BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 204|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 204
Author: Liu (D)
Amended: 4/26/11
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-0, 04/13/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Blakeslee, Huff, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-2, 5/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson
SUBJECT : K-12 Education governance
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill changes the state-level governance
structure for K-12 education by reducing the
responsibilities and powers of the State Board of Education
to an advisory role to the Governor, Legislature, and
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and expands the
role of the SPI in administering the California Department
of Education and setting education policy.
ANALYSIS : The California Constitution specifies that a
SPI shall be elected by the people at each gubernatorial
election. The Constitution provides no further
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
2
specification of the duties of the SPI. The SPI is one of
seven statewide elective offices specified in the
Constitution. Existing law prescribes the responsibilities
of the SPI throughout the Education Code including, among
other things, superintend the schools of this state.
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to
provide for the appointment or election of the State Board
of Education (SBE). In addition, the Constitution
specifies the following duties of the SBE:
1.Adopt textbooks for use in grades one through eight.
2.Appoint, upon the nomination of the SPI, one Deputy and
three Associate SPIs.
Existing law provides for an eleven member 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.
Existing law provides that the SBE determines all questions
of policy within its powers.
Existing 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.
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
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
3
Office of the Secretary of Education.
This bill makes various changes to the state-level
governance structure of K-12 education related to the SBE
and the SPI. Specifically, this bill:
1.Requires appointees to the 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.
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,
Legislature and SPI on policy matters pertaining to
elementary and secondary education.
3.Requires the SBE to make annual recommendations to the
Legislature regarding ways to improve the quality of
public education throughout the state.
4.Specifies that the SBE will carry out only the duties
and functions expressly granted to it by the statutes
and constitution of the state..
5.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 non
inconsistent with the laws of the state for its own
procedures.
6.Clarifies that the SBE shall make recommendations for
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
4
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 bill, to the Governor, as specified.
7.Repeals the SBE power to issue subpoenas to compel the
attendance of witnesses.
8.Repeals the requirement that the SPI execute, under
direction of the SBE, the policies which have been
decided upon by the SBE and instead specifies the role
of the SPI to ensure delivery of high-quality education
to the pupils of the state from preschool through grade
12.
9.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
accountability programs.
D. Facilitating educational accountability by
administering and promoting the effective use of data
to measure and improve pupil learning.
10.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
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
5
for schools that fail to meet pupil achievement
targets.
11.Expands the duties of the Superintendent to include
setting policy for, supervising and administering the
California Department of Education (CDE).
12.Clarifies that the CDE shall be administered by an
executive known as the Director of Education who serves
at the pleasure of the SPI.
Comments
Existing state governance structures vary and, according to
information compiled by the Education Commission of the
States, can be categorized into four general models:
1.The governor appoints members of the state board of
education, the state board then appoints the chief state
school officer. This model is used by 13 states.
2.The state board of education is elected and the board
appoints the chief state school officer. Seven states
utilize this approach.
3.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.
Existing statute establishes specific duties for the SBE
and 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."
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
clarify on this unique relationship.
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
6
The voters have rejected attempts to eliminate the elected
SPI and increase the authority of the SBE. The elected SPI
has been the highest ranking education official since 1849
and has been in charge of the CDE since its creation in
1921. There have been three initiatives, in 1928, 1958,
and 1968 which would 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 (1) submit to the SBE for approval the
nominations of four persons (deputy and associate
superintendents within the CDE), (2) implement a SBE policy
related to additional board staff, (3) implement a SBE
policy related to Board review of performance evaluations
of key employees of the CDE, and (4) process the Board's
legal services contract with a private firm used as
litigation counsel by the SBE.
Prior Legislation
SB 1186 (Liu), 2009-10 Session, was substantially the same
as this bill. (Held on Senate Appropriations Committee
Suspense File)
SB 839 (Alpert), 1999-2000 Session, attempted to clarify
the relationships between the SBE, SPI, and then Secretary
for Education functions and responsibilities. Passed the
Senate with a vote of 24-13 on May 25, 1999. (Died in
Assembly Education Committee)
In 1993 and 1994, in response to the court decision in
State Board of Education v. Honig , the Legislature passed
SB 856 (Dills) and SB 1856 (Dills) to roll back the
expanded powers of the SBE under the decision. Both bills
were vetoed by then Governor Wilson. The veto message ofSB
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
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
7
and constitutional provisions create a system analogous
to the corporate model with the 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 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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Transition costs Unknown, potentially hundreds
of General
thousands
Consolidation of Potential long-term savings
based on General
duties consolidation of
existing SBE duties
within the CDE
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/26/11)
California Language Teachers Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Small School Districts' Association
CONTINUED
SB 204
Page
8
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
CPM:cm 5/26/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED