These days, California is usually the state where systemic reform efforts go to die. Over the past four years, traditionalists led by the affiliates of the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers have succeeded in rendering the Democrat-controlled state legislature servile, and putting the kibosh to teacher quality reforms such as Senate Bill 1530, which would have made it easier to fire teachers accused and convicted of criminal abuse of children. Thanks to their success in returning once-and-future governor Jerry Brown to the state’s top executive post, traditionalists have also succeeded in stopping efforts at providing families, schools, researchers, and policymakers with high-quality data on student progress, as well as ending efforts to use objective student test score growth data in evaluating teacher performance. Last year’s move by Brown to effectively eviscerate accountability through the signing of Assembly Bill 484 was the high-water mark for traditionalists who oppose any effort to hold districts and laggard teachers responsible for their failures in helping children succeed.
So reformers can’t help but be surprised by the results in yesterday’s primary for state superintendent. The fact that incumbent Tom Torlakson didn’t get enough votes to avoid a run-off election in November against former Green Dot Public Schools boss Marshall Tuck offers reformers an opportunity to bring the Golden State back on the path to transforming education for all of its children.
Certainly reformers must keep in mind that Tuck still has a tough road ahead. After all, Torlakson still managed to garner 47 percent of the vote thanks in part to the efforts of the NEA affiliate, the California Teachers Association, which spent $3.6 million (including $1.6 million to an independent expenditure committee the union, along with the national AFT and its state affiliate, has formed) on his behalf. Given the high stakes, the NEA’s national office will surely toss in a few million dollars to help Torlakson out the same way it spent $5 million two years ago to help pass Prop. 30 (which raised $50 billion in new taxes) and defeat Prop. 32 (which would have ended the ability of teachers’ unions to force teachers to pay dues into its coffers). So will the national AFT, which has already poured $50,000 into the independent committee backing Torlakson.
There’s also the fact that Tuck is a relative newcomer to political campaigning. While the one-time aide to former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has run a strong campaign so far, he lacks the natural advantages of incumbency that Torlakson, a former state senator, has at his disposal. This includes being able to cash in on the favors he has done for labor unions who dominate the Golden State Democratic Party’s activist core, as well as rally support from incumbents in the state legislature, who will naturally be pressed by the NEA and AFT to lend him a hand. Sure, Tuck’s 795,419 vote total is impressive, especially given that it is 57,387 more votes than that garnered by former state Sen. Gloria Romero in the primary four years ago, and just a few thousand votes less than what Torlakson gained in that same election. But Tuck wants to win, he will have to outwork and outspend Torlakson over the next five months.
Yet there are plenty of reasons why Tuck can oust Torlakson as the Golden State’s top schools chief. And if Tuck, along with his fellow reformers, take some important steps (including in rallying grassroots support), sending Torlakson and his traditionalist allies packing can become a reality.
Let’s remember this fact: California’s reversal on systemic reform is only a recent occurrence. For most of the previous two decades, the Golden State has been as much a hotbed for reform as Indiana, Florida, and Texas. Twenty-three years ago, it was the second state in the nation to allow for the existence of public charter schools; today, California is home to 1,069 charters — 17 percent of all charter schools operating in the nation — accounting for 10.7 percent of all public schools in the state, according to data from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Even with the successful effort of districts and traditionalists to kibosh the ability of the state Board of Education to authorize charters, the sector remains vibrant as more families look to escape failure mills and warehouses of mediocrity that serve their children poorly.
Five years ago, California helped spark the modern Parent Power movement by passing the nation’s first Parent Trigger law. Despite efforts by the NEA and AFT (along with districts), families have successfully used the laws to force the overhaul of failing schools in the neighbors in which they live. Last month, families of children attending West Athens Elementary School in the City of Angeles proved the value of Parent Trigger laws in helping them gain lead decision-making roles in education when they struck a deal with L.A. Unified to help them gain $300,000 in new funding from the district for school services as well as stronger roles in implementing Common Core reading and math standards.
But the benefits of the state’s Parent Trigger law go beyond just allowing families to lead the overhaul of schools. Because the law also involves families becoming active in education politics, they also get involved in spurring reform on the ground. This was seen two years ago in Adelanto, Calif., during the successful effort by families of kids attending the former Desert Trails Elementary to take over the school. That campaign led to another successful push — this time, to oust two Adelanto district board members who helped lead the opposition to the takeover initiative.
The fact that families have embraced choice and Parent Power so wholeheartedly even amid strong opposition from traditionalists shows that reformers can make a strong case for transforming public education. Latino families whose children now make up the majority of the state’s student population, along with those from immigrant households, recognize that high-quality education is key to their long-term success in becoming part of the nation’s economic mainstream. That the Golden State’s traditional public schools are still performing abysmally in improving student achievement for all kids (including the fact that 42 percent of fourth-graders reading Below Basic on the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (versus just 33 percent of children nationwide), also gives reformers ammunition.
Meanwhile Torlakson, along with Brown and affiliates of the NEA and AFT, have also given reformers plenty of evidence to support their cause. Torlakson’s unwillingness (and that of Brown’s appointees on the state board) to embrace even simple teacher quality reforms was made clear last month when they rejected a request by San Jose Unified and the NEA local there to increase the time some newly-hired teachers to work one more year (from an already too easy two years to a slightly better three) before being able to gain near-lifetime employment. The fact that neither Torlakson nor Brown lifted a finger two years ago to back S.B. 1530 shows that they are all too willing to do the bidding of NEA and AFT affiliates in protecting even criminally-abusive teachers who shouldn’t be in classrooms.
At the same time, reformers can easily make the case that Torlakson and his colleagues inn Sacramento are too corrupt and too beholden to NEA and AFT interests to be trusted with high office. Last April’s federal indictments against state Sen. Leland Yee on corruption charges are particularly damaging to Torlakson. Not only did Yee receive $29,000 in funds from the NEA’s state affiliate between 2006 and 2010, he was also worked closely with Torlakson while the latter was in the state senate. [Yee, by the way, garnered 288,000 votes in yesterday’s primary race for his current seat, enough to take third place in the race.]
This isn’t to say that Torlakson engaged in any of the crimes with which Yee has been charged. But Yee’s alleged misbehavior, and Torlakson’s toadying toward the NEA and AFT offer prime examples of the culture of sleaze and abetting of educational abuse toward children, both in California and throughout the nation, that can reformers can clean help up. And while some reformers may call this mudslinging, the reality is that you can’t take on those who support failed policies and practices without calling things what they are.
So how can Tuck and his fellow reformers take advantage of this opportunity? It starts with money. Considering that California’s retail political environment — including the high cost of television ads — Tuck and reformers need to raise plenty to beat back the millions that will be spent by Torlakson and his traditionalist allies. Eli Broad, whose eponymous foundation is the leading reform outfit in the Golden State, is already spending big on Tuck’s campaign as is entrepreneur Bill Bloomfield. But as evidenced by the fact that Tuck has raised just $558,326.60 so far, other reformers have barely chipped in their dimes. This is unacceptable. Given that money is the mother’s milk of politics, reformers can’t lament about not winning political support for their cause if they don’t put their dollars where their mouths are.
At the same time, reformers must build grassroots support — including appealing to immigrant households as well as Latino and black families in the state — in order for Tuck to win office.This is especially important because the state superintendent’s race has long been dominated by NEA and AFT affiliates, who have counted on strong turnout from their rank-and-file to get their way. School reformers should reach out to Parent Power activists and families of kids attending charter schools to remind them that another day of Torlakson in office means greater obstacles to expanding choice and giving them lead decision-making roles in schools they deserve. They should also launch registration drives that attract more people to voting.
Building support on the ground should also include concretely connecting California’s and the nation’s education crisis to the other statewide issues that are of concern to voters. Thanks to the efforts of former L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa and his predecessor, Richard Riordan, more citizens in the City of Angels are aware of how failing and mediocre schools weigh down on its economic and social fortunes. But voters in the rest of California — especially dual-income households without children as well as those concerned with other issues —don’t always see the connection between the Golden State’s abysmally high levels of functional illiteracy and the state’s struggles to compete economically against Florida and other states with strong focus on overhauling public education. The job is for Tuck and his fellow reformers to connect the proverbial dots, not for voters to do the work.
Finally, reformers need to both explain how systemic reform can help all children gain the knowledge they need for lifelong success (along with the communities in which they live), and at the same time, take aim at how Torlakson has done the bidding of traditionalists less-concerned about the futures of kids than with comforting themselves ideologically and financially. One one side, this means vividly detailing how expanding choice and bringing back accountability helps families provide their kids with high-quality teachers and comprehensive college-preparatory education. On the other, reminding voters that Torlakson stood by as legislators refused to pass legislation that would protect kids from criminally-abusive teachers such as notorious former Miramonte Elementary School instructor Mark Berndt is critical. NEA and AFT affiliates are already taking aim at Tuck; reformers must do the same to Torlakson.
Thanks to Tuck’s campaign, the school reform movement now has an opportunity to revive systemic reform in California, and help its children attain high-quality education. But it is up to reformers to take advantage of the moment.
Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Times.