Newsom's Education Power Grab: A Dangerous Assault on Democratic Accountability

The Facts: A Stealth Proposal That Changes Everything

In what can only be described as a dramatic and concerning move, California Governor Gavin Newsom inserted a vaguely worded section into his recent State of the State address proposing a complete overhaul of how California’s massive public education system is managed. serving nearly 6 million students and representing the largest single portion of the state budget, this system affects every Californian family. The proposal suggests unifying policymaking under the State Board of Education and the Department of Education, effectively allowing the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to align education policies from early childhood through college.

The budget proposal, while longer than Newsom’s spoken remarks, still failed to explicitly state the full implications of this restructuring. It cited two reports criticizing the current “multiple, often overlapping and sometimes competitive” governance structure. One report was California’s Master Plan for Education from 2002, while the other came from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), a multi-university think tank that had issued its report just weeks earlier.

The most significant revelation came in the budget language itself, which proposed to “move oversight authority of the management of” the state Department of Education and local districts under the California Board of Education. This would effectively strip the elected state superintendent of schools of managerial authority over the state Department of Education, reducing the office to what amounts to an ombudsman or advisor role. Meanwhile, management authority would be vested in the Board of Education, which is appointed by the governor, and an appointed executive director.

The Context: A System Decades in the Making

California’s education governance system represents a complex network of agencies designed to serve the most diverse and expansive TK-12 population in the United States. This structure has evolved over more than a century, balancing statewide education goals with local control and accountability. The current superintendent, Tony Thurmond, a former state legislator who is currently running for governor, immediately expressed concern that he had not been consulted about what would represent a major overhaul of responsibility for this massive system.

Thurmond rightly pointed out that “This governance proposal doesn’t establish any structures proven to move the needle on student outcomes, and instead shifts authority to implement TK-12 education programs away from the official who California voters have elected to lead our state’s public schools.” This statement cuts to the heart of the democratic principles at stake.

Evidence suggests that Newsom’s administration had been laying the groundwork for this power shift long before the State of the State address. The PACE report issued in December called for exactly what Newsom proposes, describing California’s education governance as suffering from “overlapping responsibilities, fragmented authority, and challenges in ensuring streamlined decision-making.” Michael Kirst, the state’s foremost academic authority on education and architect of the school finance overhaul under Governor Jerry Brown, endorsed the change, calling it “a new vision and a dramatic overhaul” that would address a “19th century governance structure.”

The Democratic Crisis: Why This Matters Beyond Education

What we are witnessing here is nothing short of a fundamental assault on democratic principles. The move to strip power from an elected official and transfer it to gubernatorial appointees represents a dangerous concentration of power that should alarm every Californian who values democratic accountability. When voters elect a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, they are making a conscious choice about who should lead their children’s education system. To remove managerial authority from this position effectively nullifies the will of the people.

This proposal creates a troubling precedent where elected officials can be systematically stripped of their powers by gubernatorial fiat. While the current system may indeed suffer from complexity and overlapping responsibilities, the solution cannot be to undermine democratic processes. True reform should strengthen democratic institutions, not weaken them. The fact that this proposal was introduced without proper consultation with the current superintendent demonstrates a disturbing disregard for collaborative governance.

The Accountability Question: Who Answers to Whom?

The proponents of this change argue that it will streamline governance and create clearer accountability. However, by vesting almost total authority in the governor and his appointees, this proposal actually makes it more difficult to hold anyone accountable when educational outcomes fail to improve. Under the current system, voters can hold both the governor and the superintendent accountable through elections. Under Newsom’s proposal, accountability becomes blurred and concentrated in the executive branch.

This concentration of power threatens the checks and balances that are fundamental to our democratic system. When one branch of government accumulates too much power, the system becomes vulnerable to abuse. The fact that this proposal emerges while California’s educational achievement “languishes” suggests that this may be more about political control than genuine improvement.

The Principle of Local Control: A Foundation Under Attack

California has long valued local control in education, recognizing that communities know their children’s needs better than distant bureaucrats. This proposal represents a significant centralization of power that threatens this principle. While the current system may have inefficiencies, it also represents a distributed authority structure that prevents any single entity from having too much control over educational decisions.

The move to consolidate power under gubernatorial appointees risks creating an education system that responds more to political considerations than to the needs of students and families. When authority becomes concentrated, the voices of local communities become easier to ignore. This represents a fundamental shift away from the principles of local control that have long been central to California’s educational philosophy.

The Transparency Deficit: A Process That Raises Red Flags

The manner in which this proposal has been introduced raises serious questions about transparency and good governance. The vague wording in the State of the State address, followed by a budget proposal that still fails to fully explain the implications, suggests a process designed to avoid scrutiny. The fact that the current superintendent was not consulted about a change that would dramatically affect his office demonstrates a concerning lack of respect for established governance protocols.

True democratic reform requires open debate, stakeholder input, and transparent processes. This proposal appears to have been developed through backchannels and think tank collaborations rather than through the open, democratic processes that Californians deserve. When major changes to governance structures are proposed, they should emerge from robust public discussion, not appear as surprises in budget documents.

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for American Democracy

This proposal cannot be viewed in isolation. It represents a trend toward executive overreach that threatens democratic institutions across the United States. When elected officials can be systematically stripped of their authority by unilateral action, we move closer to a system where democratic accountability becomes meaningless. The principles at stake here extend far beyond education policy to the very foundations of our republican form of government.

The framers of our Constitution understood the dangers of concentrated power, which is why they designed a system of checks and balances. While this proposal operates at the state level, it embodies the same concerning trends we see at the federal level where executive authority continues to expand at the expense of other branches of government. As defenders of democratic principles, we must recognize and resist these accumulations of power wherever they occur.

A Call to Action: Defending Democratic Education Governance

Californians who value democracy, freedom, and educational excellence must sound the alarm about this dangerous proposal. We cannot accept reforms that come at the cost of democratic accountability. If the current education governance system needs improvement-and it likely does-then let us have an open, transparent debate about how to strengthen it while preserving electoral accountability.

The solution to bureaucratic complexity is not authoritarian simplification. The answer to overlapping responsibilities is not concentrated power. True reform would involve clarifying roles while preserving the democratic checks that prevent abuse of power. It would involve meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, including the elected officials who represent the voters’ will.

As we consider the future of California’s education system, we must ask ourselves: Do we want a system where educational policy is determined by gubernatorial appointees, or do we want a system where the people have a direct voice through elected representatives? The answer should be clear to anyone who values democratic principles. We must defend the right of Californians to choose their educational leaders and hold them accountable through the ballot box.

This moment requires vigilance from all who care about democratic governance. The consolidation of power rarely happens through dramatic coups but through incremental changes that seem reasonable on the surface. We must see this proposal for what it is: a fundamental alteration of California’s democratic landscape that demands robust opposition and thoughtful alternative solutions that preserve both efficiency and accountability.