California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday proposed shifting oversight of the California Department of Education from Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond to the state’s appointed State Board of Education, narrowing Thurmond’s future role even if he remains an elected official. The governor made the proposal in his State of the State address, saying the move would streamline how K-12 education is governed in a system that currently includes multiple layers of state leadership.
Newsom’s proposal would concentrate more authority over K-12 schools with the governor, who appoints the State Board of Education. The Department of Education, a roughly 2,000-employee state agency, would fall under the board’s oversight rather than being directed through the superintendent, according to the plan described by the administration’s representatives.
Thurmond said he was caught off guard by the proposal, and his office questioned what the change would accomplish for students and families. Elizabeth Sanders, spokeswoman for the California Department of Education, said Thurmond’s staff had “a few hints” that an announcement might come, but otherwise was blindsided, adding that they had not discussed the proposal with the report’s researchers in advance.
Sanders said Thurmond was proud of his work with Newsom and described a disagreement that emerged only over this specific policy question. “Tony Thurmond is proud and grateful to work with Gov. Newsom. They’re both champions of public education,” Sanders said, speaking on behalf of the superintendent. “Unfortunately, on this particular issue they are not aligned.”
Newsom’s case for the shift relied on a December report from Policy Analysis for California Education, which he cited in support of simplifying governance. The analysis described by the sources said California’s leadership structure—spanning the governor, the Legislature, the State Board of Education, the superintendent and the Department of Education—can result in unclear guidance for schools.
At the local level, schools also operate with authority held by school boards and county offices of education, further complicating how policies get implemented, according to the description of the governance model. The Policy Analysis for California Education report said that the system can lead to guidelines that are contradictory, redundant or incoherent.
Sanders said Thurmond’s office questioned the point of the change and whether it would improve outcomes. “It’s unclear how this would benefit students and families,” Sanders said. “It’s an unnecessary disruption. … We should be staying focused on creating results for students.”
Sanders argued that if Newsom wanted to help schools, he should pursue more K-12 funding. She said the Department of Education has been underfunded for years and that additional money could support initiatives such as tutoring and mandatory kindergarten, framing the governance change as a distraction from resources.
John Affeldt, managing attorney at Public Advocates, also questioned whether the proposal would deliver substantive benefits. He said the plan would take power away from voters and give it to the governor, potentially helping if the governor supports public education but backfiring if the governor’s priorities differ.
Affeldt said that while the change might improve governance structure, he doubted the tradeoff. “It might improve the governance structure a bit, but I’m not sure it’s worth the tradeoff,” Affeldt said. “It might be a lot of political theater for not much real change.”
Meanwhile, education advocacy groups have supported Newsom’s proposal, saying it would clarify a model they view as confusing and inefficient. The described argument from backers is that California is among only a handful of states with such an education governance structure.
(As covered by MSI on Jan. 8, Newsom’s proposal would shift K-12 oversight from the elected superintendent to the governor-appointed board.)