LET GOVERNOR CHOOSE STATE SCHOOLS CHIEF

Assemblymember Kevin Mccarty, D-sacramento, has introduced a constitutional amendment that would have California’s superintendent of public instruction be appointed by the governor and confirmed by state lawmakers instead of being elected every four years. If approved by two-thirds of the Legislature and ratified by voters, the change would take effect with the 2026 election cycle. Thirty-eight states use this framework.

Mccarty says his main concern is that at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Superintendent Tony Thurmond had little “statutory authority” to respond decisively to schools’ needs, leaving major decisions affecting nearly 6 million students up to Gov. Gavin Newsom and public health officials. This argument ignores the likelihood that most Californians would prefer that the governor and health experts were in the driver’s seat in a deadly crisis. Yet the proposal is an outstanding idea for another reason completely: It would make governors much more directly accountable for the performance of public schools — and thus improve the prospects for the Golden State to finally adopt basic reforms.

California’s emergence as a national outlier on school reform was confirmed after Barack Obama’s election as president in 2008. The Illinois Democrat created the Race to the Top program, in which school districts could receive tens of millions of dollars in federal grants if they adopted performancebased evaluations for teachers and principals that used data systems to evaluate how much students improved year-over-year in one classroom compared with another. Contrary to the depiction of this effort as being an attempt to weed out unfavored teachers, the program emphasized coaching up teachers. Its approach has lifted student performance in states that — like California — are progressive and have strong teacher unions, starting with Massachusetts and New Jersey.

But the California Teachers Association, implacably opposed to anything that weakens teachers’ job protections, effectively blocked Obama’s initiative in the state. The CTA also buried other reforms touted by Democrats — in particular, former San Diego Assemblymember Shirley Weber. The union’s heavy donations and clout within the Democratic Party don’t just position it to undercut reform Democrats. The union also cleared the path for supporters — like Thurmond and predecessor Tom Torlakson — to win the last four superintendent elections. The CTA’S core belief — that the interests of adult school employees are at least as important as the interests of students — was underscored by Torlakson’s de facto rewrite of Gov. Jerry Brown’s Local Control Funding Formula measure. Enacted in 2013, the well-meaning law required that extra money be given to districts with high numbers of struggling students with the specific intent of helping these students improve their academic performance. But in 2015, Torlakson changed the rules on use of these funds and said they could go toward teacher raises. Thurmond used to criticize this decision, but changed his tune after taking office.

The San Diego Union-tribune Editorial Board appreciates teachers and acknowledges their crucial importance, and understands that unions exist to protect members. But it is not anti-teacher reactionaries who make the most persuasive case that California’s schools are too influenced by teachers unions. It is devoted Democrats like Obama, Weber and former Los Angeles state Sen. Gloria Romero. Their voices are more likely to come to the fore if it is explicitly clear that the governor, answerable to all Californians, is the leading single voice on education policy — and has a state superintendent of public instruction with the same agenda.