The Urgent Case for Rethinking TK–12 Governance: A Conversation with Dr. Julie Marsh

This year, Governor Newsom announced plans to implement long-standing recommendations to strengthen CA’s education governance system. PACE recently published a detailed report on the topic. To understand more, we spoke with one of the report’s authors, Dr. Julie A. Marsh—a professor of education policy and faculty director of PACE at USC:

What problem was the PACE team trying to solve when you began this report—and why was now the right moment to take a hard look at TK–12 governance in California?

As researchers, we had studied many policies and large state investments over the years and came to notice that, year after year, many districts and schools often struggled to implement and achieve the goals of these well-intentioned reforms. We were also aware that many districts were facing similar challenges, from staffing shortages and financial strains to chronic absenteeism and learning disparities. All of this signaled to us deeper issues with our overall system. In other words, these were not local failures but suggested broader problems that could potentially be addressed through higher-level regional or state solutions—solutions tied to governance, or the mechanisms by which decisions are made, responsibilities are distributed, and accountability is maintained.

We also thought it was a timely moment for California to think about reinventing its approach to educational governance for a few key reasons. First, it’s been more than a decade since the adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which shifted funding from a centralized, state-driven system to giving local agencies more autonomy. Though research has shown many benefits, it has also revealed some cracks. Second, we continue to see the lingering effects of the pandemic and equity gaps that have deepened. Finally, the pullback of the federal role in education has created new challenges. The dismantling of the Department of Education means more responsibilities will be placed on states, which makes this focus on governance even more urgent. Yet it also provides an opportunity for California to step up as a leader on what it looks like to govern a large, diverse education system that can navigate these challenges with a steadfast commitment to excellence and equity.

One of the report’s core findings is that California’s education governance system is fragmented and unclear. How does that fragmentation show up in real ways for students and families—especially those navigating under-resourced school systems?

We realize the concept of governance is a bit abstract and that these processes feel far away from folks on the ground. Yet they have real consequences for schools, educators, students, and families. In particular, this fragmentation and incoherence can lead to an uneven quality of programs in schools—particularly for under-resourced schools and systems.

Let me take an example: the state’s expansion of Transitional Kindergarten. This was championed by the governor and passed by the legislature, but because authority over K-12, early childhood, facilities, and labor rests in multiple agencies, there was no one agency owning this new effort and ensuring that it was implemented well and consistently across the state. As a result, early on, folks at the local level may have received inconsistent and slow guidance that resulted in confusion. Also, early childhood and K-12 operate under different structures, so districts were now asked to hire teachers who have different qualification requirements than K-12 teachers do. Districts were not always sure who they could legally hire and often struggled to hire teachers quickly enough to start out the school year. They may have also struggled with understanding how to deliver developmentally appropriate TK instruction or where to house these classrooms.

Some districts received support from their county offices of education to implement these programs, while others did not, leaving every district trying to invent what to do. Importantly, rural, smaller, and under-resourced districts with fewer central office staff likely felt these challenges more, leading some to delay or limit the expansion of these programs to families. Though these challenges have been occurring across the state, there remains no easy way to resolve them, given the many agencies involved.

This means families might have limited access to programs or experience big variations in quality. Depending on where you live, one district may offer full-day TK with strong support services, and another may offer limited hours or fewer spots. Families living just a few miles apart could have very different experiences, from the class size, training provided to the teachers, and what is taught, to the supports for students with special needs and English learners.

The report raises questions about the role of the State Superintendent and the California Department of Education (CDE). What shifts in responsibility or structure do you believe would most improve outcomes for students—and why?

One major driver of learning outcomes for students is the quality of instruction and instructional programs. When policies come down from the state—be it new standards, curriculum frameworks, literacy initiatives, TK, or community schools—the state has a responsibility to ensure districts and schools have the capacity to carry them out, so all students experience in their schools and classrooms the very best of what was envisioned by state leaders. Districts and schools need guidance on what the essential features of the policy look like in practice when done well, how to overcome potential barriers (such as when there are shortages of qualified faculty or staff), and how to train their educators to realize the goals of this policy. The likelihood of building this capacity statewide is greater in a system with less fragmentation and clearer lines of authority and accountability.

Making the CDE report directly to the State Board of Education and governor could strengthen connections between the policies adopted at the state level and implementation on the ground, as the governor would be directly responsible for and have oversight over the roll-out and support provided to districts and schools. Removing electoral pressures of a state superintendent running the department and instead appointing an administrator with experience running systems and managing agencies is another key element of change we propose to accomplish this vision.

Greater focus on capacity on the ground also requires a well-resourced state department of education with regional offices that can provide differentiated guidance and support to districts whose needs vary and that can intervene when districts struggle or continually underperform. In this new system, the elected state superintendent could serve to champion the rights of students and families and provide an important check on the system overall, helping to evaluate how things are going and where more support is needed—which could improve the learning conditions and outcomes for students.

From your perspective, which recommendations in the report have the greatest potential to advance equity—and what would it take politically or institutionally to move them forward?

At a high level, greater consistency across the state—in the support available to districts and ultimately the quality of policy implementation at the local level—will help advance equity. Where a student lives should not determine whether they receive a high-quality public education and have access to good schools and teachers. Many of the recommendations we make seek to improve consistency in state- or regional-level support for districts, such as developing clearer lines of authority by moving authority over the CDE to a governor-appointed administrator. With better accountability, we might also see less reliance on litigation to hold the state accountable for protecting students’ rights and more proactive state efforts to monitor local policy implementation and outcomes and to support students most in need. Enhancing data availability and meaningful system-level evaluation of policies—through a reimagined role for the SPI—would also serve to advance equity, helping to ensure that resources are directed toward supporting vulnerable students and addressing any opportunity gaps.

Families and community leaders are often closest to the impacts of governance failures, yet farthest from decision-making tables. How can parent leaders, advocates, and organizations like Families In Schools use this report to push for more accountable and responsive systems? How might they be part of this process?

PACE can and will continue to inform decision makers and interest-holders about relevant research findings and policy recommendations. That’s our mission, but we do not advocate. So PACE does not have any specific recommendations or avenues for direct involvement. However, I, as an individual and professor who studies policy, can share broadly that individuals and organizations can always influence policy and push for change—be it educating others on the issues, writing op-eds, communicating with the governor and Legislature, or reaching out to or working in partnership with advocacy organizations such as Children Now and Families In Schools that regularly advocate for improving the system.