proposes

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday previewed a major education system overhaul that would give the next governor more authority over state school policies and redefine — and almost certainly diminish — the role of the elected state superintendent of public instruction.

The governor’s office indicated Thursday that major portions of the proposal, to be included in the state budget plan Friday, are based on a December 2025 report from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), a nonpartisan center that brings together researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis and USC.

The central aspect of the PACE plan calls for removing the state superintendent as the head of the California Department of Education. Instead, that department would be run by an appointee of the state Board of Education. Members of the state board are appointed by the governor to fixed four-year terms.

The PACE report envisions the “governor as the chief architect and steward responsible for aligning and advancing California’s education system.” According to the report, the “governor could develop long-term plans and use the budget as a strategic lever to advance them.”

A release from the governor’s office asserted that the state’s education system operates as “a fragmented set of entities with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of educational services offered to students.”

This education initiative, if approved by the Legislature, could prove a defining element of Newsom’s education agenda for his last year in office. He would not get to exercise these new powers, which would fall to his successor.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond immediately raised concerns, while also praising Newsom’s record on education.

“Gov. Newsom has done an incredible job on education, one of the best governors we’ve had on education … and I think we have been more aligned than any state superintendent and governor in recent times,” said Thurmond, who is running to succeed Newsom as governor. “On this one issue, I don’t think we could be more misaligned.”

Here are the details and why Newsom wants to move forward with this plan.

Who controls what happens in California’s schools?

Authority over education is distributed among different officeholders.

The Legislature passes laws related to education. The governor chooses which to sign. The governor also proposes what to pay for in education through his budget plan. The Legislature can amend the plan and has the responsibility to approve it.

The elected state superintendent runs the state Department of Education and serves as the administrative lead for the state Board of Education. The superintendent does not have a vote on the board. In some areas, he answers to the authority of the state board; in others, he does not.

The governor appoints the state board, which approves the wording of state education policies. The board also approves curriculum and grants waivers to school districts seeking exemptions from state rules.

What is the problem Newsom says he is trying to fix?

The PACE report says the system is too complicated. It’s not clear who is in charge of what and who is accountable for results.

This has not stopped state officials from taking credit for positive developments or favored policies. Both Newsom and Thurmond take credit for creating the new grade of transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds and for providing two meals at school each day for all students.

Both had a role in supporting and executing that policy, although neither would have happened without Newsom’s favor.

Some parts of the education system are not faring so well. Statewide student test scores and absenteeism rates — although improving — are worse than in 2018-19, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Fewer than half of California students meet state standards in English language arts and math.

As part of its work, the PACE research team conducted interviews with 16 former and current policymakers, researchers and education leaders. Collectively they rated the performance of the state’s education system somewhere between fair and poor when it comes to strategic thinking, accountability, capacity, knowledge governance, stakeholder involvement and systemwide perspective.

What would the state superintendent do under the Newsom plan?

A news release from the governor said his plan would “expand and strengthen the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s ability to foster coordination and alignment of state education policies from early childhood through post-secondary education.”

Thurmond is not persuaded, based on his review of the PACE report, which would take the Department of Education away from the superintendent.

That report reimagines that state superintendent as a student “champion” who would analyze and report on the effectiveness of the state education system and also take on an advocacy role.

The PACE analysts noted that the Legislature would need to provide funding and staffing for the superintendent, in this new role, to be effective. Thurmond said that even under the current structure, underfunding of the state Education Department limits its effectiveness.

Thurmond said it would make more sense to give the elected state schools leader more authority over education spending and more resources, given that individual’s specific focus on education.

Why not just eliminate the elected state superintendent?

The state’s voters have rejected that option in the past. So have the powerful teachers unions, which have seen the office as a check on the governor’s power and an outpost in which they could campaign to install an ally.

How does this play out politically?

Newsom has taken credit for much in education, including career and mentoring programs, funding for teacher training and expanded community schools, which serve the broader needs of an entire family.

“Just this year, we’ve seen improved academic achievement in every subject area, in every grade level, in every student group,” Newsom said in his prepared State of the State remarks, “with greater gains in test scores for Black and Latino kids.”

He also took credit for state education spending per student at the highest level to date.

But he or his representatives have, at times, distanced himself from Department of Education guidelines that have expanded the rights of transgender students, including, for example, the right of transgender students to play on girls’ sports teams.

California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond has concerns about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to change how the state’s schools are managed.

(Josh Edelson/For The Times)

Under the proposed system, a future governor would be more accountable for these and other policies.

Thurmond said that Newsom’s positive record proves that the governor already is the most powerful official in the state when it comes to education — and that more power does not need to be concentrated in that office.

What is the governance model in other states?

If California were to adopt a model in which the state board appoints the head of the Education Department, “it would align with the plurality of states that follow this governance approach,” the PACE report states.

In 20 states, including Massachusetts, New York, Florida and Mississippi, state boards of education directly appoint their chief state school officers. Twelve states, including California, select their chief state school officer through direct election.

Thurmond countered that even in some states with an appointed superintendent, the role has more authority than the elected superintendent in California.

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan federal commission, in an unprecedented effort to save money and consolidate the nation’s sprawling complex of military bases, recommended Thursday that Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci shut 86 bases and partly close another five, yielding a savings of $700 million a year.

The commission called for six California bases to be closed, including the historic Presidio in San Francisco and two Air Force bases in San Bernardino County. It recommended also that the Navy halt construction of a new station at Hunters Point in San Francisco and that ships slated to have been based there be transferred instead to ports at San Diego, Long Beach and Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

Cleanup Problems Seen

If approved by Carlucci and not overruled by Congress, the panel’s recommendations could move more than 17,000 Defense Department employees out of California and lead to the sale of thousands of acres of military warehouses and airfields–as well as environmental cleanup problems–to new owners in the private sector across the country.

Moreover, approval of the commission’s recommendations would mark the first time in a decade that the Defense Department has overcome political obstacles to base closures and shut any major military facility in the United States.

In presenting the report, former Rep. Jack Edwards (R-Ala.)–co-chairman of the 12-man President’s Commission on Base Realignment and Closure with former Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.)–called the report “a totally nonpartisan effort” and added that in reaching its conclusions, “we didn’t accept any list from anybody.”

The panel’s findings met mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, where several members of the California delegation complained that the state would be unfairly affected by the closures. But congressional leaders predicted that the recommendations would be implemented despite the objections.

Congress, which established the panel last May to hold down the rising cost of maintaining the nation’s military bases, will have 45 days from March 1 to reject the entire list by voting a measure of disapproval in both houses. A two-thirds’ vote is required. Unless it does so, the Defense Department is expected to move quickly to implement the commission’s recommendations, with official base closures beginning in January, 1990.

Won’t Give Up Fight

Representatives from hard-hit states, however, were not yet ready to give up their home-state military facilities without a fight. Illinois Democratic Sens. Alan J. Dixon and Paul Simon criticized the commission for not recommending closures of U.S. bases overseas.

“How can we justify closing military bases in our own back yard when we don’t even consider a single one of the 1,500 overseas U.S. military facilities?” Dixon asked.

Still, the vast majority of House members will support the base-closing recommendation, in large part because their districts are not affected, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said. Most of the 86 bases slated for closing have fewer than 30 employees, Aspin noted.

“We’re really talking about a universe of only 27 communities that will be hit markedly,” Aspin said. “I would say the chances of overturning this process are not high.”

In the Senate, Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) praised the commission for its “workman-like approach” to the task of closing unneeded bases and predicted that the recommendations will not be overturned by Congress.

Neither Aspin’s Wisconsin district nor Nunn’s home state of Georgia is affected by the base-closing plan, which would provide an estimated savings of $5.6 billion over 20 years.

Edwards defended the heavy hits against California bases–which represented a little more than 7% of the total closures–saying that the state’s high economic growth and its large military presence made it a likely site for some shutdowns.

“We found over 300,000 military and civilian people in California,” Edwards said. “When you’ve got that kind of activity in a state, it’s not unlikely that you’re going to have some activity on this committee on that state.”

New Hampshire, New Jersey and Illinois, states with a much smaller military presence than California, were hit hardest by the initiatives. With the closure of Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire would lose almost half of its military population. With the proposed closure of Chanute Air Force Base and Ft. Sheridan in Illinois and Ft. Dix in New Jersey, those states’ military populations would be cut by 9.7%. By contrast, California would lose 5% of its military population.

Citing air traffic congestion and encroachment by the surrounding civilian communities, the commission recommended the closure of George Air Force Base and Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino County.

March Would Grow

The move would draw 6,653 military and civilian workers from Norton and 5,358 from George. But March Air Force, 9 miles southeast of Riverside, would pick up an additional 3,420 military and civilian employees from proposed consolidations, many of them from Norton.

In both cases, the panel contended that the actions would have a “minimal impact on local employment,” though its members conceded that those affected by the recommendations might differ with that assessment. The commission noted that Norton and George have had trouble recruiting civilian workers from the local population because of competition from the high-technology private firms operating in and around the Apple Valley.

The closure of Norton could cost $132 million, according to commission estimates. But the panel believes that the move would save the Air Force $68 million annually in operating costs, yielding savings within three years. The closure of George, estimated to cost $37 million early in the process, would result in quicker returns because the Defense Department will save $70 million in operating costs once it is shut.

The panel urged also the closure of Mather Air Force Base, 12 miles southeast of Sacramento, a move that would take away about 3,000 military and civilian employees and a payroll of $242.3 million.

The Pentagon tried unsuccessfully to shut Mather in January, 1987, but was prevented by Reps. Robert T. Matsui and Vic Fazio, both Democrats from Sacramento, who won backing for an amendment forbidding the use of appropriated funds for the closure.

The closure of the Presidio–1,416 acres of land at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco–may be one of the commission’s most lucrative recommendations. All but 32.5 acres of the land by law must be turned over to the National Park Service. The rest of the land, which houses a hospital, under current law is to be offered for lease to the city of San Francisco for use in treating victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

“The full value of the 36.5 acres could be realized if the legislation on lease of Presidio lands were repealed,” the commission report notes, adding that closure will save $314 million initially and $74 million in yearly operating costs.

In recommending that the Navy discontinue construction of a new home port at Hunters Point in San Francisco, the commission anticipates that the Defense Department will save $8 million annually “forever,” Edwards said. The panel proposed that the Navy shift to Pearl Harbor a battleship and two cruisers to have been based at Hunters Point, send one cruiser to Long Beach and one cruiser, two destroyers and two frigates to San Diego.

Although Congress’ acquiescence to the recommendations is expected, the Defense Department must count on more than that if it is to carry out the panel’s proposals, lawmakers said. Edwards said that Congress will have to approve $300 million next year “to prime the pump” with funds until the proceeds from early land sales, which will help pay the initial costs of closures, become available.

It is during the annual appropriations fight that dissident members of the Senate and House may try to win back funding for bases in their states.

“Watch out for appropriations,” Aspin warned. “I’m going to be watching for any such shenanigans. And I hope the press and public will keep an eye out, too.”