K–12 | Daily Report

In November, the race to become California's next Superintendent of Public Instruction will come down to two guys: Larry Aceves and Tom Torkelson.

Campaign photoLarry Aceves

Education observers expected Torkelson would land in a runoff for the position. He's an influential Democratic state Assemblyman who rose to be the top candidate for the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and a slew of other established groups.

But Aceves threw forecasters a curveball.

He was the top overall vote-getter in Tuesday's primary election with 597,472 votes (18.8 percent of the vote). A retired school district superintendent in San Jose, Aceves' campaign was supported by the Association of California School Administrators, a group he led as president around 2002.

His successful dark-horse trot has bumped another forecasted favorite, state Sen. Gloria Romero of Los Angeles, from runoff consideration. Romero, who chair's the Senate's Education Committee, finished a distant third with 547,604 votes.

Now what does all of this mean for the future of education reform? Well, the answer is murky.

Romero backed many of the recent law changes to make the state eligible for the Obama administration's Race to the Top contest, including giving parents the power to force tough changes at struggling schools. She was fully supported by EdVoice, a lobbying firm founded by several wealthy philathropists with strong ties to the charter school movement.

But candidates backed by the teachers' unions have held the office since 1994. The CTA heavily campaigned against Romero and their candidate, Torlakson, rejects what he calls "fancy fad reforms," in favor of "traditional California education."

According to the Whittier Daily News, Torlakson said:

Parents really want their schools supported. They're upset with class sizes ... not having such a focus on testing, testing, testing, and allowing more time on traditional attracters for students like art, music, sports so they feel attached to school. Schwarzenegger and others have been focusing on fad reforms that aren't proven.

Meanwhile, Aceves earned the endorsement of the Los Angeles Times and Contra Costa Times because he ran as the middle choice between Romero and Torlakson – someone who was neither pro-teachers' union nor a pro-charter school-style education reformer. That approach clearly aided him well. Consider this from the San Jose Mercury News:

Aceves, 66, who retired four years ago as Franklin-McKinley's superintendent, said he worked hard to get that attention, speaking at Rotary clubs, chambers of commerce, PTA conferences and "anywhere that people would invite me."

The strategy was to get maximum exposure to groups, Aceves's campaign consultant, Andrew Acosta of Sacramento, said. "Talk to him about the number of times he got on a Southwest plane flight headed to small gatherings."

As Torlakson and Romero supporters traded barbs, Aceves laid low. "No question he ran a campaign designed to appeal to core education constituencies and avoided getting in the middle of bigger policy confrontations between Romero and Torlakson," said Scott Hill, vice-president of the Sacramento education consulting firm School Innovations & Advocacy.

Aceves supports giving administrators the power to fire failing teachers but is against reforms that would allow parents at underperforming schools to re-enroll their children at any school across the state.

The real question that remains is what will Romero and EdVoice do? If either Torkalson or Aceves earns Romero's support, their campaigns could gain a decided advantage in November.

As for now, neither of the front runners seem to have an inside track. Romero left a stern message on her website about what she foresaw to be the future of the race.

The victors in the race for superintendent of public instruction were two different wings of the same status-quo education establishment: ACSA’s interests for administrators prevailed alongside CTA’s interests for teachers.  The interests of the reform community, on behalf of parents and kids, lost.

I am deeply saddened by the outcome of this race, which had signaled so much hope for the possibility of true education reform in California and an overdue shakeup of an education morass which remains complacent with failure. While deeply disappointed, I am proud of this campaign’s message of hope and reform in education.  I am thankful to all those who supported my efforts to put children’s interests above those of any others.