**Myung, J., Hough, H. J., & Marsh, J. A. (2025, December). Reimagining California’s education governance system. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/s_myung_dec2025_1.pdf
This executive summary argues that unclear lines of responsibility in California’s TK-12 governance system create problems of governance that then become problems of policy and practice. The authors explain the long-running tension in the state’s “double-headed” structure, where authority is split between an elected Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and a governor-appointed State Board of Education (SBE). Using the OECD’s six dimensions of effective governance, they interviewed 16 California education policy experts, who pointed to misaligned incentives, uneven capacity, and unstable funding as forces that make the system less effective. In response, the authors propose organizing governance into three domains: (1) policy and funding, (2) implementation and capacity development, and (3) evaluation and system accountability. The governor would set priorities through the budget, and the SBE would appoint a director to lead CDE instead of the SPI. They also recommend the director’s role focus on implementation through regional hubs and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. Additionally, the elected SPI would become a nonpartisan evaluator and advocate.
You can read the full report at https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/tk-12-education-governance-california.
**Willis, J. (2026, February). The weight of good intentions: Initial measurement on the rise in compliance activities a decade after California’s funding and accountability reforms (pp. 2–3) [Executive summary of draft research brief]. Available on Dropbox.
This report examines how California’s education governance and accountability system has become more administratively demanding despite the Local Control Funding Formula’s (LCFF) promise of greater local flexibility. It examines the rapid increase in the number of education laws, funding streams outside LCFF, accounting requirements, and audit compliance demands that are especially resource intensive for smaller local education agencies. District leader survey results support these findings. Respondents express strong concern about the growing requirements of Local Control Accountability Plans while offering mixed assessments of their strategic usefulness, ability to engage stakeholders, and influence on student outcomes. The report’s overarching argument is that well-intentioned requirements have accumulated in ways that complicate the work of schools and risk emphasizing compliance over improvement.
We recommend reading the executive summary (pages 2–3), but you can read the full piece at https://aedn.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2026-02/draft_the-weight-of-good-intentions.pdf.
Gallagher, H. A., Arshan, N., Darling-Hammond, L., Haderlein, S., Bustos Ito, A., Kaul, M., Reardon, S., Ripma, T., Santibañez, L., Wei, W., Willis, J., & Yu, E. J. (2026, May). Improving instruction in California: Capacity, coherence, and state support. Getting Down to Facts III. https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/Improving%20Instruction%20in%20California_%20Capacity%2C%20Coherence%2C%20and%20State%20Support.pdf.
This brief argues that California’s uneven instructional quality is a reflection of systemic weaknesses in how the state expects districts to support educators. California gives districts substantial responsibility for its teachers without consistently providing the expertise, resources, and coordinated action needed to support them effectively. Fragmented governance, competing initiatives, and compliance demands further limit districts’ ability to focus on instructional improvement. These challenges often leave districts with insufficient access to well-prepared teachers and the guidance, professional learning, and instructional resources they need to deliver high-quality instruction in every California classroom. The authors call for a more coherent system that strengthens educator development and aligns curricula, professional learning, funding, and state support around a small number of sustained instructional priorities without eliminating local control.
**This document is a priority reading.