Report calls for overhauling how California runs its schools – EdSource

Report on California’s TK-12 Educational Governance System and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A new report from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) asserts that California’s educational governance structure requires a significant overhaul to effectively meet its objectives. The report argues that systemic weaknesses, unclear lines of authority, and a lack of accountability are undermining progress toward providing equitable and quality education, directly impacting the state’s ability to achieve key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Systemic Deficiencies Impeding Progress on SDG 4: Quality Education

The PACE report identifies fundamental flaws in the state’s governance system that create barriers to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all students. These challenges hinder the potential success of landmark state programs designed to address educational disparities and support vulnerable student populations, which are central tenets of SDG 4 and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Lack of Coherent Strategy and Accountability

A primary issue identified is the “double-headed system” of competing authority between the governor-appointed State Board of Education and the publicly elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction. This long-standing structural flaw, first noted in a 1920 legislative report, creates confusion and prevents the development of a cohesive, long-term vision for educational improvement. Experts interviewed for the report characterized the state’s approach as uncoordinated, with one stating, “it feels a little like we are throwing spaghetti against the wall.” This lack of strategic implementation directly compromises the state’s ability to meet SDG Target 4.1, which aims for all children to complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education.

Institutional Capacity and Resource Allocation

The report reiterates previous findings that the California Department of Education (CDE) is underfunded and understaffed. This deficiency limits its capacity to guide multi-billion-dollar initiatives and effectively assist underperforming school districts in closing achievement gaps. This institutional weakness represents a failure to build effective and accountable institutions as called for in SDG 16. An expert noted this creates a “downward spiral where they don’t have the capacity to lead state-level work, so they don’t get the funds in the state budget because they’re not trusted to do a good job.”

Proposed Governance Overhaul for Stronger Institutions (SDG 16)

To address these deep-seated problems, the PACE report proposes a fundamental restructuring of the state’s educational leadership. The recommendations are designed to create clear lines of authority and build a more effective, accountable, and inclusive institution capable of driving progress on educational goals.

Centralizing Authority and Clarifying Roles

The central recommendation is to transfer operational control of the CDE from the elected State Superintendent to the governor and the governor-appointed State Board of Education. This change would align California with 20 other states and is intended to resolve the decades-long confusion over who is ultimately in charge of the state’s education bureaucracy. By establishing a clear chain of command, the reform aims to build a stronger and more accountable institution, consistent with the principles of SDG 16.

Redefining the State Superintendent’s Mandate

Under the proposal, the role of the elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction would be redefined. Instead of managing the CDE, the superintendent would become an independent ombudsman and “elected chief champion for students.” This new mandate would focus on evaluating the effectiveness of state programs and school improvement efforts, providing a crucial, independent accountability mechanism that is currently missing. This shift would support a system of continuous improvement essential for achieving the targets within SDG 4.

Key Recommendations and Expert Assessment

Core Proposals for Reform

1. Transfer control of the California Department of Education to the governor and the governor-appointed State Board of Education.
2. Empower the State Board of Education to hire a department director with expertise in education administration and management.
3. Revise state statutes to redefine the State Superintendent’s role as an independent evaluator and student advocate, separate from the administration of the CDE.

Evaluation of State Governance Effectiveness

Sixteen prominent education leaders were asked to grade the effectiveness of the current state governance system across several key elements. The overall average grade was 2.8, between “poor” and “fair,” highlighting a significant deficit in the state’s ability to provide institutional support for achieving quality education for all.

• Strategic thinking: Having a long-term vision for improvement.
• Accountability: Establishing mechanisms for responsibility and continuous improvement.
• Capacity: Ensuring institutions have the resources to do their jobs effectively.
• Knowledge: Providing data and research to inform decisions.
• Engagement: Seeking diverse voices in the policymaking process.
• Whole-of-system perspective: Coordinating efforts to achieve shared goals for students.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Implications for Achieving Educational Goals

Initial reactions from education leaders indicate a broad consensus that the report accurately identifies critical problems. Michael Kirst, former president of the State Board of Education, called the report “bold, comprehensive, coherent, and sensible.” The California School Boards Association (CSBA) and the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) both acknowledged the need for greater coherence and clarity from the state. This shared concern among stakeholders suggests an opportunity for collaborative action, aligning with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The proposed reforms are positioned not as a final blueprint, but as a framework for realigning roles and responsibilities to build a more effective governance structure capable of closing achievement gaps and fulfilling the promise of SDG 4 for every student in California.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article addresses issues related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily focusing on the quality of education and the effectiveness of the institutions governing it.

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the most central SDG discussed. The article revolves around the California school system’s ability to deliver quality education and improve student outcomes. It explicitly mentions challenges like the “achievement gap,” “chronic absenteeism,” and the need to support “student progress,” all of which are core components of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article’s repeated emphasis on tackling the “widening achievement gaps” directly connects to this goal. The achievement gap represents a significant inequality in educational outcomes among different student groups. The proposed reforms aim to create a system that can more effectively support underperforming schools and close these gaps, thereby promoting educational equity.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: A significant portion of the article is dedicated to critiquing the educational governance system in California. It describes a “flawed multiagency system” with “confusing lines of authority” and a lack of accountability. The core recommendation of the PACE report is to overhaul this system to make it more “accountable,” “effective,” and “transparent,” which directly aligns with the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
   • Explanation: The article’s focus on closing the “achievement gap” and improving “student progress” is directly aimed at ensuring that all students, regardless of their background, receive a quality education with effective learning outcomes. The systemic weaknesses identified are seen as undermining this very target.
2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • Explanation: Education is a primary driver of social and economic inclusion. By calling for a system that can effectively address the “widening achievement gaps,” the article advocates for reforms that would ensure more equitable educational opportunities, which is a prerequisite for reducing broader societal inequalities.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Explanation: This target is at the heart of the article. The PACE report’s central argument is that California’s school governance system needs to be overhauled because it lacks effectiveness and accountability. Phrases like “double-headed system of competing authorities,” the need for “a more rational form of state educational organization,” and the call to make the system “more accountable” all point directly to the need to reform institutions as described in Target 16.6.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress.

• Indicator for Target 4.1 (Quality Education):
  • Achievement Gap Data: The article repeatedly mentions the “achievement gap” as a key problem. Data measuring the difference in academic performance between various student groups would serve as a direct indicator of progress toward providing equitable and quality education.
  • Chronic Absenteeism Rates: “Chronic absenteeism” is cited as a challenge. Tracking and reducing this rate would be an indicator of improved student engagement and a more effective learning environment.
• Indicator for Target 16.6 (Strong Institutions):
  • Expert Assessment of Governance Effectiveness: The article explicitly states that 16 experts gave the state’s governance system an “overall average grade of 2.8 — in between poor and fair.” This qualitative assessment serves as a direct indicator of institutional effectiveness. Future assessments could measure progress.
  • Funding and Staffing Levels of the Department of Education: The report notes that the California Department of Education (CDE) is “underfunded and understaffed.” Therefore, metrics on the department’s budget and number of expert staff relative to its responsibilities would be a key indicator of its capacity and strength as an institution.
  • Clarity of Institutional Roles: The report aims to “clear up confusing lines of authority.” An indicator could be developed, perhaps through surveys of school administrators, to measure the perceived clarity and coherence of roles and responsibilities within the state’s education system.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: edsource.org