BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 204
AUTHOR: Liu
INTRODUCED: February 8, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 13, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : K-12 Education Governance.
SUMMARY
Changes the state-level governance structure for K-12
education by reducing the responsibilities and powers of
the State Board of Education (SBE) to an advisory role to
the Governor, and specifies the role of the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) is to ensure
delivery of high-quality education to the pupils of the
state from preschool through grade 12, as specified.
BACKGROUND
The California Constitution specifies that a Superintendent
of Public Instruction (SPI) shall be elected by the people
at each gubernatorial election. The Constitution provides
no further specification of the duties of the SPI (Article
IX, Section 2). The SPI is one of seven statewide elective
offices specified in the constitution. Current law
prescribes the responsibilities of the SPI throughout the
Education Code including, among other things, superintend
the schools of this state. (Education Code § 33112 et.
seq.)
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to
provide for the appointment or election of the State Board
of Education. In addition, the state Constitution
specifies the following duties of the SBE: 1) Adopt
textbooks for use in grades one through eight (Article IX,
Section 7.5); and 2) Appoint, upon the nomination of the
SPI, one Deputy and three Associate Superintendents of
Public Instruction. (Article IX, Section 2.1)
Current law provides for an eleven member State Board of
SB 204
Page 2
Education (SBE) appointed by the Governor for four-year
terms, with each appointee subject to confirmation by a
two-thirds vote of the Senate, with the exception of a
student member who serves only a one-year term. (EC § 33000
and § 33000.5)
Current law provides that the SBE determines all questions
of policy within its powers. (EC § 33030)
Current law also requires a biennial report from the SBE to
the governor of its actions for the preceding two years,
together with recommendations of its needs, and recommended
changes for legislation, as necessary. (EC § 33037)
Beginning in 1991, then Governor Wilson created by
Executive Order and appointed a "Secretary of Child
Development and Education" to be his cabinet-level advisor
on education matters. The Legislature refused to approve
the statutory authorization for this position and the
Governor was forced to fund the position with funds
redirected from other offices within the Executive Branch.
In the past, Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger have also
chosen to appoint a Secretary of Education as their
cabinet-level advisor on education matters, even though the
position had not been specifically authorized in statute.
However, in January 2011, as part of his proposed budget,
Governor Brown has chosen not to appoint a Secretary of
Education and has proposed to eliminate funding for the
Office of the Secretary of Education (OSE).
ANALYSIS
This bill makes various changes to the state-level
governance structure of K-12 education related to the State
Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires appointees to the State Board of Education
(SBE) to:
a) Represent and reside in different
geographical regions of the state.
b) Reflect the ethnic and gender diversity of
the state's population.
SB 204
Page 3
c) Represent the array of disciplines active in
the public education
system including, but not limited to, teachers,
principals, school district administrators and
financial officers, charter school
administrators, county offices of education,
school district governing boards, classified
employees, and parents.
2) Repeals the authority of the SBE "to determine all
questions of policy within its powers" and instead
clarifies that it is an advisor to the Governor on
education policy.
3) Repeals the broad authority of the SBE to adopt
regulations for the government of the K-12 schools
that receive financial support from the state and
instead clarifies the SBE shall adopt rules and
regulations not inconsistent with the laws of the
state for its own procedures.
4) Clarifies that the SBE shall make recommendations for
the improvement of the administration and efficiency
of the public schools of the state and shall report
the results, and any recommendations that it makes
under this section, to the Governor, as specified.
5) Repeals the SBE power to issue subpoenas to compel the
attendance of witnesses.
6) Repeals the requirement that the SPI execute, under
direction of the SBE, the policies which have been
decided upon by the board and instead specifies the
role of the SPI is to ensure delivery of high-quality
education to the pupils of the state from preschool
through grade 12.
7) Requires the responsibilities of the SPI to include
among other things:
a) Establishing educational expectation for
pupils.
b) Apportioning resources to schools.
c) Managing statewide educational and financial
SB 204
Page 4
accountability programs.
d) Facilitating educational accountability by
administering and promoting the effective use of
data to measure and improve pupil learning.
8) Defines educational accountability to include, but not
be limited to:
a) Measuring pupil and institutional
performance to ensure adequate and equitable
education and compliance with special education
and civil rights law.
b) Monitoring the implementation of state and
federal programs.
c) Identifying schools that fail to meet pupil
achievement targets.
d) Defining and implementing intervention
strategies for schools that fail to meet pupil
achievement targets.
9) Clarifies that the Department of Education shall be
administered by an executive office known as the
Director of Education who serves at the pleasure of
the SPI.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author's
office, several studies in the last decade have been
critical of California's education governance system
and made recommendations for reform that have yet to
be implemented. All the studies have found the
current system overly complex, inefficient,
ineffective, and lacking in transparency and
accountability.
2) Existing state governance structures vary and,
according to information compiled by the Education
Commission of the States, can be categorized into four
general models:
a) The governor appoints members of the state
SB 204
Page 5
board of education,
the state board then appoints the chief state
school officer. This
model is used by 13 states.
b) The state board of education is elected and
the board appoints the
chief state school officer. Seven states
utilize this approach.
c) The Governor appoints the members of the
state board of
education and the chief school officer (i.e.,
State Superintendent) is elected. This is a
model used by 11 states, including California.
1) The governor appoints the state board of education and
the chief school officer. There are nine states that
use this model.
And finally, 10 states, plus the District of Columbia,
function under modified versions of the four models
listed above.
1) Existing statute establishes specific duties for
the SBE and the SPI ; however, the various provisions
of law can be confusing and perhaps even overlapping.
For example, the Education Code indicates that the SPI
shall "superintend the schools of this state" and also
specifies that the SBE shall "determine all questions
of policy within its powers."
2) Tension between an elected SPI and appointed SBE is
not new. As far back as 1912, it was noted that the
juxtaposition of roles between the elected SPI and
governor-appointed SBE could cause potential conflict.
Numerous attempts have been made to provide a level of
clarity on this unique relationship.
The voters have rejected attempts to eliminate the
elected SPI and increase the authority of the SBE. The
elected Superintendent of Public Instruction has been
the highest ranking education official since 1849 and
has been in charge of the State Department of
Education since its creation in 1921. There have been
three initiatives, in 1928, 1958, and 1968 which would
SB 204
Page 6
have the SPI appointed by the SBE. All three were
rejected by the voters.
Most recently, in the early 1990's, a dispute about
the relative roles and responsibilities of the SBE and
the SPI led to a lawsuit known as State Board of
Education v. Honig. In February 1993, the Court of
Appeal decided that the SPI must: (a) submit to the
SBE for approval the nominations of four persons
(deputy and associate superintendents within the
Department of Education); (b) implement a SBE policy
related to additional board staff; (c) implement a SBE
policy related to Board review of performance
evaluations of key employees of the State Department
of Education; and (d) process the Board's legal
services contract with a private firm used as
litigation counsel by the SBE.
Staff recommends an amendment to further clarify the
role of the SBE by clearly stating on page 3, line 28
insert: "The board shall advise the Governor,
Legislature, and Superintendent of Public Instruction
on policy matters pertaining to elementary and
secondary education and shall make annual
recommendations to the Legislature regarding ways to
improve the quality of public education throughout the
state. The State Board of Education shall carry out
duties and functions expressly granted to it by the
statutes and constitution of this state. No further
duties or functions shall be implied."
In addition, staff recommends an amendment to clearly
define duties of the SPI to include what seems to be
intended by this measure which is setting of policy
within and administering the State Department of
Education. Therefore on page 5, between lines 18 and
19 amend EC § 33112, as follows:
Section 33112. The Superintendent of Public
Instruction shall:
a) Superintend the schools of this state.
b) Set policy for, supervise and administer the
State Department of
Education.
SB 204
Page 7
c) Ýremainder of section unchanged]
3) Prior legislation . In 2010, SB 1186 (Liu) was
substantially the same as this measure. However, the
measure subsequently was held on the Senate
Appropriations suspense file.
In 1999, SB 839 (Alpert) attempted to clarify the
relationships between the SBE, SPI, and then Secretary
for Education functions and responsibilities. This
measure was never heard in the Assembly Education
Committee at the author's request.
In 1993 and 1994, in response to the court decision in
SBE v. Honig, the Legislature passed SB 856 (Dills)
and SB 1856 (Dills) to roll back the expanded powers
of the Board under the decision. Both measures were
vetoed by then Governor Wilson. The veto message of SB
856 read in part:
The relationship between the Superintendent of
Public
Instruction and the State Board of Education is
both complicated and complementary. The existing
statutory and constitutional provisions create a
system analogous to the corporate model with a
board of directors and an executive director.
Ideally, a strong Board and a strong
Superintendent serve each other well.
The Board reflects California's ethnic and
cultural diversity --an individual cannot. The
State Board conducts its business in full public
view, with prior notice, and with public input.
A Superintendent, as an individual, does not have
to meet the standards of open government that a
board does.
Finally, this bill would restrict all governors'
ability to
shape education policy?To deny the chief
executive of the state the ability to articulate
policy objectives in matters of education would
be shortsighted and unreasonable.
SUPPORT
SB 204
Page 8
California Language Teachers Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Small School Districts' Association
OPPOSITION
None on file.