Assembly Education Committee, Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Education Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 2
As we equip teachers with a training to support student mental health, we should also consider other trusted adults in students' lives who may not yet have the tools to do so. As trusted mentors, coaches are often the first to hear about student athlete mental health challenges. They have the unique opportunity to spot mental health crisis and point students toward appropriate resources. School coaches are required to complete training to support student athlete physical health including education on concussions, cardiac arrest, and heart illness. Yet these safety courses do not include any instruction about how to support student athletes mental health even though physical and mental well-being are closely connected.
AB sixteen sixty five requires school sports coaches to complete an approved mental health training course. The bill will equip coaches who see and interact closely with student athletes to recognize when a student may be struggling. And with me today to speak in support of the of this bill is Danielle Dumenkeli, former high school, college and pro athlete and current sport development director for the Sacramento Running Association. And I will hand it over to her.
Redner 3
Good afternoon. As she mentioned, my name is Danielle Domenichelli. I'm a former student athlete, and I currently serve as the sport development director for the Sacramento Running Association. I am here today in support of AB sixteen sixty five. I grew up playing multiple sports, but ultimately found my greatest success in cross country and track.
After high school, I went on to compete at the Division I level where I earned All American honors and later spent a year competing as a sponsored professional athlete. While I achieved success in my sport, I also experienced challenges that I now recognize could have been mitigated if my coaches had been better equipped to understand mental health concerns. When I first started distance running in high school, I asked a previous coach if I should try to lose weight to look less like a soccer player and more like a distance runner. While I don't remember the exact words, the response reinforced the idea that I didn't yet look the part. Throughout my running career, I compared my physical appearance to the women excelling in the sport.
I became convinced that restricting what I ate was necessary to perform at the highest level. Looking back, I now understand that I was struggling with body dysmorphic disorder, which led to disordered eating and a condition known as relative energy deficiency in sport. Although I had great moments of success in my running career, a significant amount of time, energy and well-being was wasted worrying about how I looked in comparison to other runners. I eventually started suffering from stress fractures and experienced declines in my physical and mental health. It took me many years to rebuild a healthy relationship with my body and my sport.
I have met many athletes with similar experiences, and in today's world where social media amplifies pressure around appearance and performance, I believe these challenges are becoming even more widespread. In my current role, I work with athletes of all ages, from elementary school to professional athletes. I see firsthand how critical mental health is, not only for performance, but for confidence, belonging, and overall well-being. Athletes are often their toughest critics, and the environments we create for them matter deeply.
Redner 3
Okay. I have one last thing. Providing coaches who athletes inherently put their trust in with training to recognize warning signs, communicate responsibly, and support athletes in accessing help is essential. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. At this time, we will take public comments and support. Please step up to the microphone, state your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill only. Thank you. Ms.
Barrows, do you mind coming back and doing it again? The mic was not on.
Redner 1
Thank you. At this time, we will have opposition witnesses step up. Seeing none, public comment in opposition. I see no public comment in opposition. Now to committee members for discussion.
Are there any questions or comments on this bill? Ms. Pelerin? Assembly Member Pelerin?
Redner 2
Hi. No, this is a great bill. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. Mental health is something that's so critical to be reminding people of and getting the correct training for. So I'd be honored to be a
Redner 1
co author as well. Thanks. Seeing no other comments from committee members, do we have a motion? We're in a subcommittee. So we'll hold this.
Hold it open. Thank you.
Redner 2
I will be brief. When a time is appropriate, I would love an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. We will now move on to file item number 11. Assembly member Hoover presenting AB twenty three sixteen. Assembly member Hoover, you may proceed when ready.
Redner 5
Thank you, madam chair and members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB twenty three sixteen. This is a very straightforward bill about fairness, ensuring that charter public schools have access to the same financial hardship relief in the state school facilities program as traditional public schools. I wanna start by accepting the committee amendments, and thank you to the chair and the staff of the education committee for your thoughtful thoughtful consideration and improvements of the bill. California has built a strong state partnership model for school facilities in the school bond program, but that partnership is not equally accessible to all public schools.
Today, all public schools must provide a 50% local match to access state bond funds. School districts can apply for financial hardship to reduce that 50% match to a lower threshold when they cannot afford the match, But charter schools cannot do this. AB twenty three sixteen strengthens the facilities program by allowing charter schools to apply for that same hardship designation. This is not automatic relief. It will be a fair case by case determination by the California School Finance Authority to ensure responsible use of state funds.
This change will make the program more equitable, providing many smaller or low income charter schools the opportunity to make building a permanent facility financially possible. Correcting this inequity will also help ensure that all public school students will have fair access to safe and modern facilities. With me today to testify in support is Carson e Eads from the California Charter School Association, as well as, Marcus Malarkey representing Caliber Public Schools and Griffin Technology Academies. Thank you.
Redner 6
Chair and members, my name is Carson Eads. I am here on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, and thank you again for your collaboration on the committee amendments. We're very we were very thankful for that. We are sponsoring AB twenty three sixteen as a simple fairness measure. It ensures that charter public schools have access to the same financial hardship relief as traditional public schools that they already receive.
Today, all public schools must typically provide a 50% local match in order to access state facilities bond funding. But when traditional school districts are unable to meet that requirement, they can apply for financial hardship relief to reduce that share. Charter public schools have unfortunately been excluded from this option. This disparity matters. Facilities access is one of the most significant challenges that charter public schools face driven in part by their lack of access to public financing tools.
In most cases, school districts can raise local bond funds for their 50% match through voter approved local bonds, and they can also raise developer fees. If they cannot do that, they have the opportunity to apply for hardship and reduce their match. Charter schools, they can't raise local bond funding. They're often excluded from local bond revenues. They can't re receive developer fees, and they also cannot apply for hardship.
So as a result, charter public schools must often rely on private financing in order to raise that match, and and then that diverts operational dollars away from student services towards facilities funding just to be able to afford it. You know, as a result, that means you're having less funding for your for your student services. Many charters, especially those who are smaller or in low income areas, they simply just cannot afford this financing. They're locked out of the bond program altogether. AB twenty three sixteen will help to fix this inequity.
It allows charter schools to apply for hardship relief when they face an undue financial burden. It authorizes the state to adjust that match as they see fit and as a to a to a reasonable level, similar to how it does so for school districts. At its core, this is about parity, equity, and access. Charter schools serve over 700,000 students in California. They're public schools.
Their students deserve equitable access to safe and modern facilities. AB twenty three sixteen will help to ensure that access. We respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 7
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. My name is Marcus Malarkey, and I'm speaking today in support of AB 2,316 on behalf of several Bay Area charter schools. Securing high quality permanent facilities is a challenge for charter schools across the state, especially for independent schools and underserved communities. Unlike our larger counterparts, we don't have access to public capital markets or large amounts of philanthropic funding. That's why the state school facilities bond program is such an important resource, but only if it's accessible and affordable.
As a CFO and fiscal consultant for several Bay Area charter schools, I've seen both the promise and the limitations of the state facility bond program. At Caliber Public Schools, I led one of the first district charter facility projects using Prop 51 bond funding. It's transformed our Beta Academy campus in San Pablo, creating a joyful permanent campus for 900 plus students there. But I've also seen how the program as it's currently structured often falls short. At Griffin Technology Academies, we embarked on a similar bond funded facility project, but we're now on the verge of having to abandon it because the required 50% local match isn't financially viable.
As a result, students will remain in outdated modular facilities instead of the modern learning environments they deserve. The challenge is now more urgent than ever. Today's higher interest rates make 50% local match unaffordable for schools that rely on state loans to fund it. When Caliber completed our project, rates were near zero and the project worked. But our project would not have penciled out in today's higher interest rate environment.
This bill directly addresses that affordability gap. It would make projects feasible for schools that would otherwise be locked out because the math doesn't work without some help. For Griffin, this bill would have been the difference between being able to move forward with our project and having to walk away empty handed. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB twenty three sixteen. Thank you very much.
Redner 1
Thank you. Appreciate that your witnesses were exactly on time. Thank you. With that, we will take public comments in support. Name, affiliation, and position on bill only.
Redner 8
Madam Chair and members, Adam Keglin on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support.
Redner 9
Good afternoon, Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We did have an opposed position on this bill. We were concerned about equity issues with regard to having a comparable process for charters and school districts but our concerns have been addressed and we want to thank the committee staff and also the bill author for taking for the work on the amendments. Thanks.
Redner 1
Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association. Also just wanted to thank the committee staff for their work on the amendments. We had too been concerned about the lack of guidance for the regulatory authorities about what constitutes hardship. Grateful and look to see forward to seeing those in print.
Excellent. Thank you. While we have quorum, we'd like to establish quorum. Secretary, call the roll. Patel?
I.
Redner 10
Patel here. Hoover? Hoover here. Elenise? Present.
Elenise present. Alvarez? Bonta? Garcia? Garcia present.
Lowenthal? Pellerin? Pellerin here? Zuber? Zuber here?
Redner 1
We do have quorum. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to members for discussion on this bill. Is there a second? I will second. And that brings us to the roll.
Oh, sorry. Assembly member Hoover, please close.
Redner 5
Yeah. Appreciate, again, the work of the committee on this and respectfully ask for a I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
I would like to comment appreciate you working with our committee staff and getting this bill to where it is today, Thank you for taking the amendments.
Redner 10
Secretary, call the roll. File item 11 a b twenty three sixteen. The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Patel? Aye.
Patel, I. Hoover? Hoover, aye.
Redner 10
Elenise, aye. Alvarez, Bonta, Garcia, Garcia, aye. Lowenthal, Pelerin? Pelerin, aye. Zipper, aye.
Redner 1
The vote is six-zero. It is out but we will leave the roll open for add ons. And then we'll go back to our file item number two, AB 1665, Pacheco. There's a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 10
File item two, AB1665, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Hoover?
Redner 10
Hoover, aye. Alenise? Aye. Alenise, aye. Alvarez, Bonta, Garcia?
Garcia, aye. Lowenthal, Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Zipper?
Zipper, aye.
Redner 1
The vote is six zero. It is out. We will leave the roll open for add ons. We will now take up the consent calendar. Do we have a motion?
Move. Motion? Is there a second? Second? It's a motion and a second.
Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 10
So the motions on the consent calendar are file item one, AB fifteen seventy two, due pass as amended. File item three, AB eighteen seventy one, do pass to appropriations. File item four, AB 2,003, do pass as amended to appropriations. File item five, AB 2,056, do pass to appropriations. File item six, AB 2,067, do pass.
File item seven, AB 2,107 do pass. File item eight, AB two thousand one ninety one do pass as amended to appropriations. File item nine, AB 2,242 do pass as amended to appropriations. File item 10, AB two thousand two and forty eight do pass as amended to appropriations. File item 12, AB twenty three thirty two, due pass to appropriations.
File item 13, AB twenty four fifty five, due pass to governmental organization committee. File item 14, HR 87 is be adopted. On the consent calendar, Patel.
Redner 10
Alanis, I. Alvarez? I. Alvarez, I. Bonta?
Garcia. Garcia I. Lowenthal. Pelerin? Aye.
Pelerin I. Zabur. Zabur I.
Redner 1
The bill vote is seven zero. It is out. We will leave the roll open for add ons. Assembly member Alvarez, would you like to add on? We can take your add ons at this time.
Madam secretary?
Redner 1
The vote is seven zero. We'll it is still out and we'll leave the roll open for further add ons.
Redner 1
And that one is 70. It is out. We will continue to leave the the roll open for add ons. And with the consent calendar?
Redner 1
Okay. Perfect. So we will recess this bill hearing session to reconvene at the close of the information hearing that will start at two p. M. Today.
See you back at two. At this time, we're gonna reconvene the education hearing for the purposes of taking up bills on file. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for add ons. Consent.
Redner 10
On the consent calendar, Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. File item two, a b 1665. Lowenthal?
Redner 1
The members in the audience, we are gonna wait ten more minutes for a member to add on votes from our bill hearing and then we'll convene the information hearing. Madam secretary, please open the roll for add ons.
Redner 1
90, the bill is out. And that adjourns the education hearing for bill hearings. Good afternoon. I'm calling the information hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Governance of the state's public schools has been debated by policymakers and the public since the state constitution was established in 1849.
This year is no exception. Governor Newsom's January budget via the trailer bill includes several proposed changes to the state level governance structure. Given the significance of this proposed change,
Redner 1
the speaker to hear this in Policy Committee we are gathered to discuss the proposal in this committee. I want to note that AB 2,117 Alvarez is a policy vehicle with the same language as in the proposed trailer bill. It is without endorsement and no action will be taken on this bill at this information hearing. My hope is for this time that we use this time to learn from the experts to better understand the past and present of our K through 12, TK through 12 governance structure to make informed decisions about its future. We will hear testimony regarding the history of California and other states' governance structures and how the California Department of Education serves schools and students.
We will hear testimony from representatives from the State Board of Education describing the governance proposal as well as the most recent report bringing attention to this issue published in December by PACE Policy Analysis for Public Education. I extended an invitation to the most recent superintendents of public instruction and Jack O'Connell provided a letter to the committee on the topic at hand. A copy of that letter is available on the committee website and is included in the materials provided to the members. Our current SPI is also here today to provide testimony. We are privileged to be able to hear the perspectives of several of the statewide associations on this proposal.
This includes the spectrum of positions regarding what the changes could bring for their memberships as well as the students that they serve. We are grateful to our panelists for taking the time to share all of their perspectives and recommendations with us today. For my fellow committee members, I see the legislature as the fourth panel. Although we will not have an actual fourth panel today and I am although we will not have an actual fourth panel here today, I'm looking forward to hearing your questions and debating the merits of this proposal. As we will hear from our panelists today and as demonstrated by the last one hundred and seventy seven years of California history, there are many models to consider as we seek to improve student outcomes.
At the end of this hearing we will take public comment in person. We ask that members of the public limit their comments to one minute. Comment may also be submitted in writing through our committee website. With that we will proceed with our first panel. Members please hold your questions until the end of each panel.
At this time I would like to invite Sarah Cortez, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst with the Legislative Analysts Office Kenneth Capayan, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst, Legislative Analysts Office Klaus Von Zastrow, Senior Policy Director, Education Commission of the States as well as Richard Zager, Chief Deputy Superintendent from 2011 to 2015 from the California Department of Education. You may proceed when ready, Ms. Cortez.
Redner 14
Thank you, chair and members. Ken Capone with my colleague Sarah Cortez on behalf of the legislative analyst office. We're here to give you a brief overview of the evolution of education governance in the state, the major and minor players, and how governance works in some other state agencies. California had no organized public school system when it gained statehood in 1850, but the framers of our first constitution thought it was a a core state responsibility and set about creating that system by setting aside land that could be sold to pay for education, setting a minimum school year, initially three months, and by creating the elected position of state superintendent. The legislature charged the superintendent initially with building schools, apportioning funding, and overseeing teacher training institutes.
A few years later, the legislature created the state board of education to manage other aspects of the system. The board was responsible for approving textbooks, determining required courses of study. And at the time, it mainly consisted of state and local officials, including the governor, the state superintendent, some county superintendents, and the heads of the state's teacher training programs. The balance of power between the state board and the superintendent shifted over time. Both had some significant responsibilities initially, but in the late 1880s, the counties took over almost took over all of the board's statutory responsibilities.
The board became an advisory body and the superintendent was the lead governance actor for a period of time. The board eventually regained much of its authority, however, and once again, those responsibilities of those two entities began to blur. The most important development happened in 1912. That was the year the voters amended the state constitution to remove all of the board's ex officio members and give the legislature more control over the state's governance system. And the legislature said, we've really had it with all the ambiguity up to this point.
What we're going to do is make the board consist of appointees of the governor. We'll make the board more of the head of the system and in charge of policy making. And the superintendent is going to be subordinate to the board and function as an administrator of policies. It wasn't very long before that arrangement came under scrutiny. The special legislative committee conducted the first formal governance study in 1920 and was very critical of California's system.
It criticized what it called a double headed governance structure, specifically for relying on an independently elected official like the superintendent to implement laws adopted by the legislature or policies approved by the state board. It said that would inevitably lead to conflict and inefficiency, and it recommended replacing the superintendent with an elected with an appointed commissioner. Many subsequent studies had a similar diagnosis and made similar recommendations. In 1928, the legislature tried to implement that recommendation by asking the voters to approve the elimination of the superintendent as an elected position. The voters rejected that idea and as well as three similar ballot measures over the next several decades, most recently in 1968.
So the state today operates with much of the same governance structure that it established in the early 1900s. It has four core actors: the state board, an 11 member body that's appointed by the governor. The board adopts regulations and academic standards defining what students should know and be able to do in various subjects. We have the state superintendent whose most important role today is administering and leading the California Department of Education. The governor, policy making entity as as the architect of the state budget and the signer of legislation, and, of course, the legislature, which is approving the budget and state laws.
Our state constitution requires California to have a elected superintendent and a state board of education, but it says relatively little about their duties. And the courts have said that the legislature is the ultimate authority and the decider, and the entity, through state laws, decides what each of those other entities does and how they relate to one another. California Department of Education is the main administrative agency implementing programs, allocating funding, and collecting data. About 1,500 employees work on those tasks this year. That makes it mid sized compared to most other state departments.
Most of the department's budget actually comes from the federal government and various grant allowances for administering federal programs. The state general fund is only about a third of the department's total administrative budget. Outside the four core entities, the state has many smaller entities with governance responsibilities in some specialized areas. The most clear cut examples are the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which oversees teacher training programs the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, which provides fiscal intervention and budget advice the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, which provides academic assistance and technical support and the State Allocation Board, which distributes school facility funding. Depending on how we define governance, the state has at least a dozen entities like that and potentially as many as two dozen working on these very specific elements of governance and direction for school districts.
One reason the states created the California Department of Education was to consolidate a lot of the independent agencies that existed at that time into one central administrative agency. But over the past several decades, the states tended to focus more on expanding the number of independent agencies. And there have been various reasons for that. Sometimes those are priority driven, where the legislature feels like some function needs a higher profile or maybe the Department of Education wasn't addressing it, giving as much attention as they thought it deserved. Sometimes it was administrative, maybe a sense that a smaller agency could be more nimble.
Sometimes it was fiscal. The legislature might have wanted to use proposition 98 funding for something, and they can't use that funding for the California Department of Education. Other cases, it might have been more about who the superintendent and the governor were at that time. I think most of you know that the recent studies of California governance have been highly critical of the system, and a lot of that is focused criticism is focused on the role of the superintendent. The smaller agencies haven't received as much attention, but a few of the studies that have examined them have said that that system overall has become fairly fragmented and that a few of those smaller agencies could be consolidated.
Lastly, we sometimes receive questions about how education governance compares with other state agencies and departments and programs in California. And we didn't really find any mirror images of CDE where an agency has both a policy board appointed by the governor and a chief administrator who's chosen not by the board or the governor. The most common model is for a department to have a director appointed by the governor, confirmed by the legislature, and then serving at the pleasure of the governor. And that's obviously not a guarantee of a well managed department, but it does create a clear line of accountability around the implementation of state laws. The governance structure that probably comes closest to CDE these days is the other constitutional officers, if you think about the attorney general leading the Department of Justice or the secretary of state as the head of the secretary of state's office.
But those agencies are doing work that's quite different than the work that the Department of Education does. They don't have these policy boards appointed by the governor. And their governance structures haven't been studied anywhere near as much as education governance. And so there wasn't quite as much we could glean from studying those examples. That concludes our presentation.
Happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Redner 15
Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Claus Von Zastro. I am the senior policy director at Education Commission of the States or ECS. And for those of you who don't know, ECS is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that tries to help state policy makers make better education policy through research and convening and counsel that we provide.
And so actually here today not to speak in favor or in opposition to this particular proposal, but to help situate it in the context of what's happening in other states. And also to situate it in the historical context of other states that have changed their governance structures over time. You know, we at ECS have done at least forty years of research on states' K-twelve governance structures. That gives us some insight into this. So first let's look at sort of that current landscape that I mentioned.
And I think this is going to have complementary from what you just heard from the LEO. California's current governance model, which is as you know, an elected superintendent of schools and an appointed board is not common in this country. But it's not unheard of either. We know of eight other states in the country that have this particular model. Now the proposed changes would actually be unique in the country.
But that in itself is not remarkable because there are many states that are unicorns. Like a lot of states have their own unique structures that are theirs in their own structures only. That doesn't necessarily mean anything. But there are actually several aspects of the proposed governance structure that have echoes in other states. I'm going to give you some of those examples right now.
Particularly there are other states that have a cabinet level secretary and a superintendent of schools serving at the same time. One for example that's changed rather recently to this model and I'll say more about it in a minute is Ohio whose governance structure at least in this regard is probably closest to the proposal that we see here in California, at least that I've seen. And so Ohio actually introduced a governor appointed director of education workforce, the new state education agency, and reduce the responsibilities of the existing board appointed superintendent who is in the state constitution, sort of after the pattern a little bit of the proposal that we're hearing about in California right now. Now Virginia also has a sort of dual structure. The governor in Virginia appoints both a cabinet level secretary who has sort of policy oversight and a superintendent of schools who runs the state education agency, so the day to day operations.
In Massachusetts, similarly, the governor appoints a cabinet level secretary who coordinates across early education, K-twelve and post secondary education. And then the governor appointed board selects the commissioner who then has sort of, again, administrative oversight over the day to day operations of the SEA. There's also a handful of states that we've been able to identify where the chief state school officer has administrative oversight over both the state education agency and the state board of education. For example, the Illinois state board of education is that state's state education agency. And the state superintendent of education in Illinois who is a nonvoting member of the board also has sort of staff oversight of the state board.
Oregon appears to have sort of a similar structure in which the director of the Oregon Department of Education who is appointed by the governor answers to the governor appointed board while overseeing that board's daily operations. So now I'm going to talk a little bit about the change that you're proposing in light of historical changes that have happened broadly in governance structures at the state level. And ECS is pretty well positioned to do this because we have about forty plus years of research on this particular issue. I think it's fair to say that state governance structures broadly in this country have been fairly stable in recent years. But we went back to the very first report we could dredge up that we had actually digitized, which was from 1983.
And we noted that 14 states have made substantial changes to their governance structures between then and now. Only two of those states happened in the last decade, however. And in really all of those 14 states, the tendency was to move more influence into the hands of the governor in all of those cases. So there are states that we found that had a structure like California's back in the 80s. So you have an appointed board and elected chief state school officer which then subsequently moved to different governance structures.
So for example, in the nineteen ninety's Kentucky moved from an elected superintendent to a commissioner appointed by a board that is in turn appointed by the governor. In Oregon, which I know I mentioned earlier, they substantially overhauled their governance structure. I think it was around 2012, removing the role of the elected chief state school officer entirely and designating the governor the superintendent of education. And the governor in turn then appoints a director of the state education agency who oversees its day to day operations. More recently, Indiana abolished the position of elected chief state school officer and established a governor appointed secretary of education and now the governor also appoints most of the state board.
So those are some more recent examples of what's happened in Indiana. But in the past decade in addition to Indiana, the only other state that has made a change is one I already mentioned and that's Ohio. Ohio through the 2023 budget bill actually established the Department of Education and Workforce as the state education agency. There was a conglomeration of various kinds of agency efforts here. And the governor now appoints a director of that agency who has administrative oversight of the agency.
But as I mentioned before, the board appointed superintendent remains. That person used to administer the agency but now has a smaller portfolio focused largely on things like teacher licensure. Now, there was also a 2025 budget bill in Ohio that restructured the state board as well by reducing its size, eliminating the elected members entirely and ensuring that all members of the state board are appointed by the governor. So it's fair to say that the model in Ohio represents a stronger shift to the governor certainly than the proposal in California does. So basically to sum up, state governance is complex.
It is very unique in a lot of different states. But I think having the sort of more historical perspective that we have at ECS, you can see that the tendency has been for influence of on education to move more into the hands of governors. Thank you very much. Happy to answer questions when it's appropriate.
Redner 16
Good afternoon. I'm Richard Ziger. I'm going to spend just a minute introducing myself because it's not quite clear why I'm here. Chief deputy superintendent with Tom Torlickson during his first term, which was 2011 to 2015. First half of my life, I was a journalist.
I covered local government and then came to Sacramento working for the Riverside Press Enterprise. Was editor of a magazine called California Journal, which is I think most of you probably don't remember anymore. It's went out of business, but it was a great publication to work for. And eventually wandered into the legislature where I worked in both the Senate and Assembly. Mostly I was chief of staff to leadership in one house or the other.
I think I may have the distinction of being the only person who had been chief of staff to a majority leader in both houses. Although I just made up that fact, so I don't know if it's true or not. Eventually ended up with Tom Torlickson when he was first in the Senate, then in a one year term in the assembly. That was when term limits were in full force and went over with him to the Department of Education as his chief deputy. I do wanna make it clear as I have tried to do most of my I am not an expert on education.
I am a political operative at heart. And that was my task there. I had lots of people that actually knew a great deal about education over the department that could help with those issues. Didn't pretend to well I did occasionally. I didn't intend to insert myself on those kinds of issues.
So I've been asked to tell try to give you a little brief of what the department does. And I've kinda collapsed these functions. It has a whole bunch of things that it does. I've tried to collapse them into areas. So the first thing that I think it does and it spends most of its time on is distributing money.
A lot of money. The department may be middling size in terms of employees. But when it comes to dollars, it's right at the top. And these include both state and federal funds. Some have extensive rules around them.
Some you've made rules for. Allocating all those funds appropriately is a big task And it does that. It's other big task, one of its other big tasks is collects and disseminates data. It's in charge of the testing program, the administration of the testing program, putting together the dashboard and sending all that information out. It provides staff to a variety of folks in putting together policy so that it works with on standards and curriculum for the department.
It serves the staff to the State Board of Education. Believe it or not, it's actually their staff to do work. And it operates a number of independent programs. Amongst the more interesting is the school nutrition program. It is a massive operation of receiving and distributing food to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of kids each day.
It operates three special schools as well, schools for the deaf and the blind. Now there are a number of things that it doesn't do and I think it's important when you're thinking about these shifts to understand that. It doesn't make policy. Right? It makes policy for no one.
It assists people, provides information in making policy, but it does not make policy in any area. It has people that are on the teacher credentialing and the CCEE and a number of other places and it can provide them with information but it does not make any policy. And I'm going to come back to this because I think it's a crucial thing to think about when you're making this change. Among other people it advises is you all. It is an independent source of information for you.
And my experience is that over its history it has forged pretty close personal relationships between staff at CDE and your staff. It's a great pipeline of information. When you're thinking about this change you should be aware of the fact that that relationship will change if it becomes part of the governor's office. Think about how you and your staff interact with the governor's office compared to how you interact with the department's staff. They're very different.
Very different sort of motivators going forward. And you it's important when you're thinking about this to understand what you gain and you lose by this the program that's out there. And the other thing to remember is it has it doesn't even have full administrative authority over a lot of the things it administers. It was mentioned earlier that it is not the state education agency as far as the federal government is concerned. That's the State Board of Education.
I don't know, you may have a better idea of this. I don't know if that's unique or not. I think it's quite unusual that the actual operating department is not designated as the state agency. That it is some other body. And so there are even difficulties in interaction at the federal level in terms of what you can do and what you can't.
California has a very decentralized system of education compared to most states. There's a lot to be said for that. We shouldn't forget that we at bottom, we educate kids one at a time. No matter what the system looks like on the top, when you're on the bottom of the system, when you're a student, it's done one at a time. And the central goal in my mind has always been you should set up a system that does as good a job as you can helping those people, helping teachers in classrooms do that work.
I was fortunate when I was at the department. This was actually quite a fruitful four years of doing policy. They did a local control funding formula during that period of time. They created the CCEE during those times. And those are two programs that I think by and large have done pretty well over the last decade.
One of the things that I've been saying for some time is Department of Education should be set up like CCE is. It should be an agency whose task is to foster constant improvement. And the question before you is will making this administrative switch get you there? So my thought is that the answer to that is potentially yes but you don't know. And there are some risks for the legislature and its role in making changes without knowing if this in fact is going to bring about a kind of systemic change that will actually improve education.
Changing administrators out in and of itself might not do it and may create problems. There were I think Jack O'Connell's letter if you there were problems between him and the board which were two different political parties where there's a lot of speculation about what happens if you get a Republican governor. Those of you who are Democrats, does this look like such a good change to be making? I don't know. So I raise these out there because these are the kinds of issues you have to wrestle with as you move forward with this.
It has the potential to help. If you can centralize it, if you can find a governor that wants to leverage that to change the system so that it becomes more proactive as a state, then I think there's a lot of potential in making the change. But it is with its risks and it is something that you need to be thinking about as you're making your decision.
Redner 1
Thank you all for your introductory testimonies in panel one today. I have a couple questions I'm going to ask to kick off our questions for panel one. The first one is for the LAO. The LAO provided a briefing at a similar legislative informational hearing in 2018. How has the LAO's thinking evolved since then?
I wasn't here in 2018.
Redner 14
Thank thank you, madam chair. I was the one who led that testimony back in 2018. We didn't have any recommendations at that time, but the background and overview we provided was very similar at that time. One of the changes that has occurred in governance, this was already underway in 2018, but the state at one point had a secretary of education, some cabinet level position that was appointed by the governor. That position was abolished by governor Jerry Brown.
Governor Newsom also continued to not have that. A lot of those functions that were previously done by the secretary of education, the policy making functions were really transferred to the state board and its staff. So that was a change in governance that had happened relatively recently at that time. It doesn't seem like there's there's been much interest in reviving that position. But other than that, there has not been at least significant structural changes since that 2018 hearing.
Redner 1
Thank you for that insight. Related to the re envisioning of the Office of State Superintendent, Please, if you don't mind, describe your recommendations, your specific recommendations. I know it was in the LAO report, but it's good for us to get a high level description now.
Redner 11
Yes, thank you. Sarah Cortez, LAO. So we released a report on the governor's budget proposal and we lay out a vision for the office of super for the new proposed office of the superintendent of public instruction. So really in the really modifying trailer bill to clearly define the S. SBI's duties.
And without clearly defining the role, we think the risk is that the SBI's could change. What the SBI does can change significantly depending on the individual. And we really want to maintain, or are recommending to maintain those clear lines of accountability when deciding to modify the governance structure. So our vision would be that the superintendent would be a public representative advisor and independent evaluator. Representing the public, the superintendent could focus on topics that are great of greatest interest to the public.
The rationale is the SPI is chosen because the voters found the policy platform compelling. So the SPI could have some flexibility on focusing on what are the most pressing priorities. One example could be technologies and technology use in school. And the second advising would be reporting on the state of education. So we envision the SPI could travel across the state speaking with interested parties of the education community, which would allow the SPI to report on key issues, major challenges, and the SPI could make recommendations to address those challenges.
And then lastly, it would be evaluate laws and programs. We're envisioning reporting to legislature, governor, broader public on existing laws and programs and offering recommendations for areas that need
Redner 1
Thank you for that. And then finally moving on to Mr. Ziger, your introductory testimony you said that or you touched on that it has to be more than just a change at the top, that the change in itself isn't going to be sufficient. So in your experience, what would you say are contributing factors to a high functioning relationship between an SPI and a CDE?
Redner 16
We I am a believer that accountability and policy setting and execution need to be integrated. If you're not integrating these things, know, nobody's setting the policy or you've got an administrator who doesn't set the policy or you've got someone that sets the policy but doesn't administrate, you create problems. We need to, I think actually in California you need to reorient how we look at our education system. It's been created over the years in little dribs and drabs. And I will say, going into this, Prop 98 is the heart of a lot of this.
Because Prop 98 does not allow for the state as an agent entity to receive money from it. Legislature has been reluctant to provide money outside of Prop 98 for education. They look at Prop 98 as the pot. If you're not in the pot, you're very unlikely to get money. And so we've created these agencies that have a legal overview of belonging to a county office of education, but in fact they are performing statewide functions.
And you need to be kind of honest about what you're doing here. Jerry Brown had this notion of subsidiarity. You should move things down to the lowest possible level. That's okay, but as much as I admire Jerry Brown and I do, it's not right. Things need to be done where they need to be done.
And sometimes things need to be done collectively. If you're going to use data creatively, only the state can collect all that data, analyze it, and disseminate it in a useful way. So it's the question for me is if you're just going to change the person at the top, what are you getting? Answer should be you're changing it because you plan on doing X or Y or z or a little of each. But those are the things that you really need to know is why are we doing this?
What are we going to get from this? And there is a lot of conversation about, well, it will reduce some conflicts. Well, it will with the governor. Right? Will it with you?
I don't know. Right? You have a role to perform here. And does it matter that you've given him more leverage in dealing with you? Because that's the truth of the matter.
If he is also running the department, he has more leverage in his dealings with you under that system than he has now. Not a lot more and it's not that you couldn't possibly resist it, right, if you wanted to, but it is a change in those dynamics. So would be were I in your position, I am cautiously optimistic this could be helpful if you've got this second piece. This piece about what are we going to do with it once we've got it. And that piece is, from what I've read from the material, singularly lacking in terms of what the governor is proposing.
He just hasn't said what he intends to do with it. Now, it's not gonna be his to do. Right? But he hasn't neither has he charted out a vision for this.
Redner 1
Thank you for that insight. It's certainly something that we are prepared as a legislature to consider and and take action on. Appreciate that. Going back to Mr. Von Zastrow, you described a pantheon of different solutions that various states have come up with.
You said many are unicorns. Are any of them or do any patterns seem to pop out as correlating better with improved student outcomes?
Redner 15
I'm going to take the easy way out here and say that I have not seen research that actually attempts to establish that correlation. But I think what and this is something we live at Education Commission of the States all the time. And that is that state contexts are so diverse that it's very hard to say that this is the governance structure that would be best for Vermont and Connecticut and South Carolina, etcetera. So, sorry to sort of wiggle out of that one. What I will say is that states, as they consider their K-twelve governance structures, really do have to consider carefully the lines of accountability.
And then that's what I've seen in governance changes, what we've seen, I should say, governance changes over the years. Is very often they're trying to figure out if these lines of accountability are acting crosswise somehow, that that can actually at least inspire those changes. I will say that there are some instances in which there were states that actually tried to create very new and innovative governance structures in which there was still need for calibration. You know, and I'm happy to go into this separately in another conversation. But where they realize that maybe they didn't get to their stated goal as quickly and sometimes it's political issues, sometimes it can be personality issues.
But it tends to be something you have to go through several iterations. The most recent changes are of course Indiana and Ohio. Since those are the most present to us now, the jury I would say is probably out from a research point of view if those have changed, created change, because it's just going take more time to figure that out. So apologies, but again ECS is always happy to sort of dive into more detailed questions as you need them.
Redner 1
Yeah, that is interesting. Of course, the complexities are far and wide. We have so much more layered system in our public education system with a variety of programs and funding structures. And it's just a lot more complex in California, including our student population being very diverse and complex as well. Back to the LAO for my final question before turning it over to my colleagues.
I wanted to make sure we captured something that was specifically stated in your report. Your recommendation on page 11 specifically to require the legislature to have an approval process for the commissioner's appointment. Can you describe a little bit about that recommendation?
Redner 11
Yes. So just kind of backing up with our recommendation. So we do recommend adopting the proposal to shift management of CDE under the education commissioner. But we also make recommendations that we would consider refinements to the governor's proposal around preserving legislative oversight, clarifying those duties, and then there's like a fiscal planning. So the recommendation you mentioned around, we recommend that the education commissioner be Senate confirmed, and that is in the spirit legislative oversight.
Any governance structure under consideration, we would recommend that we would need the ability to maintain legislative oversight, the ability to monitor implementation, assert whether policies align with legislative priorities, And in the spirit of having additional tools in the legislative oversight toolkit, we we we make that recommendation.
Redner 1
Thank you for expanding upon that. I'll now turn it over to the committee. Does anyone want to start with questions? Assembly Member Pelerin?
Redner 2
Thank you. So this is a major structural reorganization, and I'm just wondering about the corresponding fiscal implementation plan.
Redner 11
Yes. So as part of our recommendation, we do recommend more details we provided on the fiscal implementation. So we are recommending given so we're recommending that more details be provided. Given the scope of the proposal, we think that this this could be done in a cost neutral way. But give getting those details would allow the legislature to to oversee some of the the more practical details of of the how this would be implemented.
Redner 2
Would you anticipate the new structure resulting in eliminated positions?
Redner 11
Oh, so we don't have those details of the Governor's budget proposal. That would be best directed to the administration. We are recommending that more details be provided through a fiscal plan.
Redner 2
And then, it seems like this proposal preserves the office of SBI, but strips it of a lot of the core administrative authorities. So, what exactly is the SBI's role going to be?
Redner 14
Thank you. Ken Kapon with the analyst's office. I think for speaking of the proposal, I think the next panel can speak to the governor's proposal. Our recommendation is to focus that position on being a public representative, an evaluator, an adviser. I think what we've heard from the administration is that they are are thinking of this proposal doing some of those things, and maybe more focusing more on a coordinator across different segments of education.
But, again, I think the next some of the next speakers will be able to speak more to the the governor's vision for the position. Alright.
Redner 5
Thank you. Thank you all for being here today. I really appreciate the deep dive into this. I think very important and impactful proposal, but also one with a lot of, I would say,
Redner 5
the details. And, you know, from reading the LEO's report, that's obviously very clear because even your breakdown of all the different studies that have been been done on this topic have come to various conclusions on on the best path forward. I think the one thing I wanted to focus in on, I do appreciate the chair bringing up what did you bring up?
Redner 5
no. I don't even remember. The The confirmation. I think that's really important and certainly maybe something we could discuss as a committee, but certainly would love to see a little bit more legislative oversight from the governor's proposal. But but in terms of sort of the piece that I wanted to focus on, you make a note in multiple places in your report where, you know, you mentioned that the governor essentially, this allows more opportunities for policymakers and the public to hold the governor accountable for educational outcomes.
You also have a section that, you know, talks about how the current structure really does struggle to to delineate lines of accountability and that no one entity can be currently held accountable for educational quality and results. I was wondering if and anyone can comment on this, honestly, if if any of you have thoughts on the accountability piece specifically, but curious from the LAO's perspective how the governor's proposal could potentially help us even hold a future governor, assuming this governor will be gone once this proposal goes into effect, more accountable for the educational results.
Redner 11
Thank you. Thank you for the question. So so, yes, I just you mentioned some of the some of the things we wrote in our report that that shifting to a a governor appointed commissioner would promote greater coherence in policymaker post policymaking, having those clear lines of accountability given that everybody everybody is appointed by by the governor. And then better alignment between the policy making process and then the actual implementation of those processes. So when something goes wrong, then we know that it is on one of the appointees, on the decisions that are made of those appointees or somebody within those bodies.
Currently right now there's a lot of different entities, confusion, and then also potential, there's greater potential under under this proposal for the clearer messages to to district and support for districts. And
Redner 5
the accountability piece specifically, maybe based on your research or based on your experience, you know, in the superintendent's office. I mean, I do feel like sometimes the public doesn't really know who to hold accountable for different decisions. I think a lot of this was particularly evident during the pandemic when there was a lot of different directives coming from a lot of different places. So I didn't know if you had any comments on that.
Redner 16
Well, I can I'll make I can comment on anything. You have a very decentralized system. And the truth of the matter is if like I'm a parent, I'm gonna look first at my local school board, which may or may not have any say at any given moment, but they're who's in front of me. And they're going to look like they're in charge. And of course we do extend to them in California quite a bit of authority compared to what happens in other states which is they have a much more centralized.
So decentralization and with it a lack of deliberate lines of accountability is a feature of our system. It's not a flaw. It's the way we built the system. Right? And the price you pay for that is it gets harder to point your finger at any particular person and say, it's your fault.
Because the fault is dispersed and it any given time it gets difficult. This will make it a little easier, right? Because you put one person in charge and if you're in the minority party, Hoover, you can can call it accountability, you can call it blame, but you can point your finger at somebody and say, it's yours. You own it now. Are there advantages to that?
Yeah. If your goal is to change the system and argue about it. One of the problems I think we've had in California and in many states over the years is that we are not united about what education means. And for those of you who may have more information on this, but during these years, these fruitful years I talk about, we spent a lot of time visiting actually other countries. And the hallmark of other countries that were doing well is how much unity there was about the approach and how you could stick with that approach year after year after year until it started seeing results.
Education isn't something you can fix quickly with by making a change. The first thing you're going to notice if you make this change is nothing's changed. That's the first thing you're going to notice. So the question is, how do you you know, if you've got you've got to have a clear vision of how you think the system should be put together, what your goals are, how you wanna do this, and you have to stick with it year after year after year until you get there. We have never been able to do that in California.
This litany of the things we come back and and and complain about is proof of that. If you really wanna do this, all of you guys need to all of you need to get together and kind of work that out. Otherwise otherwise, you're just gonna move the finger around. That's who you who you point at. That won't go away.
That's my honest answer to your question. Accountability is still gonna be tricky and part of it is because we're not sure what we're doing. If we were clear about what we're doing, it might be easier to say who should be doing it, how should you be doing it, is it getting done. And until you can get that vision, you're gonna have a lot of this. You're gonna have this problem.
Thanks. You're coming out of backwards. Right?
Redner 5
Yeah. I appreciate that. I think it also highlights an important point that, you know, it it does the sort of education agenda becomes very dependent on who the governor is at the time. And so that could be a governor who is very passionate about educational outcomes. It could be one that doesn't prioritize education, and the legislature would then need to play a larger role.
So I appreciate the thoughts, and that's all for now on this panel.
Redner 1
Certainly, we wouldn't want to change without a difference, and even more certain, we don't want to change that's going to cause harm. Assembly Member Bonta?
Redner 9
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for holding this very important opportunity for us to be able to dive into this pretty significant shift. I have a couple of questions. The first is, I kind of just want to take a step back from what we've all just been talking about, and have you all just define for me what you think the advantage of having a separation of powers is within the education context, as it relates to the executive branch administration, the legislature, and the judiciary. And maybe you can just focus on the, it doesn't seem like judiciary is too implicated, but perhaps there is something to talk about, as it relates to policy making.
Redner 14
Ken Kupan with the analyst's office. Sorry. It's a it's a weighty question, so I think that's part of the reason we're looking at each other. That balance of power, I think, is something that obviously has been reflected in our state's constitution since the beginning. The idea that each of these three branches of government has some different responsibilities, clearly defined, but with some ability to check one another.
That is, we think, an important principle to maintain in this governance change Under the under the governor's proposal, the governor would have more authority than today. That's an important shift. And that's why to be effective, it needs to be accompanied with strong legislative oversight so that there still are these these checks and balances. Having the legislature appoint the new commissioner is a core part of that. There are other sorts of oversight tools you could use too, potentially adding some legislative appointees to the State Board of Education as one option.
There are certain kinds of things you could codify, reporting requirements or data. It'll be important to be diligent in the budget committees, policy committees, because the legislature exercises a lot of its oversight through legislation and through approving budget proposals. So we do see a lot of value in having oversight and checks and balances in whatever new system you might decide to create.
Redner 15
And I'm gonna speak less specifically to the California context because I would, of course, defer to my colleagues on the panel about that. You know, Education Commission of the States, since we deal with policymakers in those various functions, of course, believes a great deal in the reality of checks and balances and that sometimes even adversarial systems can produce good results. The one thing that I would consider within that construct is what you're asking people to be accountable for and whom you're asking them to be accountable to. So I know in some states that made these changes, and again ECS is sort of analytical, we're not endorsing a particular change. You can have a group that is accountable to another group for carrying out, administering a policy that that policy making group has created at the same time that that administrative body is accountable to someone else who is not necessarily the policy making body.
Right? And so that can create sometimes and what what has prompted some of the governance changes in some states has been what people have perceived to be a disconnect there. So it's less that they're trying to override a system of less checks and balances, but more that they're trying to make it clearer whom any player in the system is accountable to. And when those things when there's dissonance in that, it can create the kind of discomfort that prompts some of these changes. Not to say that the changes then necessarily resolve everything and everything's hunky dory.
But certainly, I think that broader principle of having that balance of powers and having even sometimes adversarial relationships and that balance of powers is something very deeply embedded, of course, in our way of doing things in this country more broadly.
Redner 16
I think the answer to the question as applies in education is more complex than in most other areas of government. You typically think about policy making body, you people, making policy and an executive carrying it out. And a court every now and then come and has, by the way courts in California have been fairly aggressive in dealing. The way we distribute textbooks to schools now is set by court order, not by anything any of you did. So all of these things intervene into the system.
What you need in this system you also have to layer out the levels going down that also create these issues. So is it something that should be done at the state level? Is it something that should be done at the county level? Is it something that should be done at the local level? Is it something that should be done at the school individual school level or in the individual classroom?
These are all decisions that complicate what typically in government is a more clear designation of who does what. And it's going to sort that out. Well, first of you're never gonna make it. But you can make little improvements as you go along. And I would encourage you to do them around policy thoughts.
This is the way we want to pursue a kind of policy for education. Now, where does that need to be delivered? And the fact of the matter is that, well I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Honig decision. When Bill Honig was superintendent of public instruction, he sued saying, hey wait a minute, you've cut me out of the action. I'm the superintendent.
I'm supposed to superintend the schools. Right? And the courts came back. Let's get them back in the game and said no you're not. Legislature in fact is the school board for the state of California.
They get to set the policy. If there's doubt about it I know you guy you see that look on your face. There was a lawsuit about this and the courts ruled
Redner 16
Oh, when was this Honing was superintendent of public instruction. Anybody have that one handy?
Redner 14
This would have been the lawsuit was settled in 1993 was the appellate decision.
Redner 16
There you go. It's been a long long time. But he asserted I get to do this. I'm superintendent of public instruction. The constitution says I'm to I'm to, you know, superintend the schools, whatever that means.
I get to do it. And the court said no you don't. If there's a disagreement about who gets to do what, the legislature and the laws of the state of California said that. And so you are that policy mate, ultimately that policy making body. If you don't like what the state board did, you change the law and make them do it somewhere else.
Right? And so this also goes to this question of who point to. And the question you ask is extremely complicated given the layers that are in California system. It's not like it's not executive versus legislature versus judicial clear. It's all these other ones going up and down.
Redner 9
I appreciate that. I also think that we have added in our own complexity in the past hundred years when we essentially decided to make a portion of the executive branch a policy making body. And I think that we've kind of have since struggled with that because it's very clear in the health world that there's rule making that happens in different agencies, but there's not legislative policy making that is as, you know, so easily kind of just passed through. And I think that that is one of the major challenges that we have. I wanted to kind of just move to some of the operational challenges that are highlighted in the LA owners report or kind of pointed to.
One is around the role of CDE right now as it relates to basically running, as you mentioned, several different schools and evaluation arms. Where would that work go?
Redner 14
Thank you. We envision that CDE would do a lot of CDE's work would continue to be focused on the same things it is now, apportioning funding, administering programs, implementing federal grants. We also envision that some of the administrative work that is right now under the jurisdiction of the state board could shift to CDE. For example, you heard about that the State Board of Education is often our designated liaison to the federal government, that work, we think, over time, could shift the Department of Education. That's how the we understand the model.
It's more common in other states, And they're in a better position as the administrative agency, I think, to be the the entity interacting with the with the US Department of Education. There are also some other tasks that they do, for example, approving federal grant applications. The board does that. That's more of a that's typically not a particularly controversial item. We think this the CDE under this new model could just approve those applications.
So part of one of the advantages of the shift could be that the Department of Education is now doing really a more cohesive set of administrative functions. Not significant changes to its responsibilities, but really taking on some of the administration that right now is split across their role in the state board.
Redner 9
Okay. And as it relates to the county offices of education, so this is a query I have. So right now, county offices of education basically report into the CDE, and CDE is essentially treated through SPI as an independent body. In the proposal that we are looking at right now, if functionally the CDE's role and that oversight role would shift from being somewhat independent to being very squarely under the scope of the administration wholly. So, I don't know if you all know this, but sometimes the state and counties don't necessarily agree.
And there's a lot of tension between the work of the county offices and the scope of what they are trying to achieve, and the state. And quite frankly, I think that it is a very healthy tension in some regards, because it allows for there to be a sensibility of kind of local control, of allowing there to be some ability for us to have oversight and accountability, but to have there be a different kind of separation of powers, so to speak. In this proposal, with all of that function essentially coming under the role and the direct scope of the governor's administration, how are we preserving the relationship ofor the role, I should say, of the county offices of education?
Redner 14
I'll take a Ken Kupon again. I'll take a take the first answer to that. One of the criticisms that we often hear from school districts is that they interact with the Department of Education, but they're often not really sure who's responsible if they have a concern with the state policy. Department of Education staff typically is the one doing that interaction, but they might be implementing a policy that the department itself didn't come up with. They're not really the CDE doesn't really have a direct line necessarily to whether it's the state board or the legislature or the governor, the entity that was responsible for creating that policy.
And so sometimes the that tension can linger unresolved because the districts don't know who's really responsible or who they need to engage with with their concern. I think one of the advantages of this proposal is that the department's CDE would be directly aligned with the governor as a policymaking entity. And so when they're talking with the department staff, they would know that they're talking with the department on behalf of both the state's administrative and policymaking authority. But this this issue about the relationship between counties and the states, I think, is broader than what is directly addressed in the governor's proposal. I think in the most in the report that policy analysis for California Education did, they talked a little bit more about this and whether the state might need some other structures.
We haven't really looked at that as part of this report, but that is an issue. This state local relationship is another aspect of governance that's come up several times in the report. Some of the other studies, for example, have said we should also, in addition to doing these state governance changes, make the education code a little bit less restrictive, decentralize some authority. We don't have a recommendation specific in this report, but it's definitely a topic that has been we've noticed in a lot of the studies that have been done on this issue.
Redner 9
Right. On this, I would say that perhaps there has been the correct identification concern around accountability, and kind of the oversight authority, and the lack of clarity that has been provided to county offices of education in terms of knowing who to basically seek both counsel from, and an expectation around oversight. I don't know that that necessarily translates for me into the need to merge the function of the CDE into the direct oversight of the administration. I've always conceived of a part of the SPI's role to be essentially kind of like the chief of the county's offices of education. There's a significant amount of interaction that happens, I know, in Alameda County between the SPI and the County Office of Education.
And that's a very critical role. To have that kind of be sidelined, if you will, and not attended to, is of some concern for me. So I want us to make sure that we're kind of diving a little bit more deeply into both understanding the nature of the concern, which is legitimate from the county offices of education, but perhaps not providing a solution that doesn't really address the need to keep those functions separate. I wanted to move on, and I will seed after this, although I have other questions, but for the sake of time, around the articulation of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, either in recommendations from the LAO or in the proposal, that are somewhat problematic for me. I will divulge straight off of the bat.
The re envisioning of the SPI as the public representative, the advisor, and the independent evaluator. Now, a lot of that language, having been in the public safety world for a while in the legislature, as chair of the budget sub especially, in terms of oversight, sounds a lot like the role of the inspector general as it was constructed. So we have the CDCR, we created an inspector general that sometimes has teeth in enforceability function, sometimes does not, depending on both the individual who sits in that position as well as the authority that the legislature gives to that individual, and sits kind of like outside of the system. Now, there is so much wrong in CDCR, and so much that needs to really fall under the oversight authority of the inspector general, that I would hate to replicate, and knowing that, I would hate to replicate that kind of, the nature of that function in the world of education and what we intend to do in education. Because it sounds like, in all that's been presented so far, that the role as it's being conceived, and maybe we just haven't had enough time to flesh out what the proposal is around that, would kind of be just a, you know, ranging from an ambassador to an evaluator to somebody who is able to kind of interact with and be an ombudsman for the state and the state's educational system.
But also largely just kind of sits outside of our educational system. So, I think that is an incredible kind of undervaluing of the potential power of the superintendent of public instruction. And I don't think that we need another layer of quasi bureaucracy, if you will, sitting somewhere as an appendage, I think appendage is the word I want, yeah, as an appendage to be able to kind of inform our education policy and our education, the execution of an implementation of our operations within the education arm. If we have somebody who is an elected official, sits on a statewide ballot, voted by the people, to be able to serve and support our educational opportunities, And regular Jane isn't sitting in hearing rooms every single day. They are going to have an expectation around the function and the performance of that individual.
And I think if we, on the one hand, have a stated role in an elected position that has presumably these powers and authority, but have essentially gutted the relevance of that individual, we would be doing a disservice to the voting public, and to every child and family who seeks or who believes that the SPI is somebody who has an ability to make change. So there for me, there's a disconnect there. And I would just encourage us, as we're looking through these proposals, if we are really headed down this pathway, that we give a little bit more attention to the function of the SPI, and not have it be something that is sitting outside of this system. And I stop there with my comments. I do have a couple of other questions, but I want to make sure that others have the ability to weigh in.
Redner 1
Thank you, Assembly Member Bonta. I will come back to you after we do a round of questions with other members. Assemblymember Alvarez.
Redner 8
Thank you very much to the panel, and thank you to the chair of the committee for allowing us to have this conversation. And I must also recognize and thank the speaker of the assembly for encouraging us to have this conversation. You all know this is a proposal that was put forward in a budget, and I think we often hear from a lot of colleagues in the legislature that there is sometimes no opportunity for us to provide input in policymaking and budget. And this is a clear example of us doing something differently. And so I I really value everybody's comments here today, and I appreciate them.
I'm gonna share some thoughts because, one, didn't make opening comments, but hope to only make comments now that really is is not a soapbox, but really is the foundation of the questions that I have throughout the different panels that we have before us today. I hope it gives context to the questions. I I think I would start off with the fact, mister Ziger, you can attest to the fact that you and I did not know each other for more than about an hour ago when this got started. Is that correct? K.
I have had conversations with various stakeholders, including this morning, some stakeholders that I know are here and others who will be presenting on the panel. And I have raised the issue of why. Why are we doing this? And there are some very good arguments, I think, from the administration as to why we should do this from a administrative process, trying to align policy goals, objectives and accountability within education itself in the department. And I think that we should acknowledge that that is, I believe, but we'll let the administration speak for themselves, the spirit of of this.
And I think there's value, tremendous value to that. However, we can't just act on that alone. When I say why, I think about what are the outcomes we want to achieve with this. In my opinion, this is such an important conversation and a change that if we do not talk about what else we want to accomplish with this change, what are the objectives of this, then we will have missed an opportunity and shame on us if we do not have that conversation today and as this process moves forward. And so I'm looking forward to the questions in the exchange to help us identify the not just why should we rearrange boxes on an organizational chart, but why are we doing it and with what in mind?
And everything we do in this committee, at least when I wear the hat of committee member of the education committee in the assembly is it should be student centered and outcomes focused. And if that's not why we're doing this, then we need to start to rethink why we're doing what we're doing, whether it's this proposal or any other. And so I think there is some room to have conversation about how we're going to accomplish that. And that's what my questions are, and that will be it for my soapbox. I will now get into the actual questions.
I wanna start with the colleagues have been talking about something really important, which is they're alluding to this, maybe haven't said it, but we are essentially creating a different system. I wasn't gonna say a new system, but a different system. And this opportunity for all of us, this is our chance to say what we think, you know, would make this a better a better system. And so let's ask those questions. My first question would be to the LAO is on the role of the superintendent if this were to be adopted.
I one, I have to acknowledge the the the the analysis and the the document that you've produced dated March 2026, which is the one the most recent one on re envisioning education governance is is very, very good. I I have to say that because the question is gonna sound like I'm questioning or I'm I'm perhaps not acknowledging that. It's very good. But I do think there is a little bit of lack of clarity and might I even say vagueness to your suggestions of what the role of the superintendent could be. And I'd like to ask you, and I know we're gonna have my questions are gonna be consistent, by the way, across the panel, so the next two can get ready.
The most recent, the PACE report, talked about some specifics of what the role could be. The administration's proposal does not include that. Your language kinda sort of to me sounds like the PACE proposal, but not really. I like to give you an opportunity to talk about why perhaps you did not provide more specifics on what the roles could be. You you you identify very clearly that there needs to be a defined role, clearly defined role, but not what that should be.
And I think that's where I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Redner 14
Sure. I think one of the challenges that we were thinking about is we want recognizing that there is still going to be a state superintendent, that person is gonna be elected with some policies and priorities, and we want the role to be flexible enough that they can work on the policies and priorities that they were elected to do. So you might have a superintendent, for example, that's very interested in how students transfer from high school to college. You might have a superintendent who's very interested in how students move from early education to the k 12 system. They might be interested in anything from technology in schools to to facilities.
And it's we want the world to be flex flexible enough that they can work on those areas that are important to them and reflect their priorities. On the other hand, we also don't want to just create some new actor in the system where it's not clear what that person is doing or when that school district should involve that person or who's responsible for giving direction in specific cases, because then we haven't improved governance, we've just made it more fragmented. And so the idea of our recommendation is, well, how can we take advantage of the fact the superintendent is independent of the governor, they're not directly answerable to the legislature or the governor? What are some activities that they can do where that independent perspective is valuable? And we think some of the ways that they can be valuable is by taking a step back and looking at the system as a whole, how is it performing.
Obviously, if you've got the governor developing policy with the legislature and implementing policy, the governor's staff and CDE aren't gonna be in the best position to tell you whether that's working well because they're administering it. Of course, they're gonna be thinking that they're implementing it it well. So the role of the superintendent is to be that outside voice, that outside perspective, someone who's not directly answerable to those entities and can tell the public and and tell you and your oversight role, well, here's how we think things are going. I did wanna clarify back to the question about how we envision the role. We we aren't envisioning this position being like an inspector general like you have for your CDCR or the High Speed Rail Authority or something like that.
It's less less focusing on sort of looking over some of the sort of auditing work that those agencies are doing and more about monitoring and assessing how well the education system as a whole is performing. And so the superintendent, under our recommendation, would have the authority to study how well that system is doing, to offer advice, analysis, commentary, all kinds of things that can become the basis for change or improvements. The superintendent could could continue to sponsor legislation, to do advocacy in the legislature, to see how well bills are being implemented after they're passed. So there's a lot of work that this new office could still do, but we want to be clear that it wouldn't be an administrative role or a policy making role. Those are gonna be done by the department, by the legislation, the governor on the policy.
So all of this is to say that what we wanna be clear about is the superintendent represents the public. They advise. They evaluate. They make recommendations. They focus on the areas that are important to them.
All the administration is done by the Department of Education, and the legislature can hold the governor responsible for that administration.
Redner 8
Thank you. And again, I think there's there's certainly value in in that. But, the PACE report talks very specifically about conducting and coordinating rigorous formative evaluations to inform policy, program improvement. Those are all again, it's the language sounds similar. I just wasn't sure if that's where you were headed as well.
Redner 14
I Sure. If I may, think there may be a little bit of a I think there are some similarities between what we're recommending, what the PACE report suggested. I think I think the PACE report is suggesting a much more ex a more expansive role for the superintendent and that they would preside over a larger office. One of the considerations in thinking about the role as we did is that the state is facing, as you know, a pretty significant budget challenge, And this is kind this is not a great year for the state to be doing a lot of expansion of agencies or programs. And so the role that we're envisioning is one that we think could be done with a relatively small office like the one that the that the administration is proposing.
If you wanted the superintendent to do all of the things that the PACE report is recommending, you'd likely have to think about additional appropriations and and more staff to accomplish all of I
Redner 8
mean, look, you and I see each other almost every week at my subcommittee, so I we understand exactly where we are financially as a state. However, I'm not sure we wanna talk about building a new system to the limitations of what we got in terms of from a financial standpoint. I think we're building a new system or reimagining a system. It should be the end goal again, I go back to where I started, the end goal in mind, which is it should be about student outcomes. And if we're not creating that as part of this change, then we're missing the opportunity to to accomplish that.
But we can have more more chat about that. I wanna give the other two individuals who are before us. You've heard this exchange about what this role could be. I don't think you said some generalities as well. As you've heard this conversation, are there any other thoughts that have come to mind in terms of what the role, specific role, statutory role of a superintendent if we were to make a change like this that you've either seen in other states that you've analyzed, sir, or that you know about in the work that you've done in the past?
Redner 15
Yeah, I mean, I'll just repeat that in this too. California would be a unicorn in this regard. That in having both a governor appointed commissioner and an elected state superintendent sort of serving concurrently in different roles, that superintendent is elected. So the other states that we've cited, Ohio, which made a recent change, Virginia and Massachusetts, that all have these dual roles. In fact, the lines go back to the governor in every case.
So for example, in Virginia, the governor appoints the cabinet level secretary but also appoints the superintendent who has administrative oversight of the SEA. So I think that's a substantial difference. In Ohio where the change happened starting in 2023, again, the governor appoints the director as it's called, but that's like the commissioner that you'll be talking about in the proposal for California. And then a governor appointed board will appoint the superintendent who will have a much reduced role. So, again, there isn't a sense you've had an elected superintendent whose role is being reduced.
And again, the same in Massachusetts has been that way for a long time. The governor appoints cabinet level secretary and the governor appointed board appoints the superintendent. So in a way you have a different set of, you know, the genesis of these roles all kind of go back ultimately to the governor. Right? And so that creates I think a somewhat different dynamic.
And so that's just a long way of saying I don't think there is a precedent for this. You know ECS is probably going to keep out of sort of an evaluative conversation about whether it's good or bad. But just as when it comes to looking for other exemplars we'd have to dig a little deeper to see if there are other states that could provide something I
Redner 16
don't know the answer to your question. To be really honest with you, I think that you've got this you've created this and a set of something for this person to do because you couldn't figure out how to get rid of them. I mean, the truth of the matter is you've taken all the responsibility and moved it somewhere else. There is no role. At best, you've created another lieutenant governor, but they don't even have to pick up the phone and find out if somebody is still alive.
I mean, it's is no function for them or you've created a statewide elected gadfly, right, about the system? Is that a role that you need to create? I so I I I mean, you can invent these roles, but the truth is you've you've taken all the responsibility away. You just can't because it's a constitutional officer. You can't get rid of them.
I it's not a bad gig. Right? And for legislators that are termed out and looking for something to do, you get a good statewide job. You get to go to a few meetings. You can cut a lot of ribbons.
People will treat you well. But there is no I I cannot think of a nobody's going to, as Pace says, going to give this person real responsibility for oversight because that undermines what you've made the consolidation for. Right? If you if you have somebody else. So I I the truth is I can't figure it out.
It's just it's you can't get rid of them, so you gotta do something with them.
Redner 8
Okay. Thank you. Let me ask just one other question so we can move on, which was also a nobody's talked about this and I'm definitely curious from other states' perspectives and the LAO wasn't in your analysis here. Again, taking from the PACE report and some of the recommendations, appointing a CDE director with experience and expertise, someone who's actually run schools and has that experience. What maybe I'll start with the LAO and then I'll work my way this way at the panel here.
Have you was that analyzed, looked at, comparison to other states? I'd like to know where we would stand.
Redner 11
So in our recommendation to make the commissioner subject to the senate confirmation process, we thought that the legislature could, you know, better understand the commissioner's credentials, their past employment history, the key priorities for leading the department. But that could be part of the legislative process if that recommendation is adopted.
Redner 15
Okay. I will just speak anecdotally that I know that other chief state school officers actually have had sort of those administrative roles in other states. It's not universal, but it would be something if you really wanted to know we could dig into a bit deeper, more deeply.
Redner 16
I can't help you with that. You could set rules. Right. Right? You could set something in law.
You have to have x. Right. Like like you would with a judge. But the fact of the matter is the governor's probably gonna wanna appoint who he's gonna wanna appoint, and the question is whether you will agree with the governor or not. Okay.
Redner 8
Thank you all for answering those questions. Like I said earlier, the next panels, they will be very common questions throughout my opportunity. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Redner 1
Mr. Lowenthal, do you have any comments? I would like to just state we do have two other panels where we'll be able to integrate the actual proposal. So I want to make sure we keep sufficient time to get into that. Miss Bonta, Assembly Member Bonta.
You're good? Alright, well thank you. We will move on to panel two. We have the K-twelve, TK-twelve education governance proposal. We'll have Brooks Allen, the Executive Director of State Board of Education.
Jenny Mjung, Director of Policy Research, Policy Analysis and California Education and Tony Thurman, the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Or is it Jeanie? Mr. Allen, may proceed when ready.
Redner 19
Good afternoon. Stretch break. Thank you for having me. We do have a handout that you should have in your folder that we may refer to. I probably won't click through the slides as we go.
I just want to share my comments, but feel free I'll refer to a couple of them as we proceed. So good afternoon. My name is Brooks Allen. I serve as the executive director of the State Board of Education and as the education policy advisor to governor Gavin Newsom. Thank you Chair Patel, members for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss his historical proposal.
For this hearing, I will focus my comments on governor Newsom's proposal to strengthen California's education governance system. Some of this ground has been covered a bit in the first panel, so I will try to move with some some speed but not at the expense of some detail. First and foremost, and this really goes to Assembly Member Alvarez's comments, this proposal is about accountability for delivering results for our children. It is about where California state governance structure is aligned to support schools well, implement policy coherently, and allow the state to be held accountable for those results. With that as our frame, I would like to describe the governor's proposal, what it would accomplish, why it is needed, and why, as we've been just discussing just now on the first panel, why now is the critical moment for action.
Notably, this proposal is not responding as you've now heard, to a new critique, but it is finally responding to a very long standing one. In fact, I will bet, as you all have a chance to hear various proposals on policy committees over the course of the coming months, that you will probably not consider a single policy proposal this year in any area that has been studied as extensively as this issue. As the governor has said, quote, California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for nearly a century. And the reason that message resonates is that California has heard essentially the same warning over and over again For decades, as the LAO has done a fantastic job of laying out, every major nonpartisan and bipartisan review has identified the same fatal flaw in our structure. California's k 12 governance system is governed by different entities with overlapping roles that it sometimes in our state's history, we just heard about the Honig litigation, have come into a point of conflict with one another to the detriment of educational services offered to students.
When the legislature governor and the state superintendent of public instruction called for the first series of getting down to fact studies in the early two thousands, the resulting governance report described California's system as quote a remarkably crazy quilt of interacting authorities that are not lined for the purpose of accountability or action. And noted by the LAO when it is summarized the governor's reports published over the last twenty five years, all of them, although they have various prescriptions for how to land, all land in one central piece of trying to consolidate and streamline both policy making authority and implementation authority. I will not recite every report here because the point is not the length of the bibliography. The point is the consistency of the diagnosis. Again and again, California has been told that our structure fragments authority, blurs accountability, and makes coherent implementation harder than it should be for the benefit of schools and ultimately the students we all serve.
Every objective analysis has made the case for the reform proposed. The other slide, slide six, tries to capture some of this graphically. But as you see and I think now that we've heard, extensively throughout the first panel's discussion, today, California effectively splits policy administration implementation across institutions that must work together closely but do not sit within a single aligned chain of responsibility. This creates friction where there should be flow, making it harder to link policy direction management execution in a way this legislature and the public can clearly understand or evaluate. For example, current law charges this Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction with, quote, executing under the direction of the State Board of Education the policies which have been decided upon by the board.
This has been evaluated by the Court of Appeals in the Honig litigation earlier referenced. The state board whose members are all appointed by the governor is quote in Education Code, the governing and policy determining body of the department, unquote. And is designated as the state educational agency as we heard earlier for purposes of interacting with the federal government. Moreover, the state constitution and previous actions taken by voters and the education code currently require that all of the superintendents deputies and associates superintendents must be appointed by the governor or the state board of education. As you can see again potential for friction not for flow.
The governor's proposal is designed to fix this structural challenge, lifting up the statutory solution that was proposed in the legislature's own 2002 master plan. The statutory solution would finally modernize the governance system by unifying the policy making state board with the Department of Education that implements those policies. We would be moving from a model of managed conflict to one of managed results. To do so, the Governor's proposal assigns responsibility for the daily management of the Department of Education to an appointed education commissioner envisioned, as we have in many states, to be an experienced education administrator similar to those chiefs in states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. And it would also empower the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction with new roles and authority, which, based on the questions we'll dive into here a little bit, that would help shape both how we align our education policies from early childhood through post secondary education.
This two part proposal would thereby bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and our schools. By eliminating the often referenced doubleheaded system, the proposed bill would enable the coherent and consistent state level focus on implementation and support of local education agencies that will lead to improved student outcomes. The proposal aligns the TQA K-twelve management functions of the department with the budget and policy responsibilities associated with the governor, therefore improving the trans the transparency and allowing the state to be held accountable for carrying out its roles in support of education delivery. And I think that is the central legislative frame here. This is not changed for its own sake.
This is not moving boxes for their own purposes. But yet it is consistent with the legislature's plenary authority that has been exercised regularly throughout our state's history to shape the roles and responsibilities of our State Department of Education entities including for example as a note earlier the creation of the department itself in 1921. This proposal would help ensure that when the state sets priorities, funds them and ask local educational agencies to deliver there is a clear structure for support, execution, and again, accountability. Importantly, this proposal strengthens accountability while also seeking to build on the demonstrated successes of recent state superintendents of public instruction of as both public champions of key educational issues on behalf of the voters, while also seeking to increase the policy and making authority of the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. As was noted, and you'll see on slide eight, they would become a voting member of the State Board of Education for the first time, which as was discussed earlier, would become the only member who is not appointed by the governor.
They would also gain a seat on the California Community College's Board of Governors in addition to existing voting roles as a UC Regent and a CSU Trustee. As you see on the slide, I don't need to dive into now, I'm sure for questions, there's also existing responsibilities and voting roles on other boards, other entities, as well as appointment authority that we think can really bring brought into greater coherence to provide a true policy making role while still also having coherence across all of those systems. And as a result, the proposal would empower the state superintendent of public instruction both by statute and by having more time and capacity to foster the needed alignment and coordination of education policies and priorities from early childhood through post secondary. And perhaps most importantly, as superintendent Thurman has demonstrated repeatedly, the Superintendent of Public Instruction can continue to serve an essential function as California's independently elected education champion. Recent SPIs have sponsored legislation, they've worked with governors and legislatures to bring public attention to pressing issues facing students and schools.
While the proposal would shift administrative responsibilities, the Office of the State Superbublic of Instruction would have unfettered independence, as referenced by the LAO, to focus on this critical role as the voters' education champion with both the legislature, the governor, and on the boards with which they would now have a voting role. They would also be able to build collaboration and coordination across these critical governing entities across all of higher education as well as TK through 12. And thus, the Office of State Superintendent of Construction could move from a role of being an administrative chief within the department and SBE to truly continuing to serve and elevate as an independent voting architect of California's P 20 continuum. On this point, you've heard some concerns and I anticipate we'll hear some later today about voters expectations for the office. Remember, Bonta, I take your your comments to heart.
We believe this proposal sets up the office holder to really deliver as a policy leader. Right now, the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction does not have that voting role on the State Board of Education. They don't have a role on the California Community Colleges of Education. This would give them voting roles in both places, exercising real policy authority. But this is the twofold proposal.
And getting to question of timing, now is clearly the moment to act. California has had the opportunity to finally deliver on what has been discussed for decades and at a critical time because 2026, as everyone in this room certainly knows well, is a transition year for both the governorship and the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Construction. It's an optimal time to make the shift because executive staff the only staff that this proposal would directly affect will be in transition regardless. And while leadership may change the legislature all of you here with us and your colleagues and the State Board of Education whose members have staggered terms, will continue to be sources of stability. By unifying the policy making board and the department that implements those policies that you, the legislature, enact, we can ensure that the legislature can set the next governor and state superintendent of public construction up for success, not with a crazy quilt of interacting authorities, but with a solid sound foundation for improving upon California's transformative initiatives.
You can provide California schools with strong state level foundation of support to ensure the sustained success of support for initiatives such as all the things that people in this room have championed from transitional kindergarten, community schools, universal early screening for reading difficulties, school programs, universal meals, before school after programs, and more. While there have been shared efforts at close coordination and successful champion of common priorities with Superintendent Thurmond, yourselves, and the governor, California can be stronger and even more supportive of local educational agencies as demonstrated by the many other states that have been highlighted here today and in the litany of reports that we've read over the past one hundred years. I didn't read them over one hundred years ago but we've read
Redner 19
And they've been highlighted by all who've studied California system since that time. And the proposal is not just conceptual. It is designed for implementation and you'll see on the slide we talk a little bit about the timeline in which this would take place. The Department of Education and the State Board of Education have been working very well currently. In fact I'd say that's true not only just during the past seven plus years but in the previous administration with which I also worked at the State Board.
But that's what makes us an ideal time for seamless transition for staff to be coalescing and working together. There's a transition in governance over the Department of Education that will take place regardless and the goal would be to be minimally disruptive for existing staff. Again, none of whom except for those who are appointed who would be directly affected. This proposal would change the structure of the department would not change the structure of the department outside of the changes at the executive level. Notably for the first time for all of those working within the Department of Education they would be represented in budget and legislative negotiations by the executive branch.
It is also important to emphasize that while in a period of transition is the optimal time to make such a shift it is also fair and we've heard this wariness that due to uncertainty about future leadership what might this look like. And to this point I wish to again underscore that the legislature continues to have plenary authority to establish the policy making roles for the state board and the department to which they grant. Things like the local control funding formula for which the state board was given a fair amount of authority to shape the local control accountability plan and others was a legislative designation by choice to say we would rather have that done by another entity. Legislature would continue obviously to continue to maintain that power. So the question before the legislature is not whether California has studied this enough.
Clearly, it has. The question is whether California is prepared to act on what has been known for a very very long time. The Gallup Governor's proposal unifies the policy making board with the Department of Education that implements those policies consistent with the key recommendation of all of these reports leading right up to the what LAO recommended earlier today. The governor's proposal also provides the state superintendent of public instruction with additional authority and empowers that office to help align California's education policies again from early childhood all the way through post secondary. And ultimately, while no governance change is a panacea by itself, there's no silver bullet.
This is the point. Without good governance, good schools as we know, especially at the local level where we all see it day in and day out, Without good governance, good schools are the exception, not the rule. This proposal is a serious effort to bring greater accountability and clarity and coherence to how California serves its students and schools. And for a century, we've inspected the problem. We've written those reports, we've diagnosed those flaws, and we've described the friction.
Today, with this hearing, we have the rare chance to bring about an alignment. Let's not leave this for 2034 or even the later legislature to fix it. Let's solve it now. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Redner 17
Good afternoon Doctor. Patel, Vice Chair Hoover, and members of the Assembly Education Committee. I'm Jeanie Young, Director of Policy Research at Pace. I wrote the report TK-twelve: Education Governance in California Past, Present, and Future with my co authors Drs. Heather Huff and Julie Marsh.
A summary of our report is included in your packet. The report was motivated by a recurring pattern we observed coming out of the pandemic Even when the state adopted bold student centered policies funded by historic investments implementation frequently fell short of the policy's potential for students. We drew on historical research systems analysis, and the perspectives of over 50 leaders from research policy and practice gathered through interviews and expert convening and external review. Our report found that California's policy aspirations for students are increasingly equity focused, research informed, and student centered. However, its governance system is not well aligned to move those goals from policy through implementation and into practice in ways that meaningfully and reliably improve learning for students across our state.
Universal transitional kindergarten is one example of how a strong policy idea failed to deliver equitable learning opportunities for all eligible students due in large part to governance challenges. The same could be said for the expanded learning opportunities program, the English learner roadmap, or other ambitious policies that have resulted in uneven implementation and inequitable access. A map of the entities involved in education governance in California appears on page four of the summary. The map evokes an insight from improvement science that every system is perfectly designed to achieve the results that it gets. California's education governance system certainly is complex but our mapping also suggests that this complexity reflects important Californian values embedded in the state's approach to governance including plurality, collaboration, and democratic engagement.
The challenge is to now more fully embrace those values by aligning them more clearly with the state's goals for improved student learning. First, plurality. California has built a governance system with many actors and many opportunities for inclusive participation. That plurality can be a strength but without clear role definition it can also diffuse responsibility. It takes a village but a village where no one knows who is in charge will not function well and when everyone is in charge no one is in charge.
When no one has clear responsibility for results ambiguity delay, and fragmented action are predictable results. Our report's first recommendation is to clarify roles and responsibilities in order to reduce overlap and sharpen accountability. Second collaboration. California values collaboration across institutions and levels. In our map some relationships are more tightly coupled through formal authority such as statutory compliance requirements while others are more loosely coupled through voluntary collaboration and support.
That looseness can be productive. It can allow for adaptation, local judgment, and learning across contexts but it can also weaken the link between policy intent and policy interpretation. The challenge is not tighter coupling everywhere but rather tighter linkages at the strategic points where being on the same page matters most. Structurally aligning the CDE with the State Board is one way to better connect policy with implementation. Third Democratic engagement.
California values public voice and entrusts elected leaders with representing their constituents in decision making at every level of the system. This includes the state's eight constitutional officers among them the SPI. Each constitutional officer is elected separately and carries an independent democratic mandate across the state. If the daily administration of the CDE were to be aligned under the state board the SPI could more clearly serve as an independent statewide voice for system accountability and evaluation in education. More fundamentally, the current system relies on our independently elected SPI to serve as the chief administrator of policies shaped elsewhere by the governor, the legislature, and the state board.
Arguably this administrative role is mismatched to the stature of an independently elected statewide constitutional office that carries the power of the people. Consider as an example the state controller, a constitutional officer responsible for independent oversight of the state's finances and the director of the Department of Finance, a gubernatorially appointed cabinet level official responsible for budget development and fiscal policy. Both play important but distinct roles in the state's fiscal system. Just as California separates those two functions of fiscal oversight and fiscal policy for elected and appointed leaders, a similar principle could guide the relationship between the SPI and the leadership of the CDE. Because the SPI is independent of both the governor and the legislature the office is well suited to lead evaluation and feedback loops for policy improvement and system accountability on behalf of students reducing reliance on implementers to evaluate their own work.
This is not a diminished role. It is a safeguard of democratic accountability and a role that an official directly answerable to voters is uniquely positioned to provide. Our report recommends that the state board appoint a director of the CDE subject to Senate confirmation to strengthen both the administrative expertise at the helm of the CDE as well as legislative oversight. This is about aligning authority, professional expertise, and responsibility in ways that the public can understand and hold accountable. This move will not on its own solve the state's broader challenges with implementation evaluation and capacity.
However, it is a critical first step creating the conditions for more substantive conversations about how to build the capacity needed for high quality support for implementation and improvement. Thank you.
Redner 20
Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the members of the committee, Tony Thurman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. I want to start first by thanking you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to be in this conversation. This is a very significant proposal. And with all due respect to PACE and the state board staff and others, very few have asked us what we think about it. And it doesn't mean that we do have to agree with it to be included in the research.
That could be a minority position. But for the research to be complete, all perspectives should be included. And so I am grateful for the opportunity to be before you all today. I want to start out just by saying that right off the bat, I don't think that the proposal is a bad thing. Anytime you can get a governor of any state to be more focused on education, that's actually a very good thing.
The question that I ask is again about why and why now? And I appreciate you, Assemblymember Alvarez, for asking the question because what I cannot find in any of the proposals for this governors shift is any explanation about why and how this will benefit student outcomes. I've not heard it in the presentation from PACE, from the State Board of Education staff. I have not heard it. And but you heard from the witnesses in the first panel that making this shift alone will not make student outcomes better.
By itself, it will not do that. There is no question that we have a complicated system. And people often ask who does what. But of the more than thousand school districts in this state, I can promise you that those superintendents of those districts and those who run county offices of education, they know who make the decisions. At the end of the day, everyone knows that the person who has the most influence over what happens in education is the California governor by virtue of the governor's ability to set a budget.
That sets the conversation. When I sat in those same seats that you all were sitting in, I remember being told, you show your value by what you put in your budget. And when a governor articulates a vision for a program in the budget, it sets the entire conversation. You know, I would I would just say that if you wanna make impact in something that's gonna change student outcome, look to the things that are proven like making sure that every single student knows how to read by third grade. Madam chair, you and I have had these conversations.
California has piecemeal together various programs to support literacy, but has never had a statewide long term plan like many other states have had. And its time is now. If we want to really make impact, we should be looking at programs that help us to close the achievement gap in this state. No state in the nation has really closed this achievement gap. We should be providing coaches with those who have closed achievement gaps to work with each of our districts to make sure that they have the right elements in place to coach them through closing the achievement gap.
Just to show you that we are trying to approach this question objectively, We surveyed many of our staff, many who have served at the department for ten years, twenty years, thirty years, some even forty years. And we asked them to give us feedback about their pros and cons about the proposal. I would say more than two dozen staff have shared intimate perspectives. Those two dozen staff represent more than a hundred fifty years of experience at the California Department of Education. Not one of those individuals was able to point to where the pros and cons were.
They mostly said that they didn't agree with it and they were concerned about the anxiety that it creates for them about what's going to happen to the department. What's going to happen to their position? What will happen to the essential functions that have to be carried out? You've heard references to the need for this for coherency and to lessen tension that exists between the governor's office and the state superintendent's office. But yet you haven't heard anyone really give a single shred of information, example, or evidence of where that tension exists.
You know, I I have to give this governor credit. This governor has leaned into education and done more for education than any governor in modern history. Coming out of the pandemic programs to help us accelerate learning, high dose tutoring, expanded learning. This governor has done more than any governor has done in modern times. And I'm proud of the work that we've done together in the last seven and a half years.
It's been co sponsorship of programs like transitional kindergarten, expanded learning funding, community schools funding, and we've had an incredibly close relationship with the state board president, maybe closer than we've ever seen before. Doctor. Linda Darling Hammond is America's greatest education researcher. It has been an honor to work very closely and hand in hand with her on so many of the questions that have come before the State Board and the State. And I can tell you that each of the 1,500 staff at the Department of Education consider it an honor to help the State Board of Education prepare for every single meeting, to go through every item that is on the board agenda and to help the State Board members get clarity about that, to provide recommendations, to help them through some of the stickiest issues that might ever come before us.
And so again, the question of why keeps coming to my mind. It's been hard for me to see where that tension exists. If you want to really see impact in education, there are a few things that you can do. In addition to the programs that I mentioned specifically around literacy and closing the achievement gap, the legislature could make more investments in the California Department of Education. The department has been underfunded and defunded for decades.
I merely need point to the establishment of the California Collaborative for Excellence in Education, CCEE. A great organization, but an organization that was born out of a conflict from a previous governor and a previous state superintendent. An organization that has absorbed some of the funding that would normally go to the California Department of Education. The department's been asked to do more with less. If you really want to see impact, invest more in the department rather than create confusion about the department's role.
Over the last several years, I've created new positions at the department because we just couldn't get funding to do it. We now have two statewide literacy directors and the only way that we could create those positions was to take existing positions and basically change their function and turn them into literacy positions. We've done the same thing to create a position for statewide teacher recruitment and retention. We took a million dollars out of our operational budget to give it to school districts to have more money for programs like Freedom School and programs that accelerate mathematics. And so if you really want to see impact, make an investment in the infrastructure of the Department of Education rather than weaken it.
I do want to speak to the questions of accountability that have come up today. Know, and people have said that there's no way to point to blame to any one individual. I'd like to invite you to take a walk with me in any grocery store aisle anywhere in the state of California. Anywhere I go, someone who's got a feeling about education, they are more than happy to share it. They see the state superintendent as being directly responsible for everything that happens within our 10,000 schools.
That's not realistic. We are a local control state as you heard from the presenters. We're not set up to manage what happens at every single school. But as a state superintendent, I accept those responsibilities. I accept even that blame.
I just ask that people partner with us to find solutions to make things better. And in all fairness, I think that the governor receives a fair amount of blame for what people feel should be accelerated progress when there isn't progress. And so I think that the accountability question is the wrong one. It's not who's to blame, it is what are we going to do that is going to move the needle in the state of California. With 10,000 schools and more than a thousand districts, it is hard to move a state in unison.
And so we have been experimenting at ways to move the needle in math and reading by creating a cohort of districts that work together where we provide funding to them and technical assistance on how to strengthen reading programs and mathematics instruction. We call it the cohort to move the needle. There are over 2,000,000 students in this cohort, many from small rural districts that need access to information about the best professional development that they need to make sure all their staff have to help to see results in literacy. And so the accountability question has to be what are we going to do about it? Again, these proposals don't offer a shred of funding to help move any initiative.
They literally do a lift and shift and that's it. It is not fair. Anyone who tells you that we're going to see better outcomes from doing a lift and shift without any investment in programs or the department itself is just not being honest with you and they're not being honest with themselves. And so I appreciated deputy superintendent Zygardt's testimony. You all asked him what will the role of the state superintendent be?
And you heard it. It is unclear that as these proposals have it envisioned, the state superintendent would have very little to do. With all due respect, mister Brooks, being able to vote in one or two more committees really isn't giving the future state superintendent any authority. It's really weakening a position that already is fairly structurally weak. But what has always allowed a state superintendent to counter those structural deficits is the ability to sponsor legislation, is the ability to work with the legislature.
As the state superintendent, I I pride the ability to amplify things that districts are saying that they need to members of the legislature and to help districts interpret the intents that are coming from the legislature. To say that the state superintendent would essentially serve on four or five commissions really is not being honest about the manner in which this position is being underfunded. If you want to create an appointed position, do it. But don't create a way to put a person in limbo. If you want to create an appointed position, acknowledge that the voters of this state have created the state superintendent role to be an independent position and there are times when that might be necessary.
We may have future governors who are not so supportive of education and when you have a state superintendent who's elected in an independent way, you have someone who can be a champion to fight back against those who might not support education. So we look forward to, you know, what comes out of today's dialogue and this entire conversation about these proposals. We want what is best for students and promoting student outcomes. And if there is some wisdom or some research or some experience that shows that this model is going to support student achievement, I'll be the first to sign up for Until then, I implore that this legislature focus on the things that we know will make a difference, like making sure we have a five year plan for helping children to learn to read by third grade. I submit this is the completion of my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions that the members of the committee might have for me.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you all in panel two for your testimony today. Certainly, Superintendent Thurman, you gave me an opportunity to highlight a bill that I have in front of the legislature AB 2,225. It's along with a package of bills that CSBA is sponsoring to close the achievement gap. And I would like you to take a look at those if you haven't already.
They are it's a great package of bills to address some of the exact challenges you've been describing.
Redner 20
We'd love to work with you on it. And if you have me, we'd be honored to be a sponsor of the legislation.
Redner 1
Yep. You'll have to work with CSBA, who's our lead sponsor, but certainly would be open to those conversations. Turning to Mr. Brooks for my first set of questions. I would like to read a brief excerpt from the letter provided by Superintendent Jack O'Connell.
It states who's superintendent from 2003 to 2011. During my tenure, I witnessed firsthand how the structural independence of the superintendent's office serves as a practical safeguard for school funding and program delivery. On more than one occasion, the Governor's Department of Finance contacted my office and asked us to delay dispersing funds to school programs, suggesting that those dollars might be redirected to other state priorities. My response was consistent. My job was to get money out the door to schools as quickly as possible, and we did.
That highlights one of the challenges that I think we might have to think about as we consider this shift. As noted in O'Connell's letter, there has been value in the past of an superintendent of public instruction being independent of both the legislature and the governor. Can you please describe the impact of the proposal related to the shift of power in the education commissioner overseeing the day to day operations of the CDE and how you envision the legislature continuing to have the same or, I would prefer, better level of input in its interactions with the department as it has today. There is a lot of concern from my legislative colleagues that we're gonna see a sort of erasure or reduction in access and cooperation and collaboration, not necessarily with this governor, but any number of governors to come?
Redner 19
Appreciate the question. I think probably taking a step back when you think about what would what would shift and what would change. I think as as we've heard the discussion across both panels today, I think one common theme has been an actual policy making authority, borrow the words of superintendent Thurmond. Folks see that the governor legislature have ultimate budget authority, legislative authority. Right?
Pass bills, governor signs bills, oppose the budget, you send a budget, sends it over. All of that does not change. Right? Nothing about this proposal shifts any of that. Any of the responsibilities that the SB has and the CD have are really dictated by the legislature and then ultimately the governor in terms of signing those pieces.
That does not shift. The challenge that can come up and you know I think some points made earlier, you can work together really well. The structure is not set up for that. We have all worked closely to try to make sure that's not the case. You don't have a challenge currently as they did in the early nineties where you have a fight over appointments, where it has to literally get litigated in the courts to figure out what's going to happen.
You don't have a situation where you have a state board who is having to enact really micromanagement policies about every aspect of an operation of a management department because it's under a separately elected constitutional for day to day management but not for policy. We don't have those conflicts. That's part of the reason why this is actually a pretty good time to do it because you have folks who've been working well together. You have Superintendent Thurman and Governor Newsom really agreeing on if he had someone he wants to appoint governors appoint him. Right?
That that's been working on. That does not have to be the case. The structure is not set up for that to be the case. And that is why we see if we look back over the past hundred years this continues to come up as a structural problem. We can do a workaround, that's what we do currently, or we can really set it up to have effective success.
To your last point, I want make sure I hit each of them. There is this question of and I've heard this from a number of members when we've had chance to go around have some visits that there is a concern that there would be less access to the expertise that the folks in the California Department of Education have when it comes time to either discuss your bills, talk about implementation, and those types of things. Obviously, I can't speak to the commitments to any future governor. Certainly, know that from this governor, we show up to everything for his staff. But I'm here.
But if there's anything else for future governors, clearly there is some part of that that will be part of that struggle. I've actually had a chance to talk to some of my colleagues who are agency secretaries and said, hey, I've been hearing this concern as we've been walking around talking about this. Is this is this the thing that happens? They said, yeah, occasionally it is. Right?
There is sometimes there has been this tension about like, do we get full access? So I fully appreciate the Well, I more fully appreciate now, I haven't had those conversations, that that is sometimes an active tension and an area of concern. There's no reason under our current structure though, I would argue, that there's any reason we don't have the same uncertainty about who comes into office. Should nothing come of this proposal after today, nothing moves forward, doesn't move forward in the budget, bill doesn't move forward. Status quo, the same thing that folks have found to be problematic and broken for over a hundred years, so we look forward to future reports to talk about it.
But that's where we are. Do you have the guarantee that you have greater access to staff, the expertise of the folks at the California Department of Education two years from now? That will be dependent both upon who is elected as the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction at that time, just in the same way that is who is elected governor. There's uncertainty in both places. And so that's why we've also talked about this being a really critical point of transition for the legislature to be able to enact these changes to the comments made before with a forward looking role of how we shape this.
Because during this uncertainty, the legislature and the board, because of those staggered terms, are relay our only points of stability. We have uncertainty in terms of what the executive branch will look like. We have uncertainty about what the next office of superintendent of public instruction will look like depending who fills that role. So I grant you that I think that that's a valid concern. I realize it's been an experience that some have had.
But I think that that uncertainty exists either direction.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. Those uncertainties certainly are in existence and that is always a possibility as well. We do observe a difference in interactions with elected offices versus the governor's office. And we just want to make sure that we continue to receive the same level of transparent, open communication as we form our policies. We need that.
That research, support, data, it's all very helpful. When it comes to specifically around the point of the SBI's role not being clearly defined in your position, that is very troubling to me. We heard the comments from Assemblymember Bonta that this essentially creates a vestigial organ or a vestigial appendage. Appendage, yeah. Very concerned around that, as well as concerned around to extend the human body metaphor, preparing for surgery but not really having a plan for the surgery or for recovery.
It's a big concern that we're not thinking about that role and the power that that role has. Without power, it's hard to have influence. No matter how many reports you want to write and present, if you don't have that power, you don't have influence. So the LEO had some recommendations to include that describe further identifying the SPI's duties, such as representing the interests of the public, reporting on the state of education, and evaluating laws and programs. Can you please share your thoughts as to whether and how these recommendations could align with the governor's proposal, especially considering you're not adding any new staff or new budget to that role?
Redner 19
Yes. And I think in my role here today, just want to be clear. I think this is understood, but just have to stay for the record. Obviously, I can't commit to anything that folks I report to make commitments to. But to that extent, I can say, yes, I think that we had the opportunity to obviously read the report.
Assemblymember's has noted, very well put together a report. I think the ideas that were raised were all ones that we think are good points, worthy of careful consideration. I don't think there was anything that was raised there that we would view as being inconsistent with the general direction of where the governor's proposal goes. I do think that with respect to this idea, I'm not going to risk of really damaging that metaphor, I'm not going to go into it. I will say I think I want to there's been reference to it being potentially just like two committees.
I don't think that the governing board of the California Community Colleges is just a committee to have a vote on. I think that's meaningful. We think that's meaningful. We think that a vote on the State Board of Education, not just because I've staffed it a couple of times, but because it is the policy making body for the department and for our California Public Schools that to date has only had gubernatorial appointees that changing that history to actually provide an office that has been referenced is not really having the policy authority but only administrative authority is meaningful. It is one of 11 granted as one on some of these bodies where it's one of many.
Just like every individual legislator is not you know a body and unto yourselves you guys vote as a joint committee but having that vote is critical and it's important it means you're making policy. If you don't have that role and the current Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction doesn't on the State Board of Education, it is an administrative role to implement those policies passed by the legislature or subsequently by the State Board of Education under a charge given by the legislature. This would change that fundamentally giving more voting power. It would also unify in a way that really we haven't seen across higher ed. Right now, the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction has the ability to vote on the UC Regents and as a CSU trustee.
By adding the California Community Colleges, you have an office holder who would be able to actually have a voting role and be able to bring a charge to all three entities across all of higher ed, which we know even outside of other folks are way more about higher than I do. Really work in the K-twelve level Doctor. Donnelly Hammond who the superintendent referenced earlier certainly does be really critical especially when given the time and capacity we're no longer having to worry about the management of a large bureaucracy with over 2,000 folks to really play an effective role about championing policies across all three of those governing entities for higher ed. In addition, also having on the K 12 side an ability to have a voting role. We know it's meaningful means you get to pull things off consent means you get to be in closed session means even if you aren't in the majority of vote you really get to make a difference.
That's meaningful. And we would think this is part of reason I laid this out on the slide but we couldn't even capture all the bodies that the Office of State Superintendent of Construction gets added to because the legislature often when wanting to say hey we would like there to be a voice for K-twelve on an entity kind of writes in the Office of State Superintendent of Public Construction puts it in there and yet there's no way there's no human way that any one of our superintendents can can really serve in all of those roles simultaneously in addition to all of the other duties they have and be an effective policy champion across all those on behalf of the voters. There's just no way. You have to send deputies, you have send other folks. It's just an it's an inhuman task to say to be spread across.
So this is really saying, look, the voters elect the office of the state the state superintendent of public instruction to be our champion in education. Let them actually serve in those roles, be there present in those meetings, vote, have a meaningful voice in all of those various meetings and then be able to actually pull those folks together. We think that that actually is a really meaningful role and isn't just kind of something would be left on the operating room table.
Redner 1
You're saying that the proposal would create efficiencies and I see where it would streamline decision making and accountability. But how would this benefit the legislature? What's in it for us? I think that's very important to ask and I'm gonna be very transparent about it. What's in it for us?
Redner 19
I mean, I said earlier, and I think, you know, the case was referenced earlier, and I keep I'll go back to it because I do think that it governs so much of what the legislature has done with respect to educational structures where frankly what we live is that decision by the court of appeals in in the Honi case. And I returned to it because you read it, it repeatedly makes the point that you all have the power. You have plenary power that you can add and subtract as the legislature has done repeatedly throughout California's history creating the entities. Right? Taking them down, creating new entities.
It was referenced earlier. New bodies that created. You all have the authority to do all of that. The most meaningful tasks that the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education take on are charges that really come from the legislature. If those are the community schools grants, superintendent Thurman talked about as as one of these wonderful shared priorities, that came from the legislature, right, with the governor.
If it talks about everything that they do, you talk about curriculum, they've sent things over frankly, sometimes saying, hey, we don't want to get into the details to figure out those out thorny issues. Let's let the State Board of Education and CDE figure that out together. Right? That gets sent over. Those are all things that are done with your delegation of authority, not without it.
So to the extent that there are very limited exceptions to that, perhaps you could say like the State Board has waiver power. Right? So there is an ability for local educational agencies to come up to the state board to ask for a waiver of existing code. That arguably is an exception. All get to dictate the scope of that authority.
You pass laws every year that say whether something is subject to a waiver or not. There are things when LCFF that say no, nothing with respect to LCFF can be waived. That was done by the legislature. So ultimately at the end of the day, I'd say, what's it for you guys have the power to dictate the terms of the arrangement, have historically over time and can do so again.
Redner 20
Madam Chair? Might I just offer something to the question that you just asked about what's seen it for the legislature?
Redner 1
I am going to get to you, but if you want to put in a brief comment, I'm open to that.
Redner 20
It's real brief. I just think that there's actually more to lose from the standpoint of the legislature. When we come before this committee on any question that the legislative committees are trying to answer, we come having gotten information from school districts about where they need help. And, you know, as something Member Vonta talked about, it is true, it is complicated to have county offices of education. But we use the county offices of education who can talk to 20 or 30 districts in their county.
And we communicate with many districts, large and small. The legislature would lose that ability to hear what a thousand plus districts are saying they need help with. And with Luz, the superintendent has the ability to convene ad hoc structures that ultimately inform the legislative committees. This happened during the pandemic. We found out immediately that there were a million students who didn't have a computer or access to the Internet.
Period. End of story. And we were able to bring in Internet service providers to say, hey, you've got to give Internet to everyone for $15 or free, especially for our low income families. From that, grew a legislative proposal that ultimately secured $6,000,000,000 for broadband across the state. And so those two votes that the SBI would gain on those two committees, that is not going to cement this sort of, you know, cohesion of all the different systems of education.
They're just two votes. And think of all the things that's going to be lost in exchange to get those two votes.
Redner 1
Thank you. Turning to our representative from PACE, Ms. Mjung, I have a question for you. I'm gonna try to be brief so that my committee members can also get get their questions asked. If you think of the potential elements of governance reform as a menu, you have outlined several options.
The governor's proposal cherry picked some of those and left some on the table And we also didn't see any kind of prioritizing which would be best, which is dependent on another. Can you please elaborate proposal that the governor's office did take and what was left on the table that you might suggest we reconsider?
Redner 17
Thank you for the question. I would say that the first recommendation that we made that we thought was necessary but not sufficient was picked up in the governor's proposal, which is to align the CDE with the state board to reduce that gap between policy and implementation. And so I would say that that is the first step that would allow for a stronger implementation of the policies. And I think that would circle back to your first question, Doctor. Patel, about what's in it for the legislature.
I think the legislature has really done a fantastic job. Like I said, the policies passed are student centered, research informed, equity focused. But once the policies are written, once the press conferences are held, I would love for those policies to make more impact on students so that we could see that impact in the classroom on student learning. So I do think that the next phase after should this governance reform happen would be a focus on stronger support for implementation and improvement. And then secondarily, I think something that's lost in our current structure is this ability for an outside entity to honestly evaluate how our systems are operating.
And I think as was brought up before, I think by the LAO, we really have a terrific opportunity with an external independent constitutional officer who could provide that sort of perspective and that evaluation capacity so that we're not relying again on the implementers to evaluate their own work.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. It's important for us to consider the whole body of your work. Your research was very thorough and appreciate that. Thank you. For Superintendent Thurman, it's kind of a two sided question and I hope you can answer on both sides of the question.
If the governance structure proposed by the governor had been in place during your eight year tenure, how would any of your initiatives turned out differently? And the flip side of that question is would an education commissioner appointed by the governor not be able to conduct some of those same initiatives?
Redner 20
So, we'll start with the latter part of your question. Commissioner appointed by the governor won't have the ability to initiate initiatives that may not necessarily be priorities for the governor. And, you know, I'll give an example of two that have come in this way. In this very committee, it was impossible for a bill that would have expanded dyslexia screening to even get a hearing. And it's not that the governor wasn't interested in it, but the governor didn't weigh in on the subject.
And when I wrote a letter in support of the bill, the governor immediately put dyslexia screening fully funded into the budget. Now the person who was appointed by the governor isn't going to write a letter to the committee supporting a bill that has some controversy on both sides if their boss, the governor, isn't weighing in on that subject. And so, you know, I can give you countless examples of where something got got initiated. It doesn't mean that the governor didn't care about it. You know, I sponsored a bill to make personal finance a graduation requirement that was not initially articulated by the governor, but the governor did eventually come on board and sign on to it.
And he values it and he speaks about it often. And so you lose the ability of an independent individual to offer initiatives that maybe no one else offers. And here's the final example I'll give you. Coming out of the pandemic, we found that there weren't enough substitute teachers, but there were retired teachers who wanted to substitute. And they couldn't substitute because of the restrictions on being a retiree.
And I sponsored legislation to change the rules around the length of time that a retiree can come back without being penalized. They shouldn't lose their pension for being able to teach. No one wanted that bill to be done. No one. Everyone said don't do this bill.
And if there wasn't an independently elected state superintendent, would anyone have brought that forward? Today that bill passed and it gives school districts the ability to hire substitute teachers who want to spend more time helping us until we can find more substitutes to fill those vacant roles.
Redner 1
And to clarify, you're saying that the new role of SBI wouldn't have the capacity to sponsor legislation or request a legislator to author a bill championing those ideas?
Redner 20
Thanks for asking. What I meant to say is that the appointed person would not be in a position to author or sponsor or initiate an idea that their boss didn't agree with. If the governor doesn't initiate it or support it, then that person would never be able to bring that forward. The last thing I'd say about the changes to this state superintendent as proposed, the current state superintendent office sits on 27 commissions and boards. Sometimes that's someone who sits in and fills in for me and then appoints 28 others.
Again, all that loss in exchange for being able to vote on two additional committees, being one of 11 or one of 20, is not the same as driving the policy in higher education. The governor has the most influence over what happens in higher education by virtue of what the governor proposes in the budget and the manner in which the governor works closely with the legislature. The governor and the legislature where this happens, to suggest that somehow serving on these additional commissions would be shaping and aligning k 12 through higher education is really not a complete telling of the facts.
Redner 9
Thank you. And thank you chair for putting together this incredible panel and for your allowance of my feedback. I'm I'm looking at this here. At this point, I'm kind of reduced to pictures. It's been a heck of a couple of months.
This to me looks like a Kandinsky painting. And and the problem when I look at Kandinsky paintings, I spent all my time in the Museum of Modern Art in in New York City, was when you look at a painting from a different way, it actually leads to some different potential observations. It strikes me that the hundred years of contemplation about this, the six reports that have been written about the alignment of our governance system has literally always thought of how we should structure our governance from the perspective of the top of the system. At the very, very bottom of this reference in the PACE report is students and families. So, this is a question that Assembly Member Alvarez asked, the superintendent alluded to it as well.
If we were to have approached our design of a governance system, you know, whole cloth anew, from the perspective of what's the best for student and family in their classroom or in their schools, would we have come up with this particular set of recommendations or proposals? That's a rhetorical question because I think the answer is no, is the honest truth of it. So, I'm struggling with that, because I want to make sure that we are student centered and family centered in the work that we do. I have a mantra of being kids first at this moment in time, as I always have. And I'm struggling with the fact that we've essentially put forward a recommendation and created findings that aren't focused in that way.
And I just want to take as an example in the PACE report or also in the letter commentary around some of the things that we are attributing to the the friction points in, you know, the failure to implement some policy ideas as being wholly responsible for not being fully executed around the governance system. So we talked about Universal TK, ELOP programs, the English Learner Roadmap, we'll add CTE to that. All of those things are initiatives and things that this legislature believed in, used its plenary power to be able to move forward with as things that were very important to us, often in partnership with the administration. And we are only talking about two entities in your 20 plus entity system that we're saying are part of the problem for governance here. So, I'm one struggling with this idea of why in the world are we not being user centered and human centered in our design of our governance system, if that's what we're proposing to do.
And two, why are we only focusing on the Governor's Administration and the CDE and the SPI? If you just take universal transitional kindergarten as an example, And this is where I hope that you all can kind of give us a live example to work on. What other parts of our governance system, aside from CDE and the governors, the administration, the State Board of Education, weren't working to make sure that we had powerful implementation around universal transition transitional kindergarten.
Redner 17
I can take a stab at that. I do want to respond to your comment about how these are just two positions that we're focused on right now. Like I said before, it is the first step. But I do want to say that I do think super the SPI position is serving two functions. And I want to go back to point out that all of kind of the bullet points that Superintendent Thurman listed out about what would be lost in this transition, you know, encountering a family in the grocery store, sponsoring legislation, working with legislators, amplifying things districts need, initiating priorities, providing feedback to interpret SBE policies.
Those would not be lost. Those would continue to live with the SPI. But what wasn't mentioned was managing a large bureaucracy. What we want I appreciate
Redner 9
that you are answering something, but I don't think you're being responsive to the question that I'm I sorry. For the sake of this committee's time, again, let's just take the example of transitional kindergarten.
Redner 17
So universal transitional kindergarten relies on agencies not just CDE but also CDSS and you know facilities and CTC and curriculum and facilities all these things that needed to be coherent in order to implement well and so as the policy rolled out districts were expected to implement the change prior to guidance being rolled out to them so we the state failed to provide timely guidance to districts as they were expected to add a new grade for children younger than they had ever served before. So it was about kind of the timing and the rollout of the guidance that largely left local leaders responsible for doing something really challenging with existing space and offering services that they had very minimal guidance to do.
Redner 20
Madam Chair, through the Chair, Senator Member Bonta, the complete telling of the answer to your question is more than guidance. And if the department was slow in providing guidance, we'll own that. But the biggest challenge to school districts to implement universal transitional kindergarten was resources. This is the first year that school districts have a fully funded budget to implement TK. And so without access to credentialed staff, without access to dollars to transform the space, those are threats to implementing.
Just like in the example that was given about expanded learning, you all might recall when you had school district staff here to talk about expanded learning, they said they and this was hard to hear. They said they could not spend the money fast enough. They could not ramp up the programs. They said that they had fatigue dating back to the pandemic and all the dollars between the federal dollars and the state dollars coming in all at once that they could not ramp up fast enough to spend those dollars on the they couldn't build the programs quickly enough. And so I'm just offering that as a to help provide complete context to the question that you pose about the timeline it takes to implement TK or expanded learning.
Redner 19
If I may, Terren. But I want to see if I can try to address interrelated piece of that question I heard, which is sort of like why these two entities because with the Kudinski, like, it's clearly more than just the role of the FBI and state board. Right? Like, clearly, that's perhaps in the in the view of the governor's proposal necessary, but not sufficient. And there are all these other entities.
It is a very fragmented system. Right? That is not as a member you've talked about all the ways that that is both true at a state level and a sub state level. Right? In terms of the way we look at that.
So I would just say from the administration's perspective with respect to this piece, there is nothing being proposed that suggests that this is the entirety of the issue and this takes care of it. We see it as a necessary but not sufficient first move for other things that could would need to happen. But I think it's it's necessary and it's critical to a point that attempted to make in the affirmative presentation, is that the timing for these though is critical because it's a time window that's rare and small because you really are talking about wanting to do this at a time where you're not interfering with the roles and responsibilities of an elected governor or of a state superintendent of public instruction. That's why typically these questions really only arise at points of transition. A number of these other things that we could be talking about, some other entities that you named and others, Those are things that aren't necessarily dictated by electoral cycles in terms of changes that could be made.
And so that was one reason why the focus here with respect to this moment in time is here. But it's not to suggest that that would be the entirety of the types of things that we need to do to strengthen both program supports and implementation efforts.
Redner 9
Yeah, with all due respect, you know, really appreciate your leadership, Mr. Allen. I think that the timing, again, is organized around looking at the design from the perspective of an electoral cycle that has to do with these entities, the SPI, and the governor, and the administration. I doubt that a student that needs to I'll take transitional kindergarten. A four year old who's looking to get into a classroom at Ella Baker Elementary School as a T care, who doesn't have a bathroom that is sufficient for them in their classroom, who doesn't have an aligned resource in SELPA, who isbecause they are probably walking with a learning disability that they need to be addressedwho is also somebody who is in a district that is under the order ofor the providence of FICMATs, really cares about an electoral cycle.
So I'm questioning this idea of the first step needing to be this step. If we already know that there are inefficiencies with ourthe entirety of our governance structure around that. And I'll just move into the timing of this, because I think it's really important. And for that, I want to thank you for offering us this timeline that is in the presentation that the State Board of Education offered. So June 2026, enactment of government changes, Summer and fall twenty twenty six, transition planning happens 11/03/2026, elections happen January 2027.
December, January, I have to do that sometimes. From November to January, November, December, January. Yeah, with all holidays. January 2027, we would be focusing on new office of the SPI opening, the current CDE and SPE staff transitioning, the new education commissioner, maybe even if it's just the start of that, maybe that's the intention of that. Just on the operational efficiencies associated with that plan, and I want to get into that a little bit, That seems, to put it mildly, ambitious.
I just think about the to take the like the Ed Code, and the number of times SPI, Superintendent of Public Instruction or CDE or CDE in collaboration with the State Board of Education comes up in our Ed Code. Committee consultants? Thousands?
Redner 9
Yeah, it's thousands. That seems those thousands of references would need to be resolved in a significant enough way for us to be able to move into the phase of implementation planning. So I don'tthat doesn't happen in three months. So I'm concerned about the kind of the operational inefficiencies that we are not really articulating here, and don't have a complete picture of. And I'm also concerned about the potential fiscal efficiencies or inefficiencies that might result in this.
There is a challenge with the fact that there are people that are sitting, holding these jobs in the CDE that would be essentially moving over into another department. LAO's report talks about there being some potential redundancies that would need to be addressed. The fact that there would need to be kind of new lines of management outlined in order to be able to do that. There's a lot in such a big kind of organizational shift. And I'm curious about why we are moving with the kind of the first look being doing the big thing, not the other things that might be significant, but not as large or heavy a lift.
And doing so within a truncated timeline that just really seems impossible to be able to do well.
Redner 19
I'll do my best to unpack and let me know. Think one piece I just want to underscore is that for all the point you asked about in terms of the staff, because I think it speaks to both the timing issue and staff. The only staff that are affected by this proposal are staff that already face a transition. I'm one of them. Right?
It's like this position, those of us who are appointees, executive level for both state board and CDE, all would have to be reappointed by new governor whether they work for the state superintendent of public construction should we keep status quo or should it be this under this new proposal. So the only positions, literally the only ones that get affected by this are positions that already are potentially under transition. So that's one piece of this. And that's why we talk about this point of transition happening around the electoral cycle. Right?
Because all of us who are in these positions know that we may not hold these jobs. In fact, we have to assume we won't depending on what the electoral cycle holds both the CD level and the SB level who are appointees. Secondly, the administration and on behalf of the governor when he gave us this charge, this has not been undertaken lightly. We've been in discussions with CalHR. I referenced the discussion our Department of Finance colleagues are having with Legis Council to look at all of these various pieces.
And that's why what is in trailer bill are those that are those ones that were identified as being critical for the structural move that will be made and everything else right now with an acknowledgment that that is a huge undertaking to figure out how many of these are things that would stay absolutely under the department because that makes sense. That work continues forward. Although granted, I I know LAO has their own suggestions what it might look like. No changes would be needed. But there's references that are nothing need.
But there may somewhere it would make sense. There's others where it would make sense. It would stay with offices of the superintendent of public construction. Maybe where there's like things like personnel commission appointment of authority and things like that. So there's been a lot of work to try to get that ready.
No doubt it would be, a heavy lift. There's going to be a heavy lift regardless as there is at a significant point of transition when you get a new administration both on the executive branch and you get a new office superintendent of public construction. The whole host of new folks who come in. So that speaks, that's my attempt to speak to that piece. Terms of where you start, I still think it is not absent discussions and thought about how else we do all the other sports.
At this very same time, the legislature, the governor's office, CD, SP are engaged in conversation about how we do better supports and structures across the entire system. It's always a process of continuous improvement. We're always trying to iterate and improve about how we do that. It's just that for these moves of this size and this significance that require shifting structures, that's why those get elevated. It's not like the other conversations are continuing or aren't deemed equally as important.
Redner 9
I appreciate that. I said what I wanted to say about that, and I think there's a point of disagreement from my perspective around that. My last question is around the Some of the proposals seem like, well, I will say this. It would seem to me like it would make more sense to have a 150 page report around the entirety of the governance system and the inefficiencies that exist in that, and then have that whole picture outlined for us so that we could then decide what would be the most constructive phase one, phase two of that. And all we've been presented with is primarily, you know, in short, our governance system is really complicated.
It's been complicated, and we fought over it for one hundred plus years. And where we should start is specifically around the State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, definition of that, and the movement of the CDE to the State Board of Education. As somebody who is responsible for, you know, who's going to be here for a while, I would much prefer to have a much more robust picture of all of those other points of governance that we know are challenging, create friction points, and then give us an opportunity to understand fully what the trade offs are for one particular move versus another. And I feel like we're lacking that. And it would be very helpful to have a version of that put against time and money and resources to be able to do that kind of move, and why it's important for children, and demonstrating why it would actually result in better student outcomes.
My final point. Some of the opportunities for the SPI have been focused around appointing the SPI to very important boards, which I agree. We talked about that a little bit over here as a sidebar. That could be done independent of this proposal in its entirety, right? And would have value.
Redner 9
And would have this similar value that we know is asserted as an important thing for us
Redner 5
Thank you, madam chair. I was gonna have some questions, but I would love to get to the next panel because I definitely know that it's quite a long one. So I I will just make a brief comment, and and I I just wanna appreciate my my colleague from Oakland talking about sort of this idea of putting students and families at the top. I do think that needs to be the priority in in everything we're doing, whether we move forward with this proposal or not. And I did appreciate a lot of the comments from from all our presenters on this panel in particular.
What I do wanna just mention briefly is that I think at its core, and and this does not mean that this proposal is the correct one, but at its core, I think there are flaws with the status quo. I think they've obviously been pointed out by the PACE report, were previously pointed out by the LAO. I think there's been reports in the past that have really pointed out some of the flaws in our governance structure. So that doesn't necessarily mean this proposal from the governor is the right one, but I do think that there are some real merit in this idea that the status quo needs adjustment. So I'll just point that out.
But I think I was gonna ask this as a question, but I will just more pose it rhetorically for now. And the last thing and and I'm gonna ask the next panel. So, Dave, probably get ready for this one if you're if you're listening. Is how does this proposal from the governor empower locals and support students? Right?
So and, again, I'm not gonna ask you to answer it. I I I just in the because of time. But that's what I would love to hear from our next panel as well is how are we actually empowering local governments? One thing that really stood out to me is that there is a lot of support from local administrators and, you know, local locals on this proposal, and that that does speak volumes to me. And would love to, as we continue to, like, have this conversation, get get a further answer to that.
But thank you all for for sharing and appreciate your perspectives.
Redner 8
Thank you. Thank you all. I I'll start with the rhetorical as well. And and certainly for the for the next panel, not inconsistent to what I've said earlier, how is this change going to deliver the results of achievement closing the achievement gap and student outcomes? I think if we don't hear that at any point in today's conversation, we might as well have perhaps wasted some time here, to be very honest with you.
So I think that's important. I do wanna ask some specific questions because as my colleagues, I wanted to wait till the end to to hear them to sort of pose questions in a way that are helpful to the way I'm thinking about this is on the issue of appointees, the thought occurred to me as miss Banta was asking about this the timeline. Appointees take a while to happen. They don't they don't happen very, very quickly. I'll start with superintendent Thurman.
How in your first I know there's been you've been eight years, so there's got to be changes. But in your first set of appointments that were made, when did you fill the and I don't know how many positions there are, but whatever that is, when did you sort of when were you complete with that task?
Redner 20
So remember, it's been an ongoing process because some of the appointees have over have timelines. They have terms like we do. The personnel commission is the one of the first ones that I would mention. On my first day, I was handed a stack of personnel commission appointments that needed to be made because their terms expired before I was even sworn in. And so it's a rolling process.
And you are correct. Sometimes it can take weeks. Sometimes it can take months to make those appointments.
Redner 8
Okay. And, Mr. Allen, I'm not sure when you took the position. I don't if you started when the governor started or not, but how is that process and the appointments to that you well, in your position, but also others related to the education appointments made by the governor.
Redner 19
Yeah. And to be clear, I started in October 2020. So after my predecessor, Karen Staph Walters, had served under Governor Brown's administration and then served through the beginning of governor Newsom's administration, which of course is always an option. Really varies. I mean, I probably I'd want to defer to my colleagues from the appointments unit.
I know that in the initial rollout of a new administration, because most part of this process a bit, there's a lot of, both interviews and planning so that much like superintendent Thurman referred to kind of day one, new governor gets sworn in, they can hit the ground running, and they can issue a lot of appointments. Subsequent appointments usually depends on the time for the governor to take the time to review those and approve them.
Redner 8
Okay. I I would state that it it it appears to me, and in reflection of this particular part of the proposal, that we should be more cognizant of the time that this could take. And I'm not so sure it is just as easy as, you know, flipping a switch and then it happens. So I'd like to get more information about that. Let me ask you also about I heard you state earlier as the chair asked about your position on certain things.
And I said this to you before, so it's not a surprise. The LAO's recommendations to me significant and have tremendous value. And I think what you've stated here today, which you've stated before to me is that they're I don't know if you're open. I think maybe the I want to make sure you answer that with your words, not any words that I put in your mouth. But what is your how are you approaching the feedback that's been received, whether it's today or in the LAO's analysis that what came out last week.
Redner 19
Yeah. Thank you so much. I think you're referring to my caveat that I gave, which is that I personally can't today reflect the decisions, obviously, they have to take up to the governor and the team and get their reflections. But that upon the initial receipt of the LEO's report, I think that at least a staff level, was a lot of appreciation for the good thinking behind those and thought there were reasonable points made and good things for further conversation. In terms of ultimately what the positions would be on those, obviously, I have to wait and defer.
Yeah. I want to
Redner 8
respectfully share with you that you said earlier something you've heard from me and probably others, I think you said you heard it from others, that you've been asking some of your colleagues, the agency heads and directors about coming before the legislature and being asked for information. And oftentimes we actually don't get folks who come up, who would come from agencies. And sometimes when they do, responses such as we don't know how we feel, we'll get back to you. I just want you to know that that may come across not as you intended to, but certainly from a frustration level from a legislature that has seen over the course of years now, certainly the years I've been here, that what often feels lack of a partnership the details of the proposals that I think we find very worthy in the administration, but then the inability to have a conversation about how we feel we can make it better together. And I just want to acknowledge that this feels a little bit like that just because it'd be nice to understand how strongly you may feel about some something versus something else to then really focus our attention and time to working collaboratively to the same outcome that we're all hoping, I think, to achieve, which is a students focus, students first approach to governance models that lead to those results.
And so I have to say that because I do feel that others have said that, but it's important to acknowledge. And so I would love to actually sit here and ask you about what about this recommendation from the LAO and that recommendation, because then that helps us kind of really set expectations and do more due diligence and spend more hours on research to get to that place. And it's just hard to do so when when that type of exchange doesn't happen. And so to the point earlier about not having a collaborative I mean, it just feeds that narrative, which is certainly not one you're trying to be a part of, but, like, I just want you to know it just feels real. I hear you.
Redner 19
And to the extent I can offer anything in terms of, you know, observations and our thoughts on those various proposals, I just and I think you'll appreciate from where I stand, obviously, can't represent my principal's views on something we haven't had a chance to brief him on. Right? So I can't commit to anything. Think in with respect to certain aspects, very happy to keep talking it through. I think that, you know as I attempted to share and apologies for falling short with respect to most of the LAO's recommendations I think that we thought very well thought through things that we think would be where the concern could talk about those more one on one to be identify one that I know there's gonna be potential tension around is when we talk about changing the scope of the governor's gubernatorial authority over appointments.
That's a conversation that folks well beyond those of us who work for the government and education sector will have some feelings about. Right? So I expect that would be one that would require much more conversation. I think with respect to those that have to do more in the day to day management of both policy and implementation on the education side, obviously, I can I can share a bit more?
Redner 8
Yeah. I'll end with a with a with a comment so we can get to the other panel and respect everybody's time. I would say that acknowledge your your position that you're in. I would hope and maybe I'll ask this question to you as to close, which is as you gather feedback from today and from the LAO, that when this committee has an opportunity to discuss the actual policy, that between now and then there's a commitment almost makes it feel like it's accusatory and that's not my intent, but some sort of of agreement that there will be that feedback that will occur so that we are in a different position to have a conversation that's different. So I will ask you to answer that.
But I would also say that the intent here, at least I wanted to make it clear from my perspective, is that it is an opportunity. And I actually want to close with what the chair started with, which is question was something to the effect of what's in it for the legislature. We're only going to get one shot at this. And what's in it for us is part of this conversation. And what's in it for us and making sure that we get this as right as possible so that it's as inclusive to not just the restructuring, but to make sure that the other, people refer to this as the two a two headed, you know, problem, and other comments have been made, but two heads or six thumbs or whatever.
There's other things that have happened as a result of how we've done this. And so to correct some of those things, it's not a bad idea to talk about those in the context of this as well. And appreciate colleagues who have brought that up and I hope that and I'll give you the last word. I hope that that is something that's taken into account prior to a discussion from a policy committee's perspective on a proposal like this.
Redner 19
Absolutely. Yeah, no problem committing to that. I think now that we have some more of those details of the questions that have come up, both here today and the lead up that allows us to kind of work that through and come back with very specific feedback.
Redner 1
Thank you panelists from panel two. We will shift to panel three. While we're making that transition, I'll introduce the panelists. We have Jeff Freitas, President of the California Federation of Teachers David Gordon, Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools Ted Lempert, President of Children Now, Adam Weinberger, President of the California School Employees Association, Darryl Camp, President of the Association of the California School Administrators from the San Lorenzo School District, and Seth Bramble, Legislative Relations Manager, California Teachers Association. Take the first spot Jeff, you're totally fine.
And you may proceed, mister Fredus, when ready. Please make sure your mic is on.
Redner 13
I've testified here in this this new building. Jeff Frey is president of CFT. High school math teacher. And, what I would like to start with is the, the upside down flipping of that chart. Policies are implemented or passed here, but they have to be implemented by the educators on the ground to get to the students.
So we can talk about how to read. Doesn't mean that it gets passed here and signed by the governor. It just automatically happens with the children. So we have to be thoughtful about what what the educators on the ground are actually experiencing with those policies. So my first concern is when a you know, let's look at the past executive branches that have had total control.
Let's look at the president, has total control over the education system, and that's what they're elected to do. During my history as an educator, we have Nation at Risk, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and currently dismantling the US Department of Education and how that's being implemented and how that has devastated many of the education systems that we're trying to correct now. Since I was a teacher in 1994, I should have Robert's hair, but I don't. So you know, we've implemented charter schools. We've changed testing and the types of testing.
We've implemented and taken away peer assistance and review, class size reduction that has gone away. Bonuses for include, increased testing, attacks on teachers, through due process, elevated testing, and TK. Those some of those are positive. Some of those are negative. Those are all the things that I felt as an educator.
Now that wasn't something that was implemented through the the superintendent or implemented through the governor that was passed by the legislature that was funded by the governor. And you're probably wondering, what's my position on here?
Redner 13
that's what we're feeling is what we pass. How is that implemented? I've had a different position as a leader of an organization that that that works with all these educators, and during COVID is one of the best examples in relying on the superintendent, the staff, and the Department of Education on implement that information out. So I am usually, my organization and a couple of our organizations are more connected to those educators that are touching the lives of those children more than anybody else that we're talking about. And we used the Department of Education.
We used the superintendent because of those relationships. And the concern we have with this change, with this proposal, and and it's not even what the PACE proposal is, it's a lack of democracy. They tried to address that, but this does strip the democracy. The reason they're doing it this way is because they have failed three times to get this done through democracy as was stated from the first speaker. And I question what the long term because during that period of time since '94 that I I was an educator, the other things that were tossed out there, it's let's consolidate all the school districts within one county to be one school district like San Francisco.
I think there's three countywide districts in the state. I think Feather River is the other one. I can't name the the the third one you brought. There you go. Amador.
Thank you. That's been that was one thing. And eliminate the the county office of education. All of these things are thrown out, even thrown out out there to to eliminate the election of school boards. This is the reverse of a democracy.
But I wonder if, you know, we we some of you mentioned the long term plan. What is the long term plan? Is this it, or are there other steps that are being looked at? We believe CFT believes that this proposal is going in the wrong direction. As as as the superintendent the current superintendent stated, really, it's the other direction, giving more authority to the superintendent to implement these things, adding those things to their superintendent while still over the CD as the proposal is talking about.
But what's more important is more with more funding to that role, when there when the legislature and then the governor signs all of these committees at the the Department of Education, the superintendent oversee, there's no funding to them. So it's great that all those superintendents and all the administrators and all the academias can go without taking a day off. But if you want a practitioner, if you want an educator, a teacher, or classified to go attend these, they either have to take the day off, take a sick leave, use up their day, or the unions have to pay for for their day of release time to go be the expert on these panels. So it's really the reverse that we need to be looking at. We need as as the superintendent Thurman said, we need to be funding that, giving more power to that agency and to that superintendent as opposed to the other.
And the other thing, we can compare what other states have done. There as the first panel said, there is no evidence that there's any change. Let's look at where the governor has total control. Do we wanna be like Florida? Do we wanna be like Ohio?
That is not the direction that I would wanna go in this state, but in in certain issues. And let's look at the the comparisons of other states that that currently also have this New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts that probably have a smaller achievement gap. What do they have that we don't have? It's not this structure. It's funding.
They have much more funding in those three states than California, and we're the fourth largest economy in the world. So what the focus needs to be on to improve our education here is not the shuffling the of, what I would say, you know, our furniture in our living room, but funding education, the staffing shortage that is a concern, the nurses and librarians that we need in our schools. Those are the areas that we need to be focusing on and not the shifting of roles and responsibility and reducing it actually in the wrong direction. The one thing that I do like about the proposal is having the the SBI sit on the community college council. But just to mention, we already have the lieutenant governor that sits on all three higher education committees.
All the the lieutenant governor already sits on the UC, already sits on the state CSU, and already sits on the community college council. And just to note about the community college council is no one is elected there except for the lieutenant governor. Everyone else is appointed by the governor, and that's not a system that works really well to oversee the community college system. The other places that you see, if you look at a majority of the states, if you if you look at that that one sheet that lists all the four different models, almost half have some type of elected official, whether it's the state board that's elected. There will be no state board member that's elected in the state of California where other states do have state boards that are elected by the state.
This is this is going in the wrong direction of eliminating their democracy and oversight of public education system, the largest budget area in the state of California, removing the voice of the people and individual person that is elected solely for education education and education concerns, where the focus of the governor is so spread through so many different areas and also missing the mark on what we really need
Redner 1
Thank you for that perspective. Next we'll move to David Gordon from Sacramento County Superintendent Of Schools.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, doctor Patel and committee members. My name is Dave Gordon, and I'm the Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools, where for the past twenty one years, I proudly served the 13 school districts and 255,000 students of Sacramento County. I am also here today on behalf of the California County Superintendents, the statewide association that supports me and my 57 other county superintendent colleagues. After forty plus years in public education, including as a former district superintendent and deputy superintendent of the Department of Education, the primary message I hope to convey is this: Today's proposal to align the State's support for educators and school leaders can have tangible, real world benefits for students and families. And the reasons come down to two things: focus and ownership.
I want to start with focus. Each state superintendent brings their own priorities and goals to the office. Many, if not most, of these goals have merit. Having worked at the CDE, however, I can say with certainty that the department's talented staff are often splitting their time between first, the priorities of you all, and second, whoever is the state superintendent at that moment. That competition for attention tends to divert the Department from its primary focus, which is implementing state and federal policies.
Focus, I am told, is one reason the legislature and governor often assign special initiatives to county offices of education and other entities. Recent examples include supporting the rollout of community schools and universal pre kindergarten, creating educator trainings to support our LGBTQ students or students with disabilities. Even FICMAT, which has long and effectively supported the fiscal accountability of schools, lives at a County Office of Education. County offices possess expertise and strong regional relationships with school districts, and as a county superintendent, we can nimbly refocus our resources to meet the legislature's goals and be held accountable for our progress. Aligning the department's leadership under the governor has the potential to offer the same benefit county superintendents can offer their staffs the ability to stay focused on the policies set by the legislature and governor and see to their implementation in quality fashion.
Second reason this governance proposal directly impacts students comes down to ownership. In general, when you, the legislature, pass a law and the governor signs that law, the governor is agreeing to implement that policy through their administrative agencies. That means the governor and all of their appointees must be on the same page in order to make it successful. But for public education, as you heard from many of the other witnesses, the legislature and governors hand off their policies to the CDE, which is accountable to a separate elected official. That is a problem when, for example, the department is not equipped to move on those policies immediately, when senior leadership may experience turnover, the department can lose its relationships with local leaders and its institutional memory.
That makes it extremely difficult to roll out new state initiatives. In some cases, the Governor and the Legislature skipped the Department entirely, assigning new initiatives to state agencies that do report to the Governor, like we saw with the Youth Behavioral Health Initiative and, to some extent, the various workforce development initiatives. And as leaders yourselves, you can appreciate that when families raise questions about their local schools, finger pointing is not a welcome response they deserve to know where the buck stops. So, if we want to see major education initiatives rolled out in a timely fashion and with fidelity, we need the Department's top leadership to feel the same ownership that you all and the Governor feel when you enact those laws. To conclude my remarks, it's no surprise that the Governor has introduced this reform.
It can allow the Department to focus on its core role of supporting LEAs, Asian students, with the backing of the person who signed those bills into law. It's about focus and ownership. And I'm very sensitive to the fact that all of this work cannot take place in the blink of an eye. It has to be very carefully thought through. The legislative analyst report points out some of the ways this must be done.
But my message to you is the hundred years of reports and difficulties we've had in bringing innovation and new approaches to our families and our young people in the schools, in the communities, who badly need the support. We're not always getting that done now. And if we can take steps to make that more effective, more efficient, I think that will serve us all well. And as far as maintaining the democratic approaches to this, we're all for that. And I think this is about all of us working together legislature, state superintendent, Department of Education folks, county superintendents, other players in the process to make sure we can do both.
We can do this in sensitive, democratic fashion, but also get it done so we can get the services to the parents and the students. So I hope my perspectives have been helpful to you this afternoon and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
Redner 18
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a real honor to be here today representing the groups you see here on the letter to pass out a range of education equity organizations throughout the state. But most of I want to thank all of you first for your perseverance, not the sexiest of issues, but appreciate you focusing in and what you've all been saying and that this is about, as Assembly Member Bonta said, the student. This is about student outcomes. And it's why I'm so passionate about the governor's proposal if one can be passionate about education government.
So just to speak personally for just a minute, having been in the legislature, having the honor of serving on this committee, having been a long time education advocate, part time, a county school board member for twenty four years, teaching California politics at Cal. Two things that have always just been so frustrating to me. One is these persistent achievement gaps, and we have to be realistic and look at the rest of the country. The highest gaps by income, among the highest gaps by race. And if you look at the student outcomes, other than our most privileged districts, we're below.
And we we need to fix that. I mean, know we all all of us here care deeply about that. And second, in all those roles, I have never been able to explain our education governance system. It is irrational, and it makes no sense. So is this adopting this proposal, is this gonna miraculously change student outcomes and solve all this?
Of course not. We're a whole child group and all the issues that have been mentioned here, more dollars, early childhood health. We have to do a 100 things as a parent of three kids, for goodness sake. This is complicated stuff. But government governance is foundational.
It's a prerequisite, and it's a first step that will help with all the other things that we need to do. And just two key points, I we have to look at what's going on around us in the rest of the country and rest of the world. Every state, and it's most, and so many countries that are ahead of us, all have a governance structure that you can explain and sensible governance. We don't. There's got to be something to that.
And second is implementation. As I sat here today, think there was a lot of an agreement. We no one wants a superintendent making policy. For goodness sake, that means lawsuits. Right?
That that you know, doing the legislature's job. So it's not that. It's all about implementation. And implementation is key. I know after LCFF was passed, a lot of us were celebrating.
Yay. And we realized that was just 20%. It's all in implementation. And that implementation needs to be done in a more coherent fashion, you know, in the way that the governor's proposal is suggesting. So it's not unclear who's doing what.
And I'll just close with, you know, a personal anecdote on this. Let's focus on this student. Talking to a dad during COVID who unfortunately, one of my great regrets, not speaking fluent Spanish through an interpreter, saying that his kid had one hour of instruction during the first few months of COVID, one hour. There's not a single high income kid in California that was dealing with that. And it was a little confusing at that time.
Who was in charge? Who do we point the the finger to? And what do you tell that debt? And it was confusing for me. This, this, this school board.
This proposal is the first important step in having a coherence governance structure which is a prerequisite to doing all the other things we need to do to improve student achievement. I look forward to your questions.
Redner 1
Thank you. Next, Adam Weinberger, President of California School Employees Association.
Redner 23
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Adam Weinberger, and I am president of the California School Employees Association. We represent a quarter million classified school employees across California, such as paraeducators, bus drivers, custodians, food service workers and school office professionals. These are the people who keep our schools running every day and who build trusted relationships with students and families in every community. I'm also a campus supervisor in the Paris Union High School District, and I spent more than two decades working in public education.
I'm here today to respectfully but clearly oppose the Governor's proposal to strip authority from California's independently elected Superintendent of Public Instruction and transfer that authority to a Governor appointed Education Commissioner. At its core, this proposal is not about improving student achievement. It is about shifting power. For more than a century, California's voters have insisted on having a direct voice in who leads public education. Time and again, they have rejected efforts to eliminate or weaken the superintendent of public instruction.
This proposal sidesteps that history by hallowing out the office without asking voters for permission. California's education governance is intentionally designed with checks and balances. The State Board of Education sets policy. The superintendent elected by voters carries out those policies and oversees the Department of Education. That structure ensures no single office controls every lever of education policy.
The Governor's proposal would break that balance by consolidating authority in the executive branch. It removes an independent, voter accountable leader and replaces that role with someone who answers only to the governor. From where our members sit, accountability is not theoretical. It is real. When decisions are made in Sacramento, our members see that impact immediately.
That is why it matters that the person leading our education system is accountable to the public, not just the one elected official. Supporters of this proposal argue that it will streamline governance. But California's education system is not designed to be centralized. It is built on local control with decisions made closest to students and communities. Concentrating power at the top does not improve teaching or learning.
It simply removes a critical layer of accountability. And importantly, there is no evidence that weakening this elected office will improve student outcomes. What we do know is that independent leadership has mattered. There have been times where the elected superintendent serves as a necessary counterbalance when state leadership moved in the wrong direction on funding or policy. That independence protected students, school employees and public education itself.
If there are ways to improve coordination or clarify roles within our education system, we are open to that conversation. But the answer is not to eliminate independence, concentrate power, and reduce accountability to voters. California schools belong to the public. The leadership of our education system should as well. We urge you to reject this proposal and instead protect the balance, accountability and democratic principles that California students and communities deserve.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you for your testimony. Next up is Doctor. Darrell Camp, the president of Association of California School Administrators.
Redner 24
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, Doctor. Patel and members. My name is Darrell Camp and I'm the President of the Association of California School Administrators, also known as ACSA, and also the Superintendent of the San Lorenzo Unified School District in Alameda County. First off, ACCESS is in favor of the proposal.
And the main reason that I hear from superintendents that they're in favor of the proposal is superintendents have some degree of hope and excitement related to having a Commissioner of Education who's, as was mentioned earlier, has an expertise and an experience in leading large organizations. The hope is that that would create a greater implementation related to some of the initiatives that are spearheaded or come out of the legislature. ACSA represents more than 18,000 school leaders across California, including superintendents, principals, assistant principals, central office administrators serving students in every region of the state. Because we are tasked with translating state direction into real world implementation, we bring a unique perspective on how policies function in practice and where greater clarity, coordination, and support are needed to ensure decisions made at the state level lead to meaningful outcomes for students. As a superintendent for fourteen years, I worked with the local school board of education and my team to improve learning conditions for our scholars.
As a superintendent, we're well aware of the duties of the Board of Education locally compared to the administrative staff. Essentially, the board sets policy, determines the mission, vision, values, established priorities, But then it's up to the administrators to actually execute. And that's what we're most excited about. We think it's a more efficient system if you had a commissioner of education that could effectively implement or execute the policies that are established by another body. My job has become increasingly more complex over the years because of the lack of coordinated efforts between federal, state, local and local policymakers.
Trying to balance our local policies, initiatives and challenges with the lack of clarity, assistance and support from state and federal agencies diminishes improvement efforts. I may be one superintendent, however, I can say that on behalf of the Association of Administrators, our current system lacks clear lines of authority, accountability, which directly affects how effective policies are implemented at the local level. The CDE, California Department of Education, is intended to play an important role in supporting the state's TK-twelve education system by translating legislative budget actions into clear, actionable direction for the field. This includes developing guidance, administering and allocating funding, overseeing program requirements, and supporting local educational agencies in implementing state and federal initiatives. In theory, districts should rely on the CDE for clarity, consistency and support.
In practice, however, the experience of districts does not reflect this intended role. Today, administrators face challenges with timeliness, clarity, coordination and implementation support from the California Department of Education. Districts are often expected to implement programs before funding or guidance is finalized, requiring them to make decisions without complete information. In addition, guidance is not always clear, consistent, or coordinated across programs and divisions. Administrators have encountered situations in which guidance across divisions or programs is inconsistent or evolving, requiring significant time to interpret and reconcile expectations.
This not only creates confusion, but also leads to an uneven implementation across districts when there's a lack of communication, responsiveness, and technical assistance from the state. Furthermore, this lack of coherency leads to mistrust with the community, which we often have, because community often comes to the local school board meetings, but not here. As a result, districts face limited predictability also in planning. Because of the timeliness in which information comes out or funding comes out, there's little predictability and it's hard to plan. When the timing and clarity of state direction vary, it becomes difficult to align local hiring, resource allocation, and program delivery with state expectations.
This makes it harder to sustain programs and plan effectively over time. Together, these challenges point to a broader issue: a system where the delivery of guidance, funding and support is not always aligned with the pace and realities of local implementation. Given the CDE's intended role, districts require timely, actionable guidance aligned with local planning timelines to support informed decision making on budgeting, staffing and program implementation. Districts need timely and actionable guidance, clear and coordinated direction, predictable funding, and practical support to implement programs effectively. Greater alignment across these areas will significantly strengthen service delivery for students.
Why Access supports the governance proposal? Essentially, this proposal would bring greater alignment between funding, policy development, implementation and support that are currently spread across multiple entities and overlapping authority. This fragmentation creates confusion, slows decision making, and makes it more difficult to provide consistent support to school districts and county offices of education. This proposal aims to address these challenges by improving alignment across state entities and strengthening accountability and transparency. Lastly, for school leaders, this increased clarity and coordination represents an important step toward a system with clear ownership of outcomes and stronger accountability from the governor to the classroom.
And as has already been noted, the PACE report was the most comprehensive report when you address the whole system. This proposal addresses one part and it's really a question of do you let the perfect be the enemy of the good and moving in the right direction. As the president of the Association of California School Administrators, we're in favor because we think that this is an important step in the right direction. Important yet incomplete step in the right direction. Thank you for your time.
Look forward to questions.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. And to bring us home, we will have Seth Bramble, the legislative relations manager from the California Teachers Association.
Redner 12
Thank you, Doctor. Patel. Thank you, members, committee, staff. Seth Bramble here speaking on behalf of the California Teachers Association. CTA, when they when we were founded in 1863, only a few 100 students attended public schools.
But within three years, the California Teachers Association persuaded the state legislature to establish free public schools for all children. Today, with 310,000 members, we advocate passionately for students and for public education. My career in education began as a sixth grade teacher in San Jose. And when I started working in the capital community in 2009, California had a governor appointed secretary of education. While that secretary position was later eliminated, I have seen a number of governance changes over the years.
Some questions, why and why now? A lot of the questions that we heard, a lot of the concerns that we've heard that have been expressed during today's hearing resonate with us as well. The California Teachers Association has significant questions about the current governance proposal and related budget trailer bill language. Chapter leaders come to us and ask, what will the state superintendent's role be? While the California Department of Education has room for improvement, we question whether this proposal addresses the real issues.
Teachers ask us what what are the duties of the newly envisioned superintendent? It's kind of very unclear. I wanna lift up three examples of concerns that we have about the current system. First of all, teachers report that guidance from the California Department of Education is often unavailable when it's needed. The question that we ask, how does this governance proposal address the need for timely, actionable guidance?
I know the PACE panelist referenced this issue regarding assembly member Bonta's question. When sup the superintendent Thurman responded, he mentioned the imperative to fully fund schools. We agree with both of these points. We need guidance. We need it actionable.
We need to fully fund our schools, and I know that doctor Camp by my side echoed those two points. But this is a capacity issue. This this is a capacity issue requiring more staff expertise, not a change in the superintendent's role. Another concern is teacher voice. Recently, we worked with the California Department of Education to address a shortage of instructional material reviewers in English language arts and English language development who are teachers.
Elevating the voice of educators is critical to meeting the needs of California students. We certainly appreciate the inclusion of teacher voices here today on the panel. Must ask though, how does changing the role of the state superintendent help ensure that teacher perspectives are consistently represented. A third concern. When new funding is allocated for specific purposes, we've seen instances where the California Department of Education lacked the staff to ensure the money was spent effectively.
Our local chapters often discuss accountability accountability problems like this. How will this proposal ensure that funding is monitored and used to achieve its intended goals? How do we ensure that funds, the funds that our students are generating with their average daily attendance is used to meet their immediate needs? Again, this is not an issue of governance structure, but one of capacity and priorities. The California Teachers Association has broader concerns about the shifting of the oversight of the California Department of Education from an elected state superintendent to a governor appointed position.
These concerns fall into three areas. Number one, undermining democracy. Number two, creating confusion. And number three, mixing education with other state issues. So let's start with undermining democracy.
How would this proposal impact voters' ability to choose someone who truly understands and advocates for public education. As has been mentioned, democracy gives people a voice in decisions that shape their communities. When you remove a voters' ability to elect a superintendent accountable to the public who's running the Department of Education, it undermines this principle. Education is one of the state's most critical issues and its leadership should reflect the will of the voters and not a single appointee. Second, confusion.
Teachers and local chapters worry this proposal could create confusion. An elected superintendent with no authority over the California Department of Education could lead to a fragmented system. For example, a parent concerned about delays in special education services might reach out to the superintendent, expecting them to convene maybe a work group or direct staff to address the issue, only to find out that the superintendent has no authority to act. Mom or dad may find themselves redirected to a bureaucratic process outside of the superintendent's control. How does this proposal clarify accountability for public education?
Instead of unifying the system, it risks creating more questions than answers about who's responsible for California's public schools. Finally, mixing education with other state issues. An appointed leader reporting to the governor could face challenges given the governor's many responsibilities such as emergency response, such as water management, small business growth. With so many competing priorities, education might not always receive the focused attention that it deserves. Students need a leader whose sole priority is the success of public schools.
So how can we ensure education remains at the forefront and isn't overshadowed by other pressing state issues? In sum, we are neutral on this proposal, but we're neutral with questions, and we're neutral with concerns. And, you know, will this proposal improve the conditions of teaching and learning? We we we got questions, but I thank you guys for your time and for assembling what's really a very thoughtful panel today.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony today. It certainly is the beginning of a conversation that needs to happen. There is this impression that this is very time sensitive. And I feel uncomfortable with making such a large decision in such a short timeline.
I kind of echo the sentiments of my colleague to the right of me. However, there's a compelling need to do better for students. We're not getting the outcomes that we want. And I'm very excited to hear and see everybody at the table very engaged in this conversation because we can't wait another day for our students to have improved outcomes. Every day that passes us by is a day that a child is not getting the supports and services that they need.
With that, I will turn it to my colleagues first for questions because we are running very long on our hearings. I want to make sure they get their questions in first.
Redner 5
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to start with, first of all, saying I appreciate everyone for being here for this panel. I think this was probably the most impactful panel we had today, and that's not to disparage any of the wonderful presenters we had earlier. But, you know, it it I you know, the LAO as much really good information as they provided, they haven't been in the field of education in the same way that a lot of the folks on this panel have been.
And then also, you know, the governor and the super the governor's the state board representative as well as the superintendent of public instruction have very specific reasons for why they either support or oppose this proposal. And so I really do appreciate hearing the more local perspective. And I just wanna start and I'll I'll try to keep my questions brief, but I do wanna start by asking those representing local governments and children now. The state superintendents as well as AXA, you know, what are some some tangible examples for how you think this is going to improve this coordination. I I I can think of a few from my time on a school board for how there was a lot of miscommunication, a lot of confusion for local school districts and county office ed, but just my perspective from a local school district is that, you know, during the pandemic, these things were specifically highlighted as very difficult to keep up with because there was just it was so discombobulated in terms of what was coming down and who was in charge of what.
So I don't know if you could speak just very briefly to some some tangible things that you think this will help improve.
Redner 22
Yeah. Thank you for that question, Mr. Hoover. I think one example would be the one of the programs that was mentioned, the TK program and the programs associated with that. I think if there had been a real impetus not just to say, here's some money to do TK, and if behind the Governor's push for that was all of the support of the agencies that needed to help.
Facilities needed to be built. Liaisons with childcare entities needed to be provided for. A whole suite of related services needed to be provided. But that was it was nobody's fault that those weren't available. But if somebody had thought of that in advance and put those put those support services together, that could have gone much more smoothly and delivered the services much more quickly.
Redner 18
Just two quick examples. I mean, I think COVID, I mean, I was confused. I mean, calls with the governor's office and department who was in charge, you saw other states and other countries. It was so much more clear and would have been better for kids. And then number two, LCFF, we're talking about achievement gaps, funding to youth in foster care, English learners.
So all these groups on this list have been frustrated with the implementation. And it's been very confusing and there's been some decisions made not by the current, but the previous superintendent that the groups on this list said seemed to undermine the whole goal of LCFF. Didn't violate the law but the way it was implemented didn't really get to the funding getting to the students directly. So I think LCFF and COVID are two examples, but could share many more.
Redner 24
And from access standpoint, just maybe three examples. I'll be brief with them. The rollout related to community schools probably could have been better. There's just misalignment in timelines. So when money goes out and our inability to spend it during a fiscal year, because when dollars come out, we've made most of our staffing decisions already for the following year.
The same might be said for ethnic studies. And I realize everybody owns a portion of that in terms of what's expected and what's funded and how that gets rolled out and how that's communicated. It left a lot of LEAs and uncertainty and candidly still does when we think about ethnic studies. And then lastly, just inconsistency among people with same roles at the department. We think that an administrator can administrate, if you will, the CDE differently than elected officials.
We're really clear about my little side job is with an organization that works with school boards, I'll say throughout the state. So we're very clear about the role of the elected versus the role of an appointed administrator. They're different. And the way that plays out of getting two different answers, I know my LEA experienced that with a field trip. LA Unified gets approved for something.
We say that that's the misuse of Title I funds. It's inconsistent. Yet it's the same thing. We're trying to expose kids with needs to something bigger and beyond our local environment. And we should have the same answer for the same action.
And so that's just three examples. I have a couple more, but I'll for brevity, I'll leave it there.
Redner 5
I appreciate that. And that is really eye opening. You know? And this is exactly why I asked the question because I think, you know and you give a lot more than even I had even thought of. So I think that's really helpful in in sort of informing this conversation.
I'll leave my questions there for now. I just wanna close with a comment, at least on my end, of just you know, I have not made up my mind on this proposal in terms of support or not support. But but I do think this has been really helpful today to do that. And I think just pulling some of the things from all of the panels today that we have heard, I think we have a real opportunity with this proposal to sort of create a more focused accountability mechanism for education in California, which I do care deeply about, particularly when it comes to holding our government, no matter who that no matter who's leading our government accountable for achievement gaps and for academic achievement and student outcomes. I think that's a really important thing that I I see.
I'm optimistic about what this could mean for that. I I I would encourage, you know, and I know that the state board may no longer be here, but the governors to really consider and the legislature to really push back. Oh, great. Awesome. Hey.
The the legislature to really push back and and require some more legislative accountability here as well, legislative involvement in the in the actual selection of who this commissioner ultimately is. With that confirmation, I think that's really critical that the legislature have some feedback in that regard. And then the last thing that I just wanted to mention that I I do have optimism for with this proposal as well is that, you know, when politics are disaligned between the state superintendent and the governor's office, I think that can create a lot of tension that is possibly not the best for students. And I think this proposal definitely has the opportunity to sort of align, as a lot of these panelists have talked about, the focus on students while also empowering the state superintendent with a greater focus on accountability, a greater focus on oversight, and a greater focus on just being a champion, you know, for our students. And so I think with that, I'll stop talking, but I appreciate the opportunity to participate today.
And thank you for madam chair for calling us here.
Redner 8
Thank you. I too want to thank the panel here and all the panels. This has been a really important conversation. I think I'm going to leave it with a comment. And I think it's important to once again to the chair of this committee and the question of what what does this mean to the legislature.
And, you know, we we heard throughout the panels, I think you all caught that, that legislative authority is maintained. In fact, you know, the LAO, I think the most important notes to sometimes remind ourselves is in the LAO's report, the line that says, under the constitution, the legislature's authority over public school system and its governance structuring structure is unlimited except where the constitution itself provides otherwise. And we have chosen the legislature has chosen over the years to to create other agencies, to give move power from one place to the other, give power to one. And then we've we've done that ourselves because we have ultimate authority. And so this conversation is important because we're gonna determine what happens next with our input here.
And yet, I heard example, I think mister Lambert talked about one incident. Mentioned COVID and mentioned the second one. What was the second incident you mentioned where you found LCFF. LCFF. Legislature approved those changes and then they were implemented by the board.
And he rightfully has identified that his organization and many of the others, if not all of the others in the letter that he's provided in his testimony, have called upon us to act in a more equitable way to serve students that are being underserved as identified by the achievement gaps, which of which there are still too many. And yet we haven't really done that. And so I say that because we are going to be making a fundamental change. The legislature approves this. And so it's not like we do technical changes once we figure out some of these things are bad on a regular basis.
It's not like it's a sunset, you know, type of situation with like business and professions when there's automatically has to come back. For it to come back again, it's gonna take some heavy lifting. And so I just I say that because I wanna encourage all of you who have already taken time and been generous with your input to not to to continue that because it's better to hear from you now as opposed to once something actually goes into effect and then we say, well, we should have thought of that or somebody should have said something. And so that's why I appreciate the chair having this hearing because it's important to daylight all these things so that we understand and we have a go in eyes wide open. We decide to do this.
We heard from folks of the different concerns and if we chose not to address those concerns to the implementation of this, then that's that's on us. And that's what weighs heavily on me. How do we ensure that we don't make big larger scale emissions and you could say mistakes, but definitely emissions in this potential reorganization. That's the work that I hope all of you, those who have come forward today, those who will be providing public testimony and others who haven't yet to think help us think through that so that we can address those issues. Those would be my closing comments, Madam Chair.
Redner 9
Thank you, Chair. I want to thank you again for pulling together this incredible discussion, which has been very important. And I think I will just share that it's been very helpful to hear from, you know, the range of stakeholders, from teachers in the classroom and paraeducators and the administrators, all the way down to, you know, the people who are holding up and who are advocates supporting our educational system, and from County Office of Education and Mr. Gordon there, who, by the way, I was a mini person who worked with your school district a long time ago with Mike Hanson and Daryl many, many years ago. So, good to see you.
I think I am also wanting to have eyes wide open. And a lot of the comments that I've made and what I've been listening for is whether or not we actually have been afforded the opportunity to have eyes wide open. And I've heard a lot of the kind of refrain of this is a really good first step and an important step. And I've also heard and understanding that this, for some people, is necessary and insufficient. And I've also heard, you know, with this panel, this idea that there's a lot here that is not going to solve the challenge that we have around closing achievement gaps, making sure students are taught better, we haven't been given that information at all.
We haven't been given any information around a real life case study. Choose the pandemic, choose TK implementation, choose LCFF, choose any of the many initiatives that we've moved forward in the last decade, let's say, where we have identified implementation challenges within that, where the root cause of that is this governance challenge that we are focusing on right now. We've had a lot of assertions made around that, but we haven't had a lot of data and real life examples to be able to drill down into that. And so, I feel like I have my eyes wide open, but I am looking at a paper or kind of a proposal that makes me feel like I need a magnifying glass with my eyes wide open. And I think to Assembly Member Alvarez's point, when we are making such a fundamental shift that has a decades long impact on the education of our children, I think I feel like I need more information.
There are a lot of proposals that we move forward where we are told, Let's do a study. Let's make sure that we gather all the stakeholders together. Let's make sure that we are looking at this with a working group that happens over the course of several years. Like, that is typically what we get back is a response for what needs to be happened, what needs to happen in an assembly member. The chair has a bill to that effect right now.
And I think that, for me, feels a lot more like good governance than where we are right now, which is a time pressured yeah, a time pressured proposal where we need to be able to make a decision. And all we have really outlined is a part of that first step for a very major proposal. I don't think that that is the request that I'm making is making the enemy, you know, having the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think it is trying to better understand what that good and that good is right now. And that's what I would like to see.
I am, like with Assembly Member Hoover, undecided about whether this proposal is one that we should move forward with, and I'm very thankful to be able to have more questions answered and more exploration of this within our process. What I don't want to have happen is that this becomes a bludgeon with other kind of time pressures and fiscal pressures and choices that cause us to, you know, have to be forced into a decision that ultimately is not going be good for teaching and learning in our kids. I'm looking forward to the additional conversations that we need to have.
Redner 1
Thank you for those thoughts to my assembly colleagues. This does beg me to ask a question. I'm looking at the proposed changes that we have on the table and understanding that the changes themselves aren't going to make the necessary changes to aligning budget cycles, for example, so that those on the ground level in our school districts can make timely decisions. It's not going to fully fund CDE because that's not how CDE is funded. So CDE is going to continue to be understaffed and overworked.
It's not going to specifically make sure that the delivery of supports to our students and our LEAs come in a timely way or in a comprehensive way. Those details really are where I would love to see some of our efforts focused. But we do have a proposal on the table. And we are making a consideration and a determination of the efficacy of that proposal. So for those who are not there yet, we heard from those who are there.
But for those who are not yet there, I'm hearing loud and clear that the concerns are really fundamental around democracy. I heard that kind of expressed multiple times. But assuming that the challenge, the structural challenge is real, that there is a coherence issue, we've heard that said over and over again, is there something that will get you closer to there? Is is there a way we can move that needle? What are your suggestions for us to address this issue of a lack of coherence?
Or a way for us to deliver education more effectively to make sure our children are making the best of their second grade year and are becoming literate before third grade? What can we do that's in addition to or different from the proposal that's on the table that we are considering? And knowing that some of the challenges that I outlined are yet to be addressed, right? The LAO made some suggestions around shared governance, around having legislative confirmation of the position. But is there something in addition to that that we should be looking at very specifically?
Questions we should be asking? If you can give me a cliff note summary highlight, put me in the right direction, give me a North Star.
Redner 13
I'm sorry. I might be redundant on this one. I mean, it really it's the checks and balances. If you're talking about somebody who's gonna be dedicated for closing that achievement gap, how about somebody who's elected solely to do that? That's what the suit state superintendent is is there to do.
It's solely that's their job. If a a governor appointment person is doing what the governor wants, not what the people want to close that achievement gap. And and and the and the solution I mean, the bills that we we carried in the past, four seventy seven and nine thirty eight to increase education by 50%, which I think was unanimous by this body, really was an effort to close that achievement gap. Looking at the the three states that are compared that we're compared to all the time, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, their funding level is so much higher. The the the issues that they support of changing this are not gonna change.
It's still a department of education that's still an agency and a bureaucracy that needs to implement this. And the LCFF fight was at the board level, not at the superintendent level. That was the board that voted on those things and and and had the concerns of my colleague down the down the row. So I I I I didn't answer what you wanted to answer, and I appreciate the opportunity and and you have in this meeting. But that but that's really what we're looking at.
Having that hero, shero, you know, leading that and being elected and being the voice of the pop the people is what who should be leading that department.
Redner 1
Thank you. And just recognize this is the beginning of these conversations as far as I'm concerned. This is not the end. Mr. Bramble.
Redner 12
Thank you for the question, Doctor. Patel. I think that, you know, organizationally we have certain beliefs. We're all about, you know, creating a more democratic society. How can we think about governance in a more democratic way?
I know that there have been conversations about, you know, rather than having appointments, what's the possibility of having, you know, in some cases, the legislature approving folks who get, you know, put on the state. I think there's a lot of different options there to think about how to make it more democratic, but I think we have a core belief that it is better to improve, increase, build a more just and democratic society. Just, you know, to echo some of of what my brother Jeff over here said, like, I think it's important that we are dreaming big in our aspirations in terms of the California Teachers Association. We are currently pushing a legislative agenda that's very focused on fully funded schools, not just ensuring that Prop 98 is fully funded, but to even think bigger than that about how do we bring new revenues into the system so that we can create the kinds of school communities that we dream about, that we, you know, really that we're imagining big. And I think there's a big piece of that that's also, as I've heard a couple times here about ensuring that the dollars that we're spending on public education are serving the kids right now and dealing with their immediate needs.
And right now, it's getting siphoned in a lot of different directions. So to the extent that we can focus on ensuring that that money is spent on children's immediate needs, those kids who are generating the funds, that that's great. And I've also heard some some collective warm feelings about community schools and and reimagining our public education system as really hubs in a community, bringing in community resources, shared governance, shared leadership, you know, how do we really do whole child types of instruction. So I think in terms of solutions, that's the solutions that we're putting forward. But I think that that question about our beliefs around democracy may be more directly answers some of your inquiry.
Redner 23
Thank you. So as I said in my testimony, we support improving coordination and clarifying roles. But major structural changes as this should go to the voters. Californians have consistently said they want direct voice in who leads public education.
Redner 23
this proposal states, or as it currently is, there's no evidence this improves student outcomes. It removes a voter accountable liturator that replaces and replaces it with someone who answers only to the governor. It also reduces superintendents to one vote on large votes instead of in an employment state leaders. So sort of on the lines of over here, really as a proposal, there's really nothing that could get our organization on board.
Redner 1
I appreciate that candor. Like my colleagues, I'm still undecided on the proposal. And it's important for us to make sure that all those concerns and positives and negatives all are weighed very, very carefully by our deliberative body. I appreciate the time that you've spent with us. I want to thank all of the speakers who joined us today as well as the public and our committee members.
The information and experiences shared today will inform our work of our committee as we continue to seek strategies to refine our statewide governance structure with the ultimate goal of supporting our school and our students. And now we will shift to our public comment. We have one minute for our public commenters. Please step up.
Redner 4
Good afternoon chair and members. My name is Deborah Bautista Sabal on behalf of California Association of Suburban School Districts. CalSSD has not taken a formal position on the governor's proposal at this time. However, we appreciate the opportunity to meet with the administration earlier this month to discuss the proposal's goals. We recognize the intent and address long standing challenges in California's education governance structure.
A more streamlined coordinated system that has potential to improve clarity and decision making strength and accountability and provide more consistent guidance to support local LEA agencies across the state. We also appreciate emphasis on ensuring that leadership includes individuals with relevant experience that have perspectives and critical to effective implementation, informed decision making. At the same time, any restructuring must ensure local education agencies receive strong responsive support and that local control remains central principle. Changes to governance should not create new barriers, delays, or uncertainties for districts already managing complex student needs. We also encourage continued transparency, stakeholder engagement, and a clear transition plan that includes district voices in shaping how these changes are operationalized.
CalSSD looks forward to continued engagement on this proposal. Thank you.
Redner 25
Good evening, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for holding the hearing. Chris Rief on behalf of the California School Boards Association. First and foremost, you got a letter from us as well as our other statewides in terms of the senate confirmation aspect. Definitely a critical piece in terms of the checks and balances conversation that has occurred throughout the hearing.
Second, there does need to be a greater look at the experience of whoever the education commissioner is in terms of not just demonstrable experience in education leadership, but also just organizational leadership, because at the end of day, that person's also an administrator of a very large bureaucratic agency. So that is critical. Just to dovetail on some of the conversation here, I think a common through line, what you heard was issues of closing achievement gap. The achievement gap is pernicious. It preceded many of us.
Unfortunately, it will probably succeed many of us. But where is the common through line in terms of how we try to address it? From a state perspective, we do have a fragmented governance system. And so to miss Bond's question and to some of the the statements that was made by the chair, there needs to be a greater look at.
Redner 26
Hello, my name is Cecilia Wilson and I'm speaking on behalf of CDE employees. I've been a state worker at the California Department of Education CDE for thirty three years and I'm a member leader of SEIU Local one thousand. We the state workers at the CDE are the people who implement implement the policies you're discussing. No matter who the SBI is, we, the workers, are here making sure the department programs functions on a daily basis despite funding shortages. As Superintendent Thurman uplifted, CDE employees have not been brought into this conversation yet.
My coworkers and I at CDE urge you to engage with CDE employees represented by SEIU Local one thousand regarding these proposed changes and to protect strong legislative oversight. Together, let's learn about the problem more deeply, define clear outcomes and measures, test small changes, building on what has already been proven successful so that we can continue to ensure that ensure the decisions made here benefit students, workers, and communities. Finally, shifting so much power to the governor and appointees risk weakening the voice voices of workers, the voters, and communities on the ground. Taking away the voice of the voters should not be done through a backdoor process but brought before the voters. If the proposal is necessary and will serve California students better, then make the case to California voters.
I thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts. I look forward to continue with the conversation. Thank you.
Redner 27
Good afternoon. My name is Annalisa Quintero. I'm a legislative advocate with Local one thousand. As my member Cecilia mentioned, we have folks at the, at the California Department of Education. Our members are the people that implement the policies that you're discussing, and they care deeply about students and strong public schools.
We understand the concerns about a fragmented system, but shifting so much power to the government appointees risks weakening independent checks and voices of workers and communities on the ground. Any major structural change as stated by the legislators today should clearly show how it improves outcomes for students and strengthens democratic accountability, not just rearranging boxes on an organization chart. As you develop the trailer bill language, we urge you to engage directly with CDE employees, SEIU Local one thousand, and our colleagues at our fellow unions that were here to speak today. And we want to make sure that we're protecting strong legislative oversight and worker input. We are currently neutral on this issue, and we hope to be in discussion with you soon.
I appreciate the ability to speak today. Thank you.
Redner 28
Good afternoon. My name is Yoli Flores and I am president of families in schools. We're based in Los Angeles. I am also a former school board member in Los Angeles and a former county board of education board member. Through the thirty some years that I have been on these boards or represented children and families the one consistent theme is that parents are disenchanted with the educational system in California.
Today's conversation gave me some hope that there might be a legislature, a body that would have the courage to be visionary and to be bold and to put aside perhaps the politics of the day, to ask the question, champ Patel, that you have asked. What must we do today, not tomorrow, and not in a month or three years because kids today are losing. Families are disenchanted with the public education system. And yes they do vote and they're voting in different ways now. So we count on you to consider this proposal as a first and critical step for coherence so that the fragmentation and the lack of accountability moves toward the successes that we want for kids.
Our families deserve that. You were at education system.
Redner 29
Good evening, Melissa Bardo on behalf of Ed Trust West, research and advocacy organization working with stakeholders throughout the state to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded California schools. We support the proposed education governance reform as we believe the proposed structure brings policy making and implementation into closer alignment creating a clearer line of responsibility for results and a stronger foundation for supporting schools. Decades of reports echo themes that we have raised in much of our advocacy over the last twenty five years which is that fragmentation of leadership and core governance functions, funding, policy, implementation, and oversight or accountability remains a core barrier to racial equity in education. Our support letter outlines several examples of where this fragmentation or misalignment has undermined policy implementation resulting in unclear state guidance, inefficient use of program dollars, and insufficient support for educators and school leaders ultimately contributing to persistent and equitable outcomes for students. We believe that this proposal is an important first step in shaping system of governance from one that is reactive and compliance driven to a system that is proactive, systemic model of evidence based policy implementation, accountability, and continuous improvement.
Redner 1
We look forward to working with you all. Time is up. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 30
Good evening. Marshall Tuck from Ed Voice. We strongly support this proposal. The state's made a lot of progress on education in the last several years, but we still have over 2,000,000 students in public schools today that are far below grade level in both math and reading and believe that that requires urgent action in a number of areas, including our governance structure. And from our perspective, we think that the biggest benefit of this proposal, it gives the CDE a chance to be a great organization at supporting districts and supporting kids.
It doesn't guarantee it, but it gives us the best chance of being a more effective organization because it'll have more alignment, more focus, more accountability, and we do believe a chance of more dollars for the CDE because it'll be closer to the governor. And we do encourage you to look at the data. We do think looking at other states, NAEP data, particularly when look at broken down by demographics, shows that states where the top education official is appointed have more success than those where it's actually been elected. We encourage you to kind of dig into that data. We can learn from it, and we we support the proposal.
Thank you.
Redner 29
is Natalie Shin on behalf of Californians Together. We are in strong support of the proposed changes to California's education governance structure because stronger alignment at the state level is critical for high need students, including English learners. Currently, overlapping roles and fragmented authority across state agencies make it difficult to implement policies consistently, leaving multilingual students at risk of uneven access to bilingual programs, language development supports, and qualified bilingual teachers. A clearer governance structure will improve accountability, ensure statewide priorities like the English Learner Roadmap policy are implemented consistently, and strengthen coordination across TK through 12 and higher education. This proposal will help translate strong state policies into real classroom impact, ensuring that high need students across California have equitable opportunities to succeed.
Thank you.
Redner 31
Good evening chair and members. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. We represent over 29,000 faculty members who work in the CSU system. For the record, we just want to say that, you know, CFA does oppose this proposal. We have significant concerns.
Many, you know, have been stated here today. For example, you know, we believe that we need appropriate checks and balances. We have concerns over stripping the power away from California voters. And lastly, you know, given that a governor appoint appointee would have oversight over CDE, we fear that this can become a politicized position and limited to the point of view of of the governor, which would be appointing. So looking forward to continued conversations, and appreciate the time.
Redner 21
Good evening, madam chair and members. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendent. So we want to respond to what several committee members have asked about how this proposal will impact student outcomes. It comes back to allowing the department to focus on the legislature's education initiatives, not competing priorities, and it's about the commissioner having the same ownership for those initiatives as the legislature and governor once laws are passed. So for these reasons, the California County Superintendent support.
Thank you.
Redner 1
And with that final public comment, that concludes our information hearing on the governance proposal before us. Appreciate everyone's participation, and have a good night. We're adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.