California superintendent – California’s superintendent candidates outlined plans for closing achievement gaps, setting AI guardrails and protecting LGBTQ+ students ahead of the June 2 primary.
A crowded field of candidates vying to lead California’s public instruction agency used two virtual forums this week to lay out priorities that touch daily classroom realities—learning gaps, new technology and student protections.
With six weeks left before voters head to the polls for the June 2 primary. the race for California Superintendent of Public Instruction has not produced a clear front-runner.. Misryoum notes that the next superintendent role carries outsized influence because it helps shape the direction for nearly 6 million students across the state.
Achievement gaps dominate the agenda
Achievement gaps—between racial and ethnic groups and between low-income and higher-income students—were the central challenge candidates returned to. even though they offered different pathways.. Newman argued for curriculum consistency, maintaining standards across districts rather than treating academic expectations as optional.. He also emphasized two practical levers: making sure teachers can afford to live where they work and tackling chronic absenteeism by re-engaging students and bringing them back.
Muratsuchi connected the problem to early childhood.. He pointed to his role in passing California’s Local Control Funding Formula and said the funding approach has helped. while stressing the need for more support before students reach kindergarten.. In his view, closing the gap requires “quality child care” and preschool access regardless of income.
Barrera framed the gap issue through graduation readiness and course-taking.. He described changes he supported in San Diego Unified. saying that when he joined the board. fewer than half of students overall—and far fewer Black and Latino students—were graduating having completed the A–G sequence required for admission to California’s public universities.. Misryoum highlights that he tied progress to raising expectations for A–G access across the student population. arguing it can translate into improved outcomes.
AI in classrooms: guardrails, skills and teacher control
Artificial intelligence surfaced as the second major theme, with candidates converging on the idea that AI needs rules—not just enthusiasm. Several called for guardrails to protect learning quality and reduce unintended harm.
Shaw said she worries AI may weaken students’ critical thinking and advocated for more research. including creating a dedicated group to study classroom use.. Henderson took a different tack. warning that students should learn how to work with AI rather than avoid it. because future careers will likely be shaped by rapid technological change.
Rendon argued that the key question is who gets to steer AI policy.. He described New York as a model where teachers are positioned as “front and center” in classroom discussions about AI. and said California should follow suit so guidance does not flow only from administrative offices.. Misryoum interprets the teacher-centered emphasis as a response to a broader concern in education systems: when technology policy is designed without day-to-day practitioners. implementation often becomes uneven or performative.
A superintendent’s role matters here because AI decisions tend to cascade—into curriculum guidance, instructional expectations, and staff training.. The forums’ focus suggests candidates understand that the next superintendent may have to balance innovation and risk at the same time. while also resisting the temptation to treat AI as a one-size-fits-all add-on.
LGBTQ+ protections and the politics of school climate
The forums also brought sharply different views about how California should make schools safer for LGBTQ+ students. Candidates discussed policies including the SAFETY Act, a 2024 law prohibiting districts from requiring staff to disclose a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Barrera said California’s legal protections are in place but argued that implementation can vary by district. He described San Diego Unified partnering with Equality California and referenced recognition for efforts related to sexual health education curriculum and anti-bullying programs.
Shaw challenged that framing. accusing Barrera and San Diego Unified of financial mismanagement and saying money was being directed toward “ideologies” rather than student needs.. She also raised concerns about whether some students feel safe in school spaces like locker rooms and athletics.. Misryoum notes that the exchange underscores a larger reality in school policy debates: LGBTQ+ support is rarely discussed only as a legal issue—it is treated by many families as a question of lived safety and trust.
Barrera responded to Shaw’s claims by emphasizing estimates of transgender students in California and pointing to a cease-and-desist notice related to allegations of cyberbullying. His remarks also criticized what he described as divisive leadership.
These moments in the forums did more than signal differences in values; they previewed how the superintendent could influence guidance. training and district-level interpretations of state laws.. In a state as large and diverse as California. Misryoum expects that the superintendent’s communication style—especially during contentious disputes—may affect whether students experience policies as protection or as conflict.
Restructuring the state education department draws unified resistance
Another high-stakes topic was Gov.. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to move control of the California Department of Education away from the superintendent and toward the governor and the State Board of Education.. Misryoum emphasizes that opposition was broad across candidates, though each described different stakes behind the objection.
Shaw argued that voters elect the superintendent for a constitutional role. calling the seat “constitutional” and therefore not something leadership can be sidelined through an administrative shift.. Barrera similarly said California voters have previously rejected initiatives that would eliminate the elected superintendent position. framing the proposal as an “end-around” that bypasses voter authority.
Newman suggested the change would reduce accountability, while Muratsuchi described the superintendent as part of a system of checks and balances. Rendon delivered the sharpest criticism, calling the idea “awful” and linking the proposal to concerns about democracy.
Even without all candidates responding on every point, the shared stance against restructuring suggests that education governance—who has power and who must answer to voters—may become as decisive as curriculum details in the campaign narrative.
For families and educators. these forums offered a glimpse of how the next superintendent might approach three intertwined challenges: persistent achievement gaps. the fast-moving impact of AI on instruction. and the need to maintain safe. inclusive school climates.. With no clear frontrunner. the primary may ultimately turn on which set of priorities voters trust most to deliver results without widening divides.
Meta-analyses rank instructional math strategies—what actually works
Global competency can be measured through peer-connected learning