California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing strong criticism from education leaders and parents who accuse him of orchestrating an "undemocratic power play" through Assembly Bill 181. The legislation, passed as a budget trailer bill for the 2026–27 fiscal year, effectively strips day-to-day managerial authority from the state's independently elected Superintendent of Public Instruction and transfers it to a newly created position, the Education Commissioner, who will be appointed by and report directly to the governor.
Newsom defended the changes as necessary reforms to modernize the state's education governance. "Change has its enemies. I'm for change. I'm not arguing for the status quo," Newsom stated at a budget signing event. He added that the reforms aim to unify policymaking and implementation, bringing "greater accountability, clarity, and coherence" to the education system.
However, critics argue the move bypasses voters and weakens democratic accountability. Steve Campos, a former teacher and current school board member, expressed disappointment, stating that the bill undermines the will of voters who support parental rights. "Californians deserve the opportunity to elect someone who supports their values statewide," Campos said, expressing hope that the bill will be legally challenged.
Sonja Shaw, a candidate for state superintendent and president of the Chino Valley Unified School District board, called the legislation "the most brazen power grab in California history." Shaw, who has gained national attention for advocating parental notification policies regarding students' transgender identity, vowed to challenge AB 181 in court, asserting it violates the state constitution. She believes the timing of the bill is intended to preempt her potential victory in the upcoming November election, stating, "They know that when I’m elected, I will expose years of failure and mismanagement—so they’re trying to change the rules before the election."
Other education professionals share these concerns. Laura Markin, a high school English teacher with 20 years of experience, described the policy alignment as "wrong" and suggested the maneuver is designed to counter conservative momentum, partly fueled by dissatisfaction with the current superintendent's policies. She also criticized the lack of public transparency surrounding the bill's passage.
Lance Christensen, former candidate for state superintendent and Vice President of Government Affairs & Education Policy at the California Policy Center, characterized the move as a fear-based reaction to the potential election of a "sincere parents' rights advocate in Sonja Shaw." Christensen argued that the ethical path to neutralizing the superintendent's office would be a constitutional amendment put before voters, a route he believes legislators avoid because it has historically failed.
Current State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, while not on the ballot for governor himself, acknowledged that while governor involvement in education is positive, the method of enacting these changes was problematic. "The state superintendent position is approved by the voters, and I think that's the method in which the position should have been changed," Thurmond told ABC10. He added that the legislation creates an "extra layer of government," diminishing the role of the elected superintendent.
The California Department of Education did not immediately respond to requests for comment.