The misguided leadership in CA education is unfounded

from Dan WaltersCalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California’s public school system, which claims to educate nearly 6 million students, ranging from 4-year-olds in transitional kindergarten to near-adults preparing to graduate high school, is in a world of hurt.

His disciples perform poorly on national tests of academic achievementt, some local school districts are flirting with insolvency as unions are pushing for raises to offset cost-of-living spikespoliticians squabble over money while issuing a steady stream of mandates and demands and—on top of that—no one knows who is responsible for the results.

The lack of accountability stems from the construction—layer upon layer—of overlapping strands of power that undermine cohesive governance.

The governor, the state school board he or she appoints, the elected superintendent of public schools, the legislature, local elected school boards and their superintendents, elected county superintendents, elected county boards of education, and the courts have input.

When things are going well, such as a jump in test scoresthere is a rush to take credit. But when problems arise, everyone involved points to someone or something else.

Finally, a prestigious collection of experts in the field of education gives the signal. Policy Analysis for California Education, a consortium of education faculties at five major California universities, this week issued a detailed report on the lack of effective management in education, how it has developed and how it can be improved.

“California’s education management system is a complex network of agencies and entities designed to serve the most diverse and expansive TK–12 population in the United States,” the PACE report states. “This system includes state, regional, and local levels of government, each charged with specific responsibilities and oversight. At its core, the structure seeks to balance statewide educational goals with local control and accountability. However, its complexity often results in overlapping responsibilities, fragmented authority, and challenges in ensuring streamlined decision-making.

“The need to strengthen education governance in California has never been more urgent,” PACE concluded. “Schools are grappling with widening inequities, persistent opportunity gaps, and the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on student learning and well-being. At the same time, the federal government’s retreat from its traditional role in civil rights enforcement, accountability, research, and evaluation and oversight places even greater responsibility on states to lead. California must take bold and strategic steps now to ensure that its governance systems are not just consistent and efficient, but also focused on equity, transparent and responsive to student needs.”

While the report recommends a broad realignment of responsibilities among the system’s many players, its most fundamental reform would put the governor at the top of the revised organizational chart while transforming the state’s elected superintendent of public instruction into an ombudsman and independent critic rather than the operational head of the state Department of Education.

The department shall be governed by an appointee of the State Board of Education, whose members shall be appointed by the Governor.

Reimagining the superintendent of public instruction as an independent evaluator and advocate for students “presents promising opportunities to strengthen system-wide accountability,” PACE says, “but also introduces important trade-offs.” PACE questions whether the office can still be influential if it has no enforcement powers.

The need to streamline authority and accountability in California’s school system is clear. A country that prides itself on being at the forefront of social progress still tolerates an education management system created in the 19^th a century that has been expanded piecemeal without thought to the consequences and that prevents California voters and parents from really knowing who to hold accountable for obvious failings.

This lack of clarity protects the damage from exposure and prevents successful programs from being duplicated.

The proposed changes in the PACE report may not work. Giving the governor more power could backfire. But we won’t know if we don’t try.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.