The Role of State Education Agencies in School Improvement
Levitan, S., & Skubel, A. (2026, March). Examining state education agency perspectives on school improvement supports. EdTrust. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/School-Improvement-FINAL.pdf
Drawing on interviews and focus groups with state education agency (SEA) administrators across 11 states and Washington, D.C., this report examines the efforts of SEAs to move beyond compliance monitoring toward meaningful support for school improvement. The authors describe how limited staffing and funding, entrenched practices, and mistrust between state and local leaders can get in the way of this shift. They highlight the importance of having committed agency leadership, strong coordination across teams, sustained resources, and trusting relationships with districts. The authors also acknowledge that SEAs are still developing ways to assess their own effectiveness. The report underscores the organizational and relational work required to translate state priorities and structures into stronger supports for teaching and learning.
Ehlers, R. (2014, August 28). Review of the California Department of Education. Legislative Analyst’s Office. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/education/review-cde/review-cde-082814.pdf
This 2014 review of the California Department of Education (CDE) examined how it is organized, funded, and staffed, and what it is responsible for. CDE’s role is mostly administering federal and state programs, monitoring compliance, and providing technical support, as opposed to setting education policy, which is left to the Legislature, the State Board of Education (SBE), and the Governor. The report described a department that is largely a means to pass federal funding through to local education agencies, where its structure reflects the priorities of each Superintendent of Public Instruction, and where the workload had grown through added reporting and program requirements. The LAO recommended streamlining those requirements and better aligning CDE’s responsibilities with the resources it has.
We recognize that much has changed since this report was released in 2014. In full transparency, we used Microsoft Copilot AI to identify what remains true about CDE now and what has changed since 2014. Some of the report’s specifics are now out of date. For example, child care programs moved from CDE to the Department of Social Services in 2021, the federal No Child Left Behind Act has been replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act, and the LCFF accountability system the report described as new is now well established (along with the California School Dashboard and the Statewide System of Support). Budget figures, staffing counts, and the department’s organizational chart have also changed. As described in the other readings, AB 181 will also change how CDE is run and led. But the report’s core points still hold: CDE implements policy set elsewhere, administers programs and monies, monitors compliance, and supports districts within the limits of its authority and capacity. .
Ideas for the Future
**Towne, L., & Gallagher, H. A. (2026, September). A stronger education system for California’s students: Getting Down to Facts III policy recommendations. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/2026-09/pb_towne-sep2026.pdf
Drawing on the Getting Down to Facts III research findings, the authors argue that despite California investing billions in promising reforms, our fragmented system often makes it harder rather than easier for schools to improve. They identify three areas where state leaders can make the biggest difference. First, the state should set a small number of clear student goals and align policy, funding, and accountability around them. Second, the state should make a single entity responsible for ensuring every district can get high-quality instructional support. That support will be most effective if it is built on the best existing regional expertise, stable rather than short-term funding, and clearer guidance on choosing among state-approved instructional materials. Third, the state should strengthen and lower the cost of teacher preparation, including by expanding integrated four-year pathways, since California relies more heavily on a one-year postbaccalaureate model than other states do.
Kirst, M. W. (2026, September 20). California needs a stronger state role in education—without abandoning local control. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2026/kirst-california-education-governance-shift
Michael Kirst argues that governance restructuring alone will not build California’s capacity to improve classroom instruction. Kirst couches his remarks by walking through how California is different than states with more centralized approaches. He writes that AB 181’s success will depend on balancing stronger state direction with local control and leveraging county offices of education and regional partnerships to support implementation.
Hough, H. J., & Willis, J. (2026, August 11). Building a more coherent, responsive, and effective state education system: Part I. Strengthening State-Level Capacity to Lead and Support System Improvement. California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. https://ccee-ca.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CCEE_SSoS-Design-Team_Part-I_2026-08-11.pdf
This memo, prepared for the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), is the first of two that translate a December 2025 working group’s vision for the Statewide System of Support into actionable design strategies. Districts too often face fragmented priorities, overlapping reporting requirements, and uncoordinated agencies. The authors propose four strategies for CCEE to implement. First, set a small number of statewide goals on foundational outcomes like literacy, math, and college and career readiness, and a shared definition of effective practice while preserving local control. Second, streamline programs, planning, and accountability into a single district-facing improvement cycle that includes a regular review of outdated requirements. Third, clarify roles and build stronger coordination across SBE, CDE, CCEE, FCMAT, and county offices of education. Fourth, build infrastructure and feedback loops so the state, not only districts, is accountable for the system’s outcomes. The authors note that the memo is a synthesis of design team discussions rather than a consensus, and that it does not determine how its ideas should fit within the new governance structure.
To read the second memo, visit https://ccee-ca.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CCEE_SSoS-Design-Team_Part-II_2026-08-11.pdf. To read the executive summary of both memos, visit https://ccee-ca.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CCEE_SSoS-Design-Team_ExecSum_2026-08-11.pdf.
**This document is a priority reading.