Contributor: California’s top educators should be appointed experts, not elected politicians
Here’s something you might not see every day: a man running for office without the same office abolishing. No, this is not a governor (maybe a popular concept in California today). I’m talking about the National Public Teaching Office.
The highest educational position in California, the history of the state principal dates back to 1849. Although California’s constitution is the longest in any state, the document itself is actually very vague about the expectations of the highest educators in Golden State and appointed the Board of Education and the chair of the California Department of Education. But board members technically report that board members are appointed by the governor, creating a dynamic that it may not be clear here who is actually responsible.
Most importantly, through voting initiatives and legislative actions, the responsibility of the state president has been repeatedly reduced or redistributed over the years. The most important of these changes is the passage of Proposition 98 of 1988, which ensures about 40% of annual state spending to education distributions. In 2013, the office’s influence was further reduced as the local control funding formula was implemented, which allocated funds to the region through a set of criteria designed to meet local conditions and needs.
At this time, the list of the national principal No Doing things may be longer than people actually do. School budget and planned funding? Not really involved. Developing standards for courses, teaching materials and content? I won’t do this either. Teacher training and certificates? No. Establish a new or modern old school? again. Approve and supervise charter schools? Neither.
So if someone calls the director of public guidance and cannot directly oversee these things, then naturally people think, what is actually going to be done? Although most are quite technical: monitor regional compliance with state and federal programs, grants and applicable laws; collect data on regional spending and student performance; ensure that funds are allocated correctly under local control formulas; and oversee the budget of the county’s office of education.
It’s a tough thing, especially given the massive scale of California, with 5.8 million students in 977 school districts and over 10,000 schools spread across 58 very different counties. Among the executive and technical challenges raised by such a broad system, there is a strong case where the state’s top educational work can be filled with experienced administrators, a position appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, similar to other important cabinet roles.
This case is further strengthened due to the latest advances in California in improving learning conditions and student outcomes. Starting from 2015-25, although California spends per student increased by 30%, student achievement has not been achieved. A recent national assessment found that in mathematics and reading, student achievement not only remains below the 2019 level, but the gap between high achievement rates and low achievement students continues to widen.
If the increased funding does not generate revenue, what is needed to change the trajectory of California’s public education? Accountability. California has one of just 11 states that are still electing its top education officials. Transforming roles from elected positions to designated positions will be toward improving coordination and accountability among executives, which already controls most educational leverage, and the legislature is often allowed to evade difficult choices in education by hiding behind elected oversight.
The idea of abolishing the state principal as an elective office is nothing new. Until 2023, then-consolidated member (now mayor of Sacramento), Kevin McCarty, proposed a constitutional amendment that would be transformed by next year’s vote. In the busy legislative session, this effort disappeared in the busy legislative session in the face of the usual political pressure. However, the advantages of this change are still equally valid.
In the short term, at least Californians will be required to elect a national publicly guided governor. Those who win the position (whether another candidate or me) should do a good job and replace it by better for California, its students, teachers and future systems.
Josh Newman is a senior fellow at the University of California, Irving School of Social Ecology and a former California Senator. He served as chairman of the Senate Education Committee.
opinion
Insights from the Los Angeles era Perform AI-generated analysis of voice content to provide all perspectives. No insight in any news article.
Viewpoint
Viewpoint
The following AI-generated content is driven by confusion. The Los Angeles Times editors do not create or edit content.
Ideas expressed in the work
- The article argues that California’s elected President of Public Education (SPI) role has become administrative to a large extent focused on technical tasks such as monitoring compliance with state/federal laws, allocating funds and collecting data rather than shaping major educational policies[3][4].
- It highlights that over time, key responsibilities such as school budgets, curriculum development and teacher certificates have been transferred to other entities, thus reducing the impact of SPI[3][4].
- The author argues that switching roles to designated positions will improve responsibility and coordination with the governor and the legislature, but still cancel students’ grades, despite a 30% increase in funding per student over a decade[3][4].
- The article notes that California is one of the education directors in only 11 states and highlights the structural conflict caused by the governor’s appointment of state education boards, responsible for overseeing the elected SPI[3][4].
Different perspectives on the topic
- SPI’s constitutional role as a nonpartisan elected official ensures independence away from the governor’s office, provides inspections on executive powers and maintains public responsibility for educational priorities[2][3].
- As the head of the California Department of Education, SPI oversees key functions such as certified teachers, distributing textbooks and executing federal programs that require stable leadership to isolate political mobility from political mobility[1][4].
- Elected status allows SPI as a statewide advocate for students and schools, using bullying pulpits to influence policy debates beyond administrative responsibilities[2][3].
- Historical precedents and constitutional provisions, such as vacant appointment rules that require legislation to be confirmed, reflect intentional designs to balance authority among government branches[3][4].
