Governor Newsom seeks to centralize power in proposed California education overhaul

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a major restructuring of the state’s education system that would strip management authority from the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Under the plan, control would shift to the State Board of Education, a body appointed by the governor. The proposal aims to streamline governance for nearly 6 million students.

The administration introduced the plan within a budget bill, citing reports that highlight complexity and overlapping responsibilities in the current management structure.

State Superintendent Tony Thurmond voiced strong opposition to the move, noting that he was not consulted on the plan. Thurmond, who is currently running for governor, argued the proposal removes power from an official California voters specifically elected to lead the state’s public schools.

Newsom’s proposal is supported by a recent report from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). The inter-university policy institute had previously called for a similar shift in state education governance.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposal marks more than a mere administrative overhaul; it is a calculated push to consolidate authority over the largest public education system in the United States. At its core, the move pits two competing governance philosophies against one another: California’s legacy of decentralized authority—steered by an independently elected State Superintendent—versus an executive-led model that grants the governor direct control through appointed bodies.

The Newsom administration, supported by findings from policy groups such as PACE, argues that the current framework is too fragmented and redundant to ensure clear accountability. Proponents contend that unifying power under a governor-appointed Board of Education would create a more coherent and efficient apparatus. However, detractors—led by State Superintendent Tony Thurmond—have characterized the maneuver as a "power grab" that undermines the democratic will of voters who elected a separate representative to oversee education independent of the governor’s office.

The pivot point of this structural shift is ultimate accountability. By centralizing near-total authority, the executive branch effectively forfeits the ability to blame a fractured bureaucracy for California’s stagnating educational performance. With the futures of six million students at stake, the burden of results—whether triumph or failure—will now rest squarely on the governor’s desk.

For California’s large Vietnamese American community, these changes carry significant weight, as many families are deeply rooted in the state’s public school system. Consolidating authority under the governor could lead to more rapid policy shifts regarding curriculum, local school funding, and student support initiatives. Vietnamese parents will need to closely monitor how this new governance structure shapes educational quality and resource allocation in school districts with high concentrations of Vietnamese families, such as those serving Little Saigon and surrounding neighborhoods.