California鈥檚 school governance system needs to be overhauled to make it more accountable, clear up confusing lines of authority and address uneven assistance, according to a  released Monday.

These and other systemic weaknesses are undermining the potential success of state landmark programs like universal kindergarten and support for school districts to tackle the achievement gap, chronic absenteeism and other challenges under local control, the report from the research center PACE asserts.

The expected cuts in federal education funding and transfer to states of oversight responsibilities by the Trump administration add urgency to reorganize a complex and flawed multiagency system, starting with the California Department of Education, the 94-page report titled  argues. The state must now 鈥渕eet the demands and opportunities of this moment,鈥� the report said.

鈥淕iven shifting federal responsibilities, declining enrollment, and widening achievement gaps, California can no longer postpone reforms that have been overdue for a century,鈥� Julie Marsh, professor of education policy at USC and one of the report鈥檚 three co-authors, stated in a press release. 鈥淲e must take on the challenge of modernizing our governance system now.鈥�  PACE, which stands for, is a research center led by faculty at Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UCLA and USC.

A key and likely controversial recommendation would transfer control of the state Department of Education from the elected state superintendent of public instruction to the governor and the governor-appointed State Board of Education. The state schools superintendent, in turn, would become the independent ombudsman and 鈥渆lected chief champion for students.鈥� That shift in role would provide what鈥檚 been missing under the current system 鈥� an independent evaluator of the effectiveness of multibillion-dollar programs and school improvement efforts, the report says.   

Centralizing authority in the governor would clearly delineate lines of authority by answering a question that has confused Sacramento for decades: Who鈥檚 in charge of education and the bureaucracy that runs it? Is it the governor and the State Board of Education that sets policies such as academic standards, but doesn鈥檛 implement them? Or the state school superintendent, who is charged with running the Education Department and campaigns on policy changes without the statutory authority to enact them?

The California Department of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond could not be reached for immediate comment.

A long-standing debate

As far back as 1920, a report by a special legislative committee, called the Jones Report, argued that the 鈥渄ouble-headed system鈥� of competing authorities was counterproductive.

Proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the state superintendency have proven unpopular with voters, who may see the position as providing an independent voice. Four times between 1928 and 1968, voters defeated initiatives. One reason the idea hasn鈥檛 been proposed since is that the California Teachers Association, which has been a big campaign contributor to the last four state schools superintendents, would likely go all-out to defeat it. California is 1 of only 12 states that elect their state schools superintendent. 

CTA could not be reached for an immediate comment. 

The PACE report doesn鈥檛 endorse abolishing the office. Instead, since most of the state schools superintendent鈥檚 powers are defined by statute, it recommends rewriting statutes to redefine the job.

The report argues that shifting the authority over to the Department of Education presents the opportunity to better manage it. The state board would be charged with hiring a department director with expertise in education administration and management. If enacted, California would join 20 other states, including Massachusetts, New York and Florida, whose state boards of education choose their chief state school officers, the report noted. 

The current and previous state schools superintendents spanning three decades were previously legislators with no experience or showed an intense interest in running a large organization. Some had aspirations for higher office. The political nature of the positions 鈥渃reates incentives鈥� to overstate positive data and promising results 鈥渢hat raise visibility and public profile, whether to advance their reelection prospects or to position themselves for future opportunities,鈥� the report says.

Thurmond announced in September 2023, one year into his second four-year term, that he planned to run for governor in 2026. Three of the leading candidates to succeed Thurmond are a former Assembly speaker, the chair of the Assembly Education Committee and a former state senator.

Effective leadership is not CDE鈥檚 only problem. The PACE report reiterated , which found that the department is underfunded and understaffed for guiding the daunting challenges of guiding new multi-billion-dollar efforts, like after-school programs, and helping underperforming schools close gaps in achievement. The department has had problems attracting and retaining experts in various specialties.  One reason, the report said, is that the main source of funding for schools, Proposition 98, cannot be used for administration. It must come from the general fund, competing with Medi-Cal and higher education, the study said.

And so the Legislature and governors have resorted to workarounds to avoid the department, such as creating a new semi-independent agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, to work with underperforming school districts, the report said.

One unnamed expert told PACE, 鈥淚t becomes like this negative cycle or downward spiral where they don鈥檛 have the capacity to lead state-level work, so they don鈥檛 get the funds in the state budget because they鈥檙e not trusted to do a good job.鈥�

Marsh and her two co-authors, PACE Director of Policy Research Jeannie Myung, the lead author, and Heather Hough, senior policy and research fellow at PACE, interviewed 16 prominent education leaders and presented preliminary findings to 30 experts in education governance at a February 2025 convening.

The co-authors granted anonymity to the 16 experts so that they could speak freely. The report included sharply critical assessments.

Referring to an overall lack of strategic thinking that leaves districts feeling overwhelmed, one expert said, 鈥淭here are so many new shiny things that have incredible potential, but it feels a little like we are throwing spaghetti against the wall. We have community schools, expanded learning, teacher workforce initiatives, and all these things happening that have transformative potential. We have to think about: 鈥榃hat does it look like to implement them and learn to improve?鈥欌��

The 16 were asked to grade the effectiveness of state governance, based on a half-dozen key elements:

• Strategic thinking 鈥� Having a long-term vision for improvement
• Accountability 鈥� Establishing mechanisms for responsibility and continuous improvement
• Capacity 鈥� Ensuring聽people and institutions have the resources and training to do jobs effectively
• Knowledge 鈥� Providing data and research to inform decisions
• Engagement 鈥斅燬eeking diverse voices in the policymaking process to shape governance
• Whole-of-system perspective 鈥� Coordinating efforts throughout the system to achieve shared goals for students

The overall average grade of the 16 experts was 2.8 鈥� in between poor and fair.

This was originally published on .

As Texas schools face at least $600 million in federal funding cuts, multiple mental health programs, particularly those implemented in response to the pandemic and mass shootings, are at risk of losing funding.

School programs focused on chronic absenteeism, mental wellness and crisis services that were created in response to the Uvalde school shooting, as well as social workers and counselors, could all be on the chopping block.

Texas schools rely heavily on federal funding to support mental health programs. Data shows that two federal programs that are of being cut or account for 86% of the school mental health funding for more than 2,500 campuses statewide, according to Mental Health America of Greater Houston.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

Bracing also for the impending expiration of COVID-19 relief funding, school districts and advocacy groups this legislative session had pushed for more money through a dedicated funding source for school mental health, but lawmakers did not approve it.

Currently, such funding is combined with school safety in the so-called school safety allotment in the state school funding formula, and school districts tend to prioritize the allotment on school security.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to get into a situation where I am asking, do I hire a police officer or do I hire a counselor? I want them both,鈥� said Adrian Johnson, superintendent for the Hearne school district.

The funding cuts and lack of progress on getting a statewide dedicated funding stream for mental health comes at a time when g. The special legislative session starts July 21, but Gov. Greg Abbott has not assigned school mental health as a directive to lawmakers.

The funding crisis

Created in response to Uvalde, the federal helps fund two grant programs in Texas, the and the . The former implements mental health training and support in 60 high-needs districts and the latter helps 98 public school districts with case management tools that identify struggling students, as well as mental health personnel.

Almost three years later, the Safer Communities Act is losing over $1 billion spread across the country. Funds that were supposed to last until 2027 are expected to dry up by the end of this year.

This cut puts programs like , which deploys evidence-based mental health resources in three Central Texas school districts, at risk. The state homed in on those school districts because of their higher rates of community impacts from the pandemic and high rates of population growth.

The cut to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is just one in a series of proposed changes to federal funding for public education that will impact how mental health is addressed in schools.

According to an analysis from the , the freezing of five other federal programs that support public schools are expected to result in the withholding of approximately $600 million from Texas, more than 16.1% of the state鈥檚 federal K-12 funding. These funds have been used for a variety of services such as English language instruction and literacy, but also after school programs and summer programs focused on mental wellness.

Medicaid and CHIP are also facing cuts in the federal spending bill passed earlier this month, and both provide each year to school districts and local mental health authorities, enabling them to hire and retain mental health providers, offer preventive mental health screenings, and support students with disabilities using specialized services.

Separately, COVID-19 funds are set to expire this year t, forcing some smaller schools to lay off staff or find alternative ways to keep the social workers and counselors hired during the pandemic.

The confluence of these cuts come as Texas lawmakers missed opportunities to properly fund school mental health this year.

During the legislative session that ended in June, Texas lawmakers agreed on a robust that adds $8.5 billion to the state鈥檚 public school system. However, most of it has been earmarked for teacher pay; with roughly $250 million being set aside for school support staff and mental health support staff are not necessarily included in the pay raise.

Over 70% of the schools that sustainable funding for school-based mental health staff and professional school counselors was the main barrier to having adequate resources to address student mental health needs, according to a survey of 2,690 schools by the .

鈥淲e are hopeful that this will translate to more dollars for mental health. But without any legislation currently earmarking those dollars, that is not a guarantee,鈥� Rebecca Fowler, the director of public policy and government affairs at Mental Health America of Greater Houston, said about the new school funding.

In 2023, wrote to the Texas Legislature, urging the creation and funding of a separate 鈥渟tudent mental health allotment鈥� because programs were not reaching enough students.

Only 13% of schools used the school safety allotment for mental health supports, according to the

by Rep. , D-Dallas, attempted to secure dedicated mental health funds, but it did not pass this year.

鈥淯ncertainty around different funding streams makes it hard to navigate these conversations about the future of mental health and young people,鈥� said Kate Murphy, director of child protection policy for Texans Care for Children.

Changing conversations

After the devastating school shootings in Uvalde and Santa Fe compelled lawmakers to prioritize mental health, such support has waned in the last few years. Mental health advocates have pointed the blame at the culture war happening in the Capitol, namely that lawmakers have suggested mental health programs in schools are diagnosing children and reinforcing LGBTQ identities without parental consent.

For example, by Sen. , R-Brenham, would have required parental consent for any psychological or psychiatric examination, testing, or treatment conducted on a student by a school employee. The bill had eight senators as sponsors, and although it died in the less conservative Texas House, it demonstrates the shift in the legislative conversation surrounding school mental health.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there is a uniform understanding of the role of behavioral health in public schools. Who should be providing support? When should support happen?鈥� Seth Winick, director of the , said.

Johnson, the Hearne superintendent, said he understands parents鈥� concerns but says schools are the best place to address mental health issues for Texas families who might not have the income or time to schedule mental health services. Until a better solution is proposed, school mental health needs support, he said.

鈥淲e have students pre-K through 12 sitting in the school system for 180 plus days a year, and we should take advantage of that by not only giving them a strong educational foundation but a strong mental health foundation,鈥� he said.

What does the future hold?

Without federal funding support, school districts will have to get creative in addressing mental wellness within their walls.

Johnson said his school district is focusing on partnerships not only with local mental health authorities and health agencies, but also with other school districts. He said his district shares staff and cut costs by joining in on a special education cooperative with four other districts and can be modeled in other parts of the state.

鈥淲e have 700 kids, a neighboring district might have 600 kids, and another district may have 150; we have to learn to work together to help lower some of the costs during these budget cuts.鈥�

Collaboration is necessary, Johnson said, but even that is at risk under current funding restrictions.

Some schools are unable to expand partnerships with programs like , which directly works with students to provide mental health support and address chronic absenteeism.

鈥淐IS is currently serving two campuses in our district, but we would definitely expand to have CIS serve all of our campuses if we had a state funded allotment that would help the district provide the matching funding that is needed to partner with CIS,鈥� Chris Smith, superintendent of the Brownfield school district, said. 鈥淲e just don鈥檛 have the funding available.鈥�

Rural and smaller schools also face laying off social workers and psychologists hired during the pandemic and eliminating programs to ensure they can retain teachers through raises instead.

鈥淲e are adopting a budget this year that鈥檚 probably going to have a $2 million deficit. We are dedicated to making sure mental health services are available and luckily have been able to sustain through partnerships, but it has been tough times with the economy, and schools are struggling to keep up with costs,鈥� Smith said.

The endless loop of putting mental health on the back burner until tragedy hits is unsustainable, according to education advocates, who say it鈥檚 time for funding dedicated to school mental health.

鈥淚 would like to have funding similar to what they said with police officers. You have to have a police officer on every campus, but that costs money yearly, and they provide. We should be doing the same with social workers and psychologists,鈥� Johnson said.

Disclosure: Texans Care for Children has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete .

This article originally appeared in ,聽a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.