AB 2117 amends Education Code Sections 33111, 33112, and 33113 to replace the statutory title “Superintendent of Public Instruction” with “Secretary of Education,” update pronouns to gender‑neutral language, and keep the same enumerated duties. The bill does not alter the substantive duties listed in those sections: executing State Board policies, superintending the schools, authenticating official documents, binding state reports, delivering office records at term end, appointing deputies under Government Code Section 7.9, and entering contracts with federal agencies.
Why it matters: on its face, the bill is a targeted retitling, but that simplicity masks practical and legal work. Retitling will require dozens of conforming edits across California law, administrative materials, contracts, and grant documents; it raises questions about continuity with constitutional language that still refers to the elected Superintendent; and it creates short‑term administrative costs and potential legal ambiguity around authority, signature blocks, and file filings unless implementing details are resolved.
At a Glance
What It Does
Replaces the statutory office title “Superintendent of Public Instruction” with “Secretary of Education” in three Education Code sections and switches to gender‑neutral pronouns. It leaves the listed duties and authorities unchanged.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, county offices of education, school districts, contract and grant administrators, and state legal counsel who must update statutes, forms, seals, and delegations of authority.
Why It Matters
A seemingly cosmetic retitling creates a chain of downstream updates (statutes, regs, contracts, signage) and a legal tension because the California Constitution still recognizes the Superintendent as an elected officer—potentially creating inconsistency and transitional ambiguity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2117 performs a narrow but consequential edit to state statute: it changes the name used in three Education Code provisions from “Superintendent of Public Instruction” to “Secretary of Education” and standardizes pronouns to they/their. The bill does not add or remove duties in those sections; instead it relabels the office that holds longstanding statutory responsibilities — executing State Board of Education policies, superintending public schools, preparing forms, authenticating documents with an official seal, having certain materials bound at the state bindery, turning over office records at term end, appointing deputies under Government Code Section 7.9, and negotiating arrangements with federal agencies.
Because the changes are limited to the Education Code, implementation will be chiefly administrative and legal. State and local education offices will need to update letterheads, web presence, forms and teacher certificates, internal delegations of authority, and signature blocks on contracts and federal grant documents.
The Secretary of State filings referenced for deputy appointments remain important: the statute preserves the mechanism that makes deputy appointments effective upon filing, so agencies must preserve the current filing practices while changing the office name used on those filings.The bill also creates an orphaned statutory/constitutional issue: the California Constitution and other statutes outside the three amended sections continue to refer to an elected Superintendent. Because AB 2117 does not amend constitutional language or provide transition rules, it leaves open whether the change is purely stylistic (a label swap) or the start of a larger reorganization requiring conforming amendments and possible constitutional change.
That uncertainty affects counsel, grant administrators, and anyone relying on the statutory name in binding documents.Finally, the text carries a few drafting quirks (minor duplicated phrases and mixed tense/pronoun forms corrected to they/their) and no transitional provisions for contracts, seals, or regulatory citations. Absent follow‑on conforming legislation or administrative guidance, the practical tasks — replacing seals and forms, updating regulatory language, and reviewing existing contracts for signature‑name mismatches — will fall to the State Department of Education and its local partners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2117 replaces the phrase “Superintendent of Public Instruction” with “Secretary of Education” in Education Code Sections 33111, 33112, and 33113.
The bill preserves the statutory duties in those sections: executing State Board policies, superintending schools, preparing forms, authenticating documents with an official seal, binding reports, and turnover of office records.
Section 33112(f) continues the existing mechanism allowing the chief officer to designate deputies and makes those appointments effective when filed in writing in the Secretary of State’s office under Government Code Section 7.9.
The text modernizes pronouns throughout the amended sections to they/their, replacing gendered references without changing any substantive authorities.
AB 2117 amends only the Education Code; it does not amend constitutional provisions that refer to an elected Superintendent, creating a legal mismatch that the bill does not resolve.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Execute State Board policies — retitle the office
This amendment substitutes the statutory title “Secretary of Education” for “Superintendent of Public Instruction” in the clause that directs the chief officer to execute State Board policies and direct board employees. Mechanically, the section leaves the board‑directed execution and supervisory duties intact. Practically, this single‑line change means any statute, regulation, or contract that cites Section 33111 by name or by office title will need review for consistency; it also affects how the officer is referenced in administrative orders and public communications.
Enumerated administrative duties and deputy appointments
This longer section lists the officer’s operational powers: superintending the schools, preparing and distributing official forms (including teachers’ certificates), authenticating drafts and orders with the office seal, binding important reports at the state bindery, turning over office property at term end, and designating deputies. The bill keeps those powers verbatim while swapping the title and switching to gender‑neutral pronouns. A consequential clause preserved here is the appointment mechanism under Government Code Section 7.9, which makes deputy appointments effective on filing with the Secretary of State; agencies will need to continue that practice and update the name on the filing documents. The section also retains an annual notification duty to local governing boards, which means local education agencies must track the retitled office when complying with notification requirements.
Authority to contract with federal agencies — updated signing authority
This provision authorizes the office to prescribe rules for contracting with federal agencies for funds, services, commodities, or equipment for state‑jurisdiction schools. By changing the office title, the bill alters the statutory signatory and contracting authority name used in state regulations and grant agreements. Contract managers and federal grant administrators will need to confirm that existing agreements either remain valid despite the name change or are amended to reflect the new statutory title; failing to do so could create administrative delays or require ministerial amendments to grant paperwork.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Advocates for modernized government language — gain a statutory title that aligns with contemporary, cabinet‑style nomenclature and the bill’s gender‑neutral pronoun usage.
- Officials and staff who prefer a cabinet‑style title — the new title can simplify communications where 'Secretary' is more immediately understood by external partners and federal counterparts.
- Organizations that push for inclusive language — the explicit swap to they/their reduces gendered language in statute and may ease compliance with agency style policies.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Department of Education — will absorb administrative expenses to update letterhead, websites, signage, seals, internal delegations, and standard forms; legal staff must review existing authorities and contracts for conformity.
- County offices of education and school districts — required to revise locally held forms, policies, and references to the chief state education officer and coordinate with the state on any template changes.
- Contract and grant administrators — must review federal and state contracts and grants that reference the old title to avoid signature or delegation disputes; some agreements may need formal amendments.
- State legal offices (Attorney General/Law Revision Commission/Lawyers for agencies) — will need to identify and draft conforming statutory and regulatory updates across the codes to prevent inconsistent references and potential litigation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic modernization versus legal continuity: retitling the state's chief education officer and updating to gender‑neutral language advances contemporary administrative style, but doing so in select statutes without addressing constitutional language or providing transitional rules risks creating legal, contractual, and administrative uncertainty that could impair continuity of authority and increase short‑term costs.
The bill is narrowly drafted and limited to three Education Code sections, which is both its strength and its weakness. Strength: a precise edit avoids sweeping structural change and preserves existing statutory duties.
Weakness: because the California Constitution and many other statutes still refer to an elected 'Superintendent of Public Instruction,' the targeted retitling produces a patchwork of references that can create legal ambiguity about the office’s identity and authority. The bill contains no transitional language to govern how existing contracts, seals, certificates, and filings should be treated—leaving implementation decisions to the Department of Education and state counsel.
Operationally, the change triggers a nontrivial administrative clean‑up: every cross‑reference to the old title in the codes, regulations, grant documents, and contracts needs review. There is also a practical risk in signature and filing chains: federal grantors and third parties often rely on the exact statutory name for signatory authority, and deputy appointment filings with the Secretary of State must be coordinated to preserve continuity of authority.
Finally, the bill contains minor drafting artifacts (duplicate phraseology and mixed tense/pronoun edits) that should be cleaned up in implementing legislation or technical corrections to avoid confusion during enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.