Democrats likely to control key education posts

Carlos Porto/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

For the first time in years, all three dominant players in the California education system – governor, state Board of Education and state superintendent of public instruction – are likely to be from the same political party, offering the opportunity to end some of the conflicts that have hampered education administration and reform in recent years.

Gov.-elect Jerry Brown could be in the unusual position of being able to appoint seven out of nine ten members of the state Board of Education (excluding the 10th 11th student member) soon after he takes office. The board is a powerful policy-making body that has considerable power over issues such as curriculum, school textbooks and charter school oversight. As noted in a previous news post, Brown also plans to eliminate the secretary of education position in his own cabinet which should remove some of the confusion as to who is in charge of California's schools. 

He also has a chance to have a far smoother relationship with the incoming state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a fellow Democrat just elected to statewide office.  Richard Zeiger, Torlakson's chief of staff, told me last week that especially in the absence of the governor having a secretary education "we are planning to provide the governor with all the staff work and the planning he needs."

For much of the past two decades, Republican governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger have often been at odds with the last three state superintendents Bill Honig, Delaine Eastin and Jack O'Connell, all of whom have been Democrats.  

The state Board of Education members, appointed to four-year terms by the governor, have also frequently tangled with the superintendent of public instruction. 

But divided governance over the past few years may pay off in Jerry Brown's favor when it comes to appointments to the state board. Two of Schwarzenegger's appointees' terms will expire in January (Ruth Bloom and Johnathan Williams), giving Brown the ability to make two immediate appointments.

Because Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature have clashed on education policy, and funding, the state Senate has balked at confirming several of his appointees to the board, as California Watch reporter Corey Johnson has reported. In a quirk of California governance, they can sit on the board as soon as the governor appoints them, with full voting powers, but they must be confirmed by the state Senate within a year of their appointment. If the Senate decides not to, they must leave the board. 

Five of the nine board members appointed or reappointed by Schwarzenegger within the past year still need to be confirmed. That includes board president Ted Mitchell. (Other members still to be confirmed are Alan Arkatov, Ben Austin, David Lopez, and James Fang.)

Sacramento insiders say that it is unlikely that the state Senate will confirm Schwarzenegger's appointees. However, they also say that if Brown wants to reappoint any of them, the state Senate  would accede to his wishes. The most likely reappointment is board president Ted Mitchell, a Schwarzenegger appointee who has gotten high marks for providing leadership during an exceptionally tough and contentious time for the state's public school system.  

At the same time, the prospects for conflict among any of the key players are considerable. With the state facing a $25.4 billion budget shortfall, it is highly likely that public schools will face more cuts. The state superintendent has typically been the advocate-in-chief on behalf of the schools, creating an inherently conflictual relationship with governors who propose cutting school budgets, even when they are from the same party. 

That was the case the last time California had a Democrat as governor (Gray Davis) and superintendent of public instruction (Eastin) between 1998 and 2002. "It wasn't a cakewalk," Eastin told me last week, referring to her relationship with both the the state board and Davis. 

But given the huge stakes, both for California's 6.2 million public school children and for the state in general, there is now new hope that education leaders will be more closely aligned and focus on how to advance education reform as school budgets shrink. 

"I hope they figure out a good mix of people who can show leadership (on the state board), and put kids above everything else," Bill Lucia, president of EdVoice, an education advocacy organization based in Sacramento, told me. "With our finance system entirely broken, and with decades of broken promises, it is time to put water under the bridge and look forward."

Eastin said: "I really hope the governor puts good people on the board, and I hope he puts his ego aside and works with Tom (Torlakson), with the leaders of both parties and the leaders of business. If California fails, the rest of the nation fails." 

Comments

Comments are closed for this story.
ggeeting's picture
There is a slight technical error in this article. The State Board of Education actually has 10 regular members, not nine. A regular member's term is four years, although typically an individual is initially appointed to fill out the remainder of four-year term that is already in progress. The 11th member of the State Board of Education is a student member who serves a one-year term. All members are subject to confirmation by 2/3 vote of the Senate, which is a higher vote requirement that most other appointments (even appointment to the UC Regents requires only a majority vote for confirmation). As noted in the article, an appointee may serve for up to one year without Senate confirmation, and often the Senate will withhold confirmation when a new Governor is coming into office. Between the combination of confirmations still pending and members whose terms are expiring, it is typical for an incoming Governor to be able to appoint a majority (or near majority) of the State Board of Education. Only once did an incoming Governor endeavor to withdraw the appointment of a student member, but that was apparently a somewhat embarrassing misunderstanding of the nature of the student-member position. Once the misunderstanding was cleared up, the student was allowed to complete the one-year term. The student member (always a high school senior), incidentally, is important because he or she has full voting rights, even if still a minor. The Education Code provision establishing the State Board student-member position includes an exemption from the Government Code restriction forbidding minors from holding civil office.
Caroline Grannan's picture
The huge challenge to California education is our desperate funding crisis, and people who follow education issues and who are widely divided on other controversies are often united in advocating for more school funding. So in that sense, there wouldn't necessarily be a gulf between Republican and Democrat on the most critical issue. However, in the world of education politics, the massive divide is currently prompted by forces advocating so-called "education reform," which at present means support for increased high-stakes testing a la No Child Left Behind; punitive policies aimed at harming schools and teachers; unquestioning support of privately run charter schools; disdain for educators in favor of businesspeople and other outsiders; exaltation of beginner teachers such as Teach for America trainees over experienced veterans; and promotion of policies that shame, blame, humiliate and fire teachers, including the Los Angeles Times' teacher-ranking project. These forces are oblivious to the harm done by all this on -- oh, them -- actual students. On the other side are those (maligned by the "education reformers" as "defending the status quo") who believe that schools, teachers and students need support, not punishment; that experience should be respected and that the voices of those who actually teach students should be heard; that educators, not businesspeople with no education experience, know best how to run schools; that an excessive focus on testing is harmful to a well-rounded education; and that charter schools have no miracle formulas. Unfortunately -- and devastatingly to teachers who enthusiastically supported Obama -- the Obama administration is squarely in the camp of the "reformers." Many other Democrats are as well; the powerful, ultra-wealthy, pro-charter, pro-testing, pro-punishment, anti-teacher national organization Democrats for Education Reform is currently establishing its presence in California. Most if not all of the major newspaper editorial pages (or what shreds of them remain) are also firmly in this camp, despite generally leaning Democratic. Liberal Democratic Bay Area Rep. George Miller is one of the authors of the destructive No Child Left Behind law and shows no signs of recognizing how wrongheaded and harmful to students and schools it is. In other words, the notion that Democrats are likely to take one position on these education controversies and Republicans another is not borne out in reality. The good news for education, schools, teachers and students is that Jerry Brown, once also in the "reformy" camp, has seen the light, after founding two charter schools with ambitious expectations and getting a painful dose of reality. Brown now acknowledges that he knows firsthand that there are no easy magical miracle solutions, that a complex set of factors lead to student success or lack thereof, and that it takes vastly more funding than public schools currently receive to enable schools even function, let alone succeed. It would seem that Brown would have as much difficulty working with a "reformy" Democrat than he would with many Republicans. It will be interested to see how he interacts with those who believe that charter schools and blaming teachers -- a la "Waiting for Superman" -- are the miracle cures. Ted Mitchell, by the way, is "reformy" to the max, so you might take a look at that potential relationship.

via Twitter

© 2012 California Watch   /  development:  Happy Snowman Tech   /  design: