World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
California education leaders sound alarm over Newsom’s ‘brazen power grab’ stripping superintendent position
Education figures in California are protesting against a change, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, that shifts day-to-day managerial authority away from the independently elected Superintendent of Public Instruction. Contained in Assembly Bill 181 — a budget trailer bill for the 2026–27 fiscal year — the measure creates a new post, the education commissioner, who would be appointed by and report directly to the governor rather than being elected by the public. Critics argue this undermines the will of voters and concentrates power in the governor's office, and the article frames it as a significant reshaping of how the state's education system is governed.
Newsom has defended the overhaul as a long-overdue modernisation, saying reforms have been recommended for a century and that he is "for change" rather than the status quo, and that the aim is to unify the policy-making State Board with the Department of Education for greater accountability and coherence. Opponents disagree sharply: Steve Campos, a teacher of more than 30 years and a Perris Union High School District trustee, called it an "undemocratic power play" and hopes it will be legally challenged, while Chino Valley Unified board president Sonja Shaw branded it "the most brazen power grab in California history" via a "backdoor budget bill". Shaw, who advanced from June's top-two primary, is running for state superintendent and will face Richard Barrera in the November general election; critics also linked their objections to earlier legislation, AB 1955.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Governor contends this is a necessary modernisation of fragmented education governance. By appointing an education commissioner who reports directly to him, the state can achieve greater policy coherence and accountability. Rather than an independently elected superintendent operating separately, integrating the State Board and Department of Education under unified leadership creates better coordination and clearer lines of responsibility to the voters who elected the governor.
The case against
Critics defend the principle that education leadership should remain directly accountable to voters through independent election rather than appointed by the governor. They argue this change concentrates executive power in a way that undermines checks and balances in education governance. Using a budget trailer bill to effect such a fundamental governance change sidesteps proper legislative deliberation, and removing the elected superintendent position eliminates a crucial independent voice representing public interest in education policymaking.