Should California's Superintendent of Public Instruction be Elected or Appointed?

The head of the Department of Education has long been an elected position despite multiple attempts to make it an appointed one. Is now the time to make the shift?

Update: While I haven’t posted new articles in the past few weeks, I have been busy rolling out The California Quest in other formats. You can now watch The California Quest debates on YouTube or listen to The California Quest podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Google Podcasts.

This week we’re also trying something a little different: sharing a slimmed-down video version and a link to the podcast in case you’d prefer to listen. Please subscribe if you’re enjoying The California Quest.

---

Argument in Brief

Should California's Superintendent of Public Instruction be Elected or Appointed?

Case For:

• The SPI doesn't have much authority anyway

• An appointed SPI would coordinate better with the governor

• An appointed SPI would likely be more qualified

• Voters don't know about the SPI role or the candidates to make informed decisions

Case Against:

• Changing it to an elected position steals a vote and voice from parents

• It would reduce the SPI's ability to use the "bully pulpit" to influence education priorities

• The SPI could slow down or obstruct the agenda of the State Board of Education and/or the governor's agenda

If you’d prefer, you can listen on the following platforms:

• Spotify

• Apple

What do you think?