By CSBA CEO & Executive Director Vernon M. Billy
In 2024, CSBA began laying the groundwork for what eventually became the SOS for Student Achievement: Close the State Accountability Gap campaign. Backed by research, the approach calls for greater focus, alignment, efficiency and support in state operations, creating conditions conducive to success for school districts and county offices of education (COEs) across California.
Two years later, terms like coherence and alignment have become part of the lexicon in state education circles, testament to the concepts at the heart of CSBA’s SOS for Student Achievement legislation. The four-bill package complements Gov. Gavin Newsom’s effort to reimagine the duties of the state superintendent of public instruction (SSPI) and the operational management of the California Department of Education (CDE). While the Governor’s reform streamlines the governance architecture at the CDE, CSBA’s proposals build a “system” to address the operational, accountability and transparency gaps that determine whether that architecture actually benefits local education agencies (LEAs).
CSBA’s legislation calls for the creation of a state operations plan to guide how and what state agencies can do to better support schools, requires regular reporting on state progress to meet the metrics of its operations and support plan, and evaluates the success of state programs and technical assistance for LEAs. These are important and transformative changes, so debate is both anticipated and welcome.
The recent Senate Education Committee hearings showed how seriously the Legislature is taking the bill package, and the reception was decidedly positive. The hearing contained robust discussion, some challenging questions, and a critique about why this education governance reform effort will succeed where others have failed — all natural parts of the process when considering legislation of this scope and impact. None of that obscures this objective fact: each bill in the bills passed out of committee in resounding fashion, garnering zero “no votes” and just one abstention across four bills. This result mimics actions in the Assembly where the bills passed the lower house with virtually unanimous bipartisan support.
The package did receive close review, as it should. These bills are intended to address one of the most consequential problems in California public education: the absence of a coherent, transparent and accountable state system of operations and support that helps LEAs improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps. But serious discussion is not the same as consternation, and even the members who raised questions accepted the premise that California’s state education system needs stronger alignment, clearer goals and better accountability.
It is also important to note that CSBA’s bill package is built around reciprocal accountability, not more new mandates on school districts and COEs. The bills recognize that LEAs are already held responsible for planning, reporting, spending, interventions and outcomes. What has been missing is a corresponding expectation that the state examines whether its own agencies, programs, funding decisions, reporting systems and technical assistance structures are organized in a way that actually helps local schools succeed. This void accounts for the state accountability gap the SOS for Student Achievement bills are designed to close.
This is why, for example, it misses the point to suggest the dashboard component of the bill package is designed to measure “the state’s progress in closing the achievement gap.” The true purpose of a new dashboard is to establish data transparency around whether the state is doing its job as a partner with school districts and COEs and facilitating their success at a local level. The dashboard is not intended to replace student achievement data or duplicate existing accountability metrics; California already has multiple tools for measuring student outcomes. What the state lacks is a clear public mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of education-oriented state operations and support and whether state programs, investments, technical assistance, reporting requirements and interagency coordination are aligned to help LEAs improve outcomes.
This issue becomes especially clear when one considers that the Governor’s own digital strategy calls for state agencies to produce and maintain public dashboards. The State Operations and Support Effectiveness Dashboard would align with this directive and allow Californians to better assess the return on their education investments.
One member of the Senate Education Committee voiced concerns about whether reports, working groups or commissions will simply produce predictable findings. That is a fair consideration, but it is not an argument against action, particularly when SOS avoids that trap by connecting planning, public reporting, state-level evaluation, and legislative oversight to the practical work of improving state support for LEAs. The answer to “we have seen this movie before” is not to stop going to the cinema; it is to write a better script, one with clearer state-level accountability, stronger follow-through, and more direct connection to the needs of local schools.
To break this familiar pattern of disappointing remakes, the commission proposed in AB 2202 includes a feedback loop that tracks cumulative state progress toward appointed goals with a rolling scorecard. This mechanism allows the public and stakeholders to measure where the state has and has not met its goals. This historical record will help lawmakers and stakeholders gain the leverage needed to push for implementation of critical changes to state operations.
Through these four measures, CSBA’s legislation aligns with, extends and enhances the objectives of AB 181. CSBA supports AB 181 because it is an important first step toward a more coherent state governance structure, including stronger alignment of the CDE under the State Board of Education. But AB 181 is not the full solution. It clarifies a singular governance structure, but effective governance reform cannot stop at reassigning authority. California needs a system that clearly indicates the state’s goals, how its agencies will coordinate, how agency progress will be measured, what supports LEAs will receive, and how the state will avoid, refine, or eliminate duplicative, ineffective or misaligned programs.
While AB 181 achieves the important goal of establishing a more logical and pragmatic chain of command, we must reform not only who runs the system but the system itself and what its leaders are responsible for, the manner in which they coordinate, and how the public determines whether their efforts are working. CSBA looks forward to continued conversations with the Governor and the Legislature on how our bill package can create reciprocal accountability and enhance the state’s focus on stronger, more effective, and efficient state operations.
