AB2225 - Education governance: Education Commissioner: reporting.

Amended IN Senate August 27, 2026 Amended IN Senate August 13, 2026 Amended IN Senate June 17, 2026 Amended IN Assembly May 18, 2026 Amended IN Assembly April 13, 2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 2225 Introduced by Assembly Members Patel, Garcia, Muratsuchi, and Ransom February 19, 2026 An act to add Chapter 6.2 (commencing with Section 52090) to Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to pupil achievement. amend Section 1 of Chapter 66 of the Statutes of 2026, relating to education governance. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2225, as amended, Patel. Pupil achievement: State Education Alignment and Impact Plan. Education governance: Education Commissioner: reporting. Commencing January 1, 2027, existing law vests all executive and administrative functions of the State Department of Education in an Education Commissioner. Existing law requires the Education Commissioner, on or before October 1, 2027, to develop findings and recommendations for a 2nd phase of education governance consolidation and streamlining, as specified, and to submit to the Governor and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature (1) an interim report, by June 30, 2027, with a detailed description of the process used to gather required input for the development of those findings and recommendations and (2) a final report, by October 1, 2027, containing its findings and recommendations. This bill would require the Education Commissioner, utilizing those findings and recommendations, to submit a report, on or before October 1, 2028, to the Governor and appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature on, among other things, progress toward implementation of the recommended actions or activities for education governance consolidation and streamlining and recommendations of any additional steps the Governor and Legislature can take to consolidate or eliminate fragmented or duplicative state requirements and activities that require statutory or budgetary authority. Existing law establishes the State Board of Education and requires the state board to study educational conditions and needs of the state and to make plans for the improvement of the administration and efficiency of the public schools of the state. Existing law establishes the State Department of Education under the administration of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and assigns to the department numerous responsibilities relating to the governance of the public elementary and secondary schools in the state. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before October 1, 2027, to convene a working group consisting of 6 specified members to develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature, on or before October 1, 2028, a plan, to be known as the State Education Alignment and Impact Plan, that includes, among other things, specific goals and benchmarks for the state to support school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools in closing achievement gaps. The bill would require the Superintendent, on or before November 1, 2027, to convene a stakeholder advisory group that is inclusive and representative of the diversity of the state, as provided, to solicit feedback and input during the development of the State Education Alignment and Impact Plan. The bill would encourage specified committees of the Legislature, on or before March 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to evaluate the state’s progress in meeting the goals and benchmarks established in the State Education Alignment and Impact Plan. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1 of Chapter 66 of the Statutes of 2026 is amended to read: SECTION 1. In regard to Sections 2 to 95, inclusive, of this act: (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Each child is a unique person, with unique needs, and the purpose of the educational system of this state is to enable each child to develop all of their own potential, as set forth in Section 33080 of the Education Code. (2) In order to support schools, administrators, teachers, and school staff in pursuing this goal, California’s state education agencies need to provide clear, coherent direction and assistance. (3) Studies, research reports, legislative recommendations, and court rulings going back over a century have lamented California’s irrational governance structure that lacks coherence. (4) In 1919, the State Department of Education’s “Blue Bulletin” publication predicted conflict between the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education that would be disastrous to educational leadership in the state. A year later, the Legislature issued a responsive report identifying the double-headed governance system as a primary problem of the education system. (5) Further, in 1963, the California Attorney General opined: “This analysis of the respective powers and duties of the State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction once again underscores the long-recognized problem existing in this area. It would be fruitless here to discourse upon the difficulty of requiring a policy-making board appointed by the Governor to have its policies carried out by and through an individual who is elected by the people.” (6) In 2002, the Legislature’s Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education produced a California Master Plan for Education that again recognized that “California’s K–12 education system is governed by a fragmented set of entities with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of educational services offered to students” and recommended assigning management of the State Department of Education to a cabinet-level appointee of the Governor. (7) In 2007, the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence Technical Report found that “State-level educational roles currently are divided among many different entities without any underlying rationale, often with extensive overlap and conflicts of interest. Not surprisingly, such a system precludes meaningful accountability. Not only are local educators not effectively supported by the state, these state-level conflicts—or even the semblance thereof—impede local effectiveness when the direction given by the state is seen as unclear.” (8) Most recently, the coauthor of TK–12 Education Governance in California: Past, Present, and Future, a report released in December 2025 by Policy Analysis for California Education, concluded “California can no longer postpone reforms that have been overdue for a century. We must take on the challenge of modernizing our governance system now.” (9) Accordingly, aligning the administrative and management functions of the State Department of Education under the State Board of Education that serves as the “governing and policy determining body of the department” pursuant to Section 33301 of the Education Code would enable greater coherence and accountability for pursuing the purpose of the state’s educational system to support all pupils in reaching their full potential. (b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to streamline and strengthen state governance of California’s transitional kindergarten through grade 12 education system under the State Board of Education to improve the delivery of education to California’s public education pupils, and to empower the Superintendent of Public Instruction to foster needed alignment and coordination of education policies from early childhood through postsecondary education with new governing board roles and responsibilities. (2) It is further the intent of the Legislature to continue to review codes and statutes to ensure that necessary statutory references are updated as part of subsequent legislation to align with the changes in roles, responsibilities, and reporting structures pursuant to this act. (c) (1) No later than October 1, 2027, the Education Commissioner shall develop findings and recommendations for a second phase of education governance consolidation and streamlining. (2) In developing the findings and recommendations, the Education Commissioner shall establish and implement a process to gather input from Members of the Assembly and Senate and their staff, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and affected interest holders. (3) The findings and recommendations shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (A) Identification of early education and transitional kindergarten through grade 12 public education support entities and programs operating outside of the department, including state entities, county offices of education and their contracted roles, including serving as regional and statewide leads, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, and the Office of Civil Rights. (B) Recommendations for actions and activities necessary for a second phase of education governance consolidation and streamlining, including the evaluation of all entities that have authority over, or provide statewide support to, early education and transitional kindergarten through grade 12 programs, and how they might be organized to support improved child and pupil outcome more efficiently and effectively. (C) Recommendations, developed in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for refining the scope of responsibilities of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction with a particular focus on prioritizing the Superintendent’s role as the independently elected nonpartisan voice for the public interest in the governance of the state’s educational systems, by: (i) Fostering alignment and coordination of education policies through active engagement and thoughtful leadership on state boards, committees, and commissions covering early childhood through postsecondary education. (ii) Representing the public interest through advocacy with the Legislature and the Governor on areas of high public concern and recommendations for addressing identified challenges. (iii) Reporting to the Legislature on the condition of education based on statewide engagement and travel to identify significant trends, challenges, and emerging issues. (iv) Ensuring independent evaluation of existing educational laws and programs as directed by the Legislature, including through review and approval of the scope of program evaluations to be contracted through the department or a local educational agency and the selection of independent program evaluators. (v) Leveraging the Superintendent’s independence from the executive branch to enhance the Legislature’s ability to perform oversight of the state’s education system, while maintaining clear lines of authority and accountability within the governance structure. (D) A recommended long-term fiscal plan, developed in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Department of Finance, to provide the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction with adequate staffing and resources to support established and recommended responsibilities. (4) The Education Commissioner shall submit an interim report by June 30, 2027, with a detailed description of the process used to gather input pursuant to paragraph (2), and then, by October 1, 2027, a final report containing its findings and recommendations, to the Governor and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code. (d) Utilizing the findings and recommendations developed pursuant to subdivision (c), the Education Commissioner shall submit a report, on or before October 1, 2028, to the Governor and appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code, on all of the following: (1) Progress toward implementation of the recommended actions or activities for education governance consolidation and streamlining, including evaluation of how implementation is contributing to increased efficiency, transparency, and accountability, and how it is supporting improved child and pupil outcomes, with a particular focus on improving outcomes for lower-performing pupil subgroups. (2) Identifying how the State Department of Education is implementing recommendations to the extent possible under existing statutory and budgetary authority. (3) Identifying state actions and activities of all entities that have authority over, or provide statewide support to, early education and any of transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, that can be consolidated, streamlined, or eliminated in pursuit of the recommendations and improved child and pupil outcomes, with a particular focus on improving outcomes for lower-performing pupil subgroups. (4) Recommendations of any additional steps the Governor and Legislature can take to consolidate or eliminate fragmented or duplicative state requirements and activities that require statutory or budgetary authority. SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) The current rate of growth of pupil academic achievement is insufficient, and it is the intent of the Legislature to help local educational agencies accelerate achievement by establishing reciprocal accountability at the state level. (2) Pupil achievement remains below prepandemic levels, and stark achievement gaps between pupil groups have been persistent over the years. (3) Although the state has instituted numerous programs and provided important funding for various public education programs, the state needs a unified strategy at the state level that aligns its branches of government, agencies, departments, programs, and funding and promotes state-level accountability while ensuring the necessary capacity for policy implementation. (4) There are numerous state entities that play a role in the state’s public education system, including the Governor, the Legislature, the State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Department of Education, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, the California Health and Human Services Agency, and other state agencies and departments. All of these entities play an important role in the state’s education system, each with independent missions, duties, and objectives. (5) The absence of coordinated state operations and support for these entities leads to unnecessary duplication, misalignment, and conflicts that create obstacles for local educational agencies and hinder the state’s ability to close achievement gaps. (6) When state leaders work together, California can create a more accountable public education infrastructure that is capabl [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]