 level, but the gap between students reaching high levels continues to grow.
If the increased funding is not profitable, what is needed to change the trajectory of public education in California? Accountability. California is only 11 states still selecting educators. Transforming from elected positions to appointed positions goes far further towards improving coordination and accountability among the administrative departments that already manage most levers of education.
The idea of abolishing state supervision as an elective is not new. Recently in 2023, then Assembly member (now Sacramento Mayor) Kevin McCarty proposed a constitutional amendment that would convert the office before voting next year. The effort was on the whimsical front in the midst of a busy legislative meeting and in the face of normal political pressure. However, the benefits of such changes remain in effect.
In the near future, Californians will be asked at least once more to elect a state chief of public leadership. Anyone who has won that position, whether it’s another candidate or me, should do well in the job and work to replace it with a system that caters to California, its students, teachers and its future.
Josh Newman is a senior fellow in the Department of Social Ecology at UC Irvine and a former California Senator. He chaired the Senate Committee on Education.
insight
La Times Insights provides AI-generated analytics about Voices content to provide all your perspectives. Insights are not featured in the news articles.
Perspective This article generally coincides with the central right perspective. Learn more about the analytical perspectives generated by this AI
The content generated by the following AI is driven by confusion: The Los Angeles Times editorial staff do not create or edit content.
The ideas expressed in Piecethe article argue that oversight of California’s elected public leadership (SPI) roles is primarily managerial and focuses on technical tasks such as state/federal law compliance, funding allocation, and data collection, rather than shaping key education policies.[3][4]It emphasizes that key responsibilities such as school budgeting, curriculum development, and teacher credentials have been shifted over time to other entities, reducing the impact of SPIs.[3][4]The author argues that by converting roles into appointed positions, it will improve accountability and coordination between the governor and the legislature, achieving student achievements that have stagnated despite a 30% increase in per student funding over the decade.[3][4]The article states that California is one of 11 states with elected education directors, highlighting the structural conflicts created by the governor appointed state education boards that oversee the elected SPI.[3][4]Different Views on the Topic The constitutional role of SPI as a nonpartisan elected official ensures independence from the governor’s office, provides enforcement checks, and maintains public accountability for education priorities.[2][3]As head of the California Department of Education, SPI oversees key functions such as teacher certification, textbook distribution and the implementation of federal programs that require stable leadership isolated from political sales.[1][4]. With elected status, SPI can act as a statewide advocate for students and schools, leveraging bully pulpits to influence policy debates beyond administrative duties[2][3]Historical precedents and constitutional provisions such as vacant appointment rules that require legislative confirmation reflect a deliberate design that balances authority among government branches.[3][4].
Source link
