The prevailing response to this development has been to point the finger at local educational agencies, even though they are awash in mandates, audits, dashboards and reporting requirements imposed by the state. Yet, no comparable accountability measures exist to determine whether state-level programs and requirements are working as intended and whether its investments are being optimized to help local schools support student success.
This reality, unchanged for years, bred a sense of increasing frustration among education leaders at the local level and, ultimately, inspired a challenge to the status quo. CSBA’s SOS for Student Achievement: Close the State Accountability Gap campaign proposed a new model for education governance based on reciprocal accountability — where the state is responsible for the efficacy of its initiatives to the same degree that local schools are held accountable for student performance.
The idea of a state-focused accountability system had been germinating with CSBA’s CEO for years but was propelled forward in dramatic fashion in October 2024 when the state unveiled 2023–24 test score data it described as “especially encouraging” in its press release. That encouraging data showed less than half a percentage point gain in English language arts (ELA), less than one percentage point gain in mathematics, overall student performance languishing below pre-pandemic levels and the persistence of significant achievement gaps.
The cognitive dissonance created by the dismal results and the relentlessly optimistic framing presented by the state exacerbated existing frustrations in the education community and suggested the state wasn’t clear-eyed in acknowledging the facts on the ground or assessing its effort to support local schools. Recognizing the state needed to be held to account and that it would require a sustained effort beyond the normal channels of action in Sacramento, CSBA CEO & Executive Director Vernon M. Billy called education leaders to action during his November 2024 speech to the association’s Delegate Assembly at CSBA’s Annual Education Conference and Trade Show in Anaheim.
“We should not settle for state policies that work around the edges. We should be warriors for the fulfillment of our moral and academic contract with every California student to ensure they receive a high-quality education and particularly with those that are continually at the bottom of the proficiency scale,” he continued. “I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced that if this sameness is going to change into innovation and commitment by the state, we’ll need to be warriors for positive change. And with the will and strength of a warrior, we’ll need to fight for this change. We’ll need to fight to hold the state accountable for its actions that impact your ability to govern effectively and improve student achievement.”
CSBA Delegates responded to this rallying cry with a standing ovation and a campaign was born. But the hard work was just beginning. Billy recognized that a true cultural and systems change, particularly one that could upset vested interests, would require buy-in from across the education community. The presumption was that other statewide education associations would make for natural allies, given their members’ shared interest in more coherent and effective state support, more transparent and accountable state governance and less red tape and bureaucracy to distract from student support.
CSBA staff met with other statewide management associations through numerous meetings and conversations, but they ultimately did not take a position on the Close the State Accountability Gap bill package, indicating vague concerns about “unintended consequences,” which every piece of legislation carries with it. Convinced that the time is never right unless you create the opportunity, CSBA determined to make the path by walking it. The support of Delegates solidified the association’s resolve to pursue an aligned education system that truly supports local educational agencies in their mission to provide a high-quality education to every student.
At the time, Billy acknowledged that change in Sacramento is difficult, especially when dealing with entrenched interests that are quick to protect their turf and loath to modify systems and structures they have created. More evidence of this came during the State Board of Education’s March 2025 meeting when members criticized the academic performance categories of “Basic” and “Below Basic” and expressed a preference for terms including “minimal,” “emerging,” or “developing” they felt were more “encouraging.”
Convinced that more coherent and accountable state action — not Orwellian wordplay — was needed to improve the lot of California’s students, CSBA identified the need for a plan detailing how the various state agencies and departments related to education can work more collaboratively and effectively to support LEAs. This idea is premised on the fact that some of California’s greatest education challenges persist not because of a lack of effort, but rather due to a lack of coordination at the state level, a failure to appropriately consider the differing needs of California’s nearly 1,000 school districts and 58 county offices of education (COEs), and an absence of reciprocal accountability at the state level comparable to that experienced by local school districts and COEs.
To fill that void, CSBA’s launched the Close the State Accountability Gap campaign, which was designed as a multiyear effort, and the associated four-bill package in the 2026 legislative session. The goals of the campaign are to transform the state’s system of education governance into a more coherent, accountable and aligned state-level system that values outcomes over inputs and uses data-based outcomes to guide budget and policy decisions that will better support LEAs in closing achievement gaps.
“The Close the State Accountability Gap campaign is more than just a legislative effort,” Billy explained. “That is the most visible and tangible aspect of this work, but ultimately, we’re trying to shift the mindset that determines how the state operates and remove state barriers that inhibit local efforts to improve student outcomes. Over time, it has become clear that incremental efforts to rectify this shortcoming are hitting a wall and more dramatic action is needed to push California toward true reciprocal accountability. What we’re missing is a state governance structure that allows us to optimize those state investments and initiatives, make sure they’re aligned and that they are producing the desired results.”
To develop this approach, CSBA’s Research and Education Policy Development Department compared education governance approaches in states across the nation, engaged with university scholars on education and organizational management, collected feedback from school trustees and superintendents, met with other statewide education advocacy associations and state agencies, and delved further into the history of student performance and education governance in California. That research laid the groundwork for the four-bill Close the State Accountability Gap legislative package.
According to CSBA Legislative Director Chris Reefe, there are about 13 state entities that oversee California public education in some way, including the governor, Legislature, State Board of Education (SBE), State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), California Department of Education (CDE) and Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
“Although they all have the goal of improving student outcomes, they are not always aligned, which creates a compliance-oriented mindset, bureaucratic overlap, overwhelming administrative burdens and, at times, conflicting and contradictory guidance,” Reefe said. “Without a coherent and cohesive state-level operations and support plan that aligns state policy and funding and focuses on how the state can defragment itself, it cannot fulfill the role it needs to play in supporting school districts and county offices of education in closing achievement gaps.
“California needs a state-level plan for supporting — not dictating to — LEAs, with clear goals, benchmarks and annual performance targets for state action.” Reefe continued. “For too long, accountability has rested almost exclusively on school districts and county offices of education. The goal is reciprocal accountability in which state government and LEAs share responsibility for student performance.”
In practice, reciprocal accountability is not merely the act of the state providing intervention and support to LEAs. Reciprocal accountability in California should be a deeply embedded philosophy that permeates the state’s systems, policies, operations and budgeting. It is a long-term commitment to LEAs that, when the state requires something of them, they will provide every resource they need to meet that requirement. It is a call to eliminate fragmentation and incoherence in these state-level activities in an effort to better support the work of local districts and COE leaders. This type of accountability includes setting clear goals and expectations for its efforts to support LEAs, transparency about the effectiveness of its initiatives, feedback loops that incorporate critique from LEAs as part of a continuous improvement model and a commitment to uphold the same standards it sets for local school districts and COEs.
Despite sailing through previous legislative committees with broad, bipartisan support, in August, three of CSBA’s Close the State Accountability Gap bills were held in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, which effectively prevented these bills from moving forward in the last two weeks of the legislative session. However, the package’s flagship measure, AB 2225 (Patel, D-San Diego), passed out of the committee and and passed the Senate and Assembly floors. As of this writing, AB 2225 has been delivered to the Governor.
CSBA expressed disappointment over the Senate Appropriation Committee’s decision to hold several of the bills from its Close the State Accountability Gap legislative package in the suspense file, especially given the financial impact of the bills was extremely modest.
“The committee’s action does not change the need for meaningful reform to California’s fragmented system of state-level education governance, which must include the type of reciprocal accountability that CSBA has been advocating for this legislative session,” Billy said. “We recognize that our policy approach was a first of its kind in California, and that it often takes time for a new policy approach to take hold. We are hopeful that this will be the case here. We had a bold vision that required us to hold power to account and, by implication, question the decisions of those who are invested in and have done much to create the status quo. It was always going to be a challenge to encourage more risk-averse parties to take that leap and to convince the architects of the present system that a transformation is needed, but that’s the only way meaningful change occurs. The outcomes that motivated this campaign haven’t changed and neither have the solution California schools and students require, so this is not the end of our effort, it is just the beginning.”
Based on recent research, significant change is needed to transform California’s system of education governance into one that is fully accountable, coherent, transparent and rooted in continuous improvement as envisioned by the Close the State Accountability gap campaign. On May 7, Stanford University released a comprehensive research project, Getting Down to Facts III, that took a deep dive into all aspects and operations of public education in California. Among researchers’ key findings:
- Governance structures are fragmented, and policies have proliferated over time, often creating disconnected, contradictory and burdensome guidance to schools
- The state largely leaves LEAs to fend for themselves while requiring extensive planning and compliance monitoring
- Teacher shortages, uneven preparation, fragmented support for district staff and leadership instability make it difficult to deliver high-quality, coherent learning experiences at scale
Meanwhile, a December report summarized the findings of a working group convened last year by the CCEE to determine how effectively the Statewide System of Support’s current structure is supporting LEAs. It found that the system, including its layers of differentiated and direct technical assistance, is not working as intended.
“Districts face a proliferation of initiatives and compliance requirements that dilute focus on teaching and learning. Identification for assistance is unstable, overly broad, and confusing,” the CCEE report states. “Roles across state and county agencies remain fragmented, producing overlapping processes and unclear lines of authority. The quality and consistency of district support varies widely, and there is no clear statewide pathway for escalating intervention when persistent academic or governance dysfunction interferes with districts’ ability to serve students.”
AB 181 represents an important first step of defining lines of authority, but it does not create a transparent system for evaluating and documenting whether state actions are helping or hindering LEAs, or whether programs, initiatives and support structures are working as intended.
AB 2225 acts as an extension of AB 181 by taking a giant stride toward meaningful state accountability through the creation of a plan with goals and benchmarks for state action to improve support of LEAs.
Take North Cow Creek School District, a single-school district located in rural Palo Cedro in Northern California, which serves about 280 TK-8 students, for example. According to Superintendent-Principal Rob Effa, the school environment is positive, families are involved and the community values education.
Unfortunately, no amount of local goodwill can make up for a lack of state support or nuance in planning when it comes to implementing one-size-fits-all mandates.
“I do think it would be valuable for the powers that be to get a sense of what’s happening on the front lines,” said Rob Effa Superintendent-Principal in Shasta County’s North Cow Creek School District. “A good example would be the electric bus issue. Electric buses aren’t a bad idea, except when you get into the mountain areas and it just doesn’t work. Not only do [state policymakers] need to look at the impact of these plans, but also the impact on small and rural schools.”
The lack of nuance in developing state mandates isn’t one that only impacts smaller LEAs like North Cow Creek.
Effa noted that it’s not simply implementing new mandates that pose a challenge for small LEAs, but the often redundant and time-consuming reporting requirements that come with them.
“I’m not an opponent of accountability, but you do kind of wonder where does this accountability go? The reality of it is, right now we’re being asked to do too much compliance and that’s actually keeping me from being an instructional leader,” he said. “The one value of a small school like mine, I’m the superintendent-principal, so I have relationships with almost every student and they love to have relationships with their leader, but if I’m stuck behind my desk writing plans and being compliant, I’m not implementing the plans.”
According to Effa, working on those compliance documents has become a regular weekend activity as he tries to keep time open during the school days to actually interact with students, families and staff.
“The minutes that I’m spending writing plans or completing documents or filling mandates, that’s less time that I have to guide my instructors or work with my students,” he said.
“When it comes to issues of state guidance, reporting requirements, unfunded mandates and other compliance-oriented approaches, there are 13 different state entities involved in public education oversight — for LEAs, that is dizzying,” Reefe said. “What we are calling for is something far more fundamental — a comprehensive state-level operations and support plan with clear goals, benchmarks and annual performance targets for state action. The idea is to create an aligned, overarching strategy that supports LEAs in closing achievement gaps.”
“The signing of AB 181 and the presumptive passage of the remaining bill in CSBA’s Close the State Accountability Gap legislative package have jumpstarted the necessary conversations and actions to create better alignment and coherence at the state level,” CSBA CEO & Executive Director Billy said. “AB 2225 lays the cornerstone for more effective education governance and with a new administration, CSBA is prepared to build a system of reciprocal accountability on that foundation, one in which state government and LEAs share responsibility for student performance and where success is measured not by inputs, but by outcomes.”
→ AB 2149 (Garcia, D-San Bernardino), which would have required the Legislative Analyst’s Office to evaluate how well the state budget and its education policies align with the statewide plan.
→ AB 2514 (Ransom), which would have established a public accountability tool to track the state’s progress in implementing the state-level plan and to provide transparent data about whether state programs are helping improve student outcomes.
→ AB 2202 (Muratsuchi), which would have created a commission under the State Board of Education to monitor state programs and strengthen coordination across California’s education system.