Assemblymembers Shirley Weber, left, and Susan Bonilla.

In the wake of a crushing defeat for a landmark challenge to California’s teacher tenure laws, the battle for change has shifted from the courts to the state Legislature.

While most parties agree that the inequities brought to light during the Vergara v. California trial must be righted, there’s a difference of opinion from those inside and outside the Legislature about whether that’s possible in the current political landscape in Sacramento, where teachers unions are among the most powerful lobbying groups.

Marshall Tuck, a former Los Angeles charter schools executive who ran unsuccessfully for state superintendent in 2014, credited Vergara and its nine student plaintiffs for the change he’s seen in the halls of the capitol.

“There’s real momentum that’s been built around these kids and the support they got,” Tuck said. “I believe that the momentum will hopefully continue and that we’ll get these changes.”

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, takes an opposite view.

“There’s no momentum. It’s the reverse,” she said. She pointed out that the California Teachers Association has racked up three wins since spring, with the appellate court’s unanimous ruling to overturn Vergara, the Supreme Court’s decision this week to decline to review the case and the thwarting of her own bill that would have made changes to teacher tenure and dismissal procedures.

“That’s the reality. It gets harder with every defeat,” she said.

Bonilla agrees it’s the Legislature’s job to make these changes.

“That’s why I carried my bill. The Legislature needs to take action. They shouldn’t abdicate their responsibility to the children of California.”

Even though Bonilla’s AB 934 was defeated after initial backers withdrew their support and lobbied against the final watered-down version, Tuck said the bill showed that the Legislature has made progress.

“Really for the first time, you saw a Democrat introduce meaningful legislation that addressed a lot of the areas that Vergara sought to address,” he said. “That, to me, really shows progress.

“Four years ago, there was zero dialogue about improving these laws,” he said.

Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch who founded StudentsMatter, which sponsored the Vergara lawsuit, said the organization will now turn its attention to the Legislature to seek the changes the lawsuit fought for.

“We hope the Legislature is listening,” he said Monday after the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. 

CTA’s political action committees gave about $250,000 to the chair of the Assembly Education Committee, Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, in his 2014 reelection bid. It was about one-third of the funds spent by that PAC in that election cycle. 

The CTA PACs also contributed campaign donations in 2014 to other members of the Assembly and Senate education committees, including Connie Leyva, Kevin McCarty, Tony Mendoza and Kristin Olsen, state campaign finance records show.

With the current legislative session wrapping up by the end of the month, little progress will happen immediately. Tuck hopes that the November elections, and victories for the Democrats in state races backed by education reform groups, will shift the Legislature even further.

“It’s more about how do we get people elected that are independent of special interests, that are really committed to solving these tough challenges that face our public schools,” Tuck said.

Bonilla is less hopeful.

“The support isn’t going to be there. What you saw happen with my bill is embracing the status quo,” she said.

Bonilla is termed out of the Legislature this fall, as are Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee who supported Bonilla’s bill, and Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, also on the Senate Education Committee and a supporter of Bonilla’s bill.

“I think it’s great to see members come in and really be pursuing solutions and not beholden to the teachers unions. … (But) I don’t think it’s enough to get any legislation passed,” Bonilla said.

One piece of legislation that did make it through the Legislature this session was Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber’s bill, AB 2826, which now awaits the governor’s signature. The bill encourages school districts to adopt guidelines for teacher evaluations to include a variety of measures like student achievement, surveys from parents and students, portfolios of students’ work and classroom observations.

The CTA remained neutral on the bill.

A spokesman for Weber said the assemblywoman is committed to engage with stakeholders on dealing with the broader scope of student outcomes.

“With or without the existence of Vergara, our office is planning on moving forward to address the problem of education inequity and overall improving student outcomes,” Weber spokesman Joe Kocurek said.

Fidelia Muralles, a mother of four who was active with Parent Revolution in its attempt to take over South Los Angeles’ 20^th Street Elementary School, said she was saddened and disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision.

“What can we expect if we can’t rely on our courts to actually lead the way in making sure our kids get an education?” Muralles said in Spanish through a translator.

Muralles said she felt her children experienced a lack of preparation at the elementary level.

“It’s going to have a real impact for kids and families who don’t have access,” she said of the decision.

Lisa Snell, director of education at Reason Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, said she thinks it will be “extremely difficult” to get the changes Vergara sought through the Legislature, especially considering its track record.

“Every attempt to make even just the most moderate changes to these laws has been unsuccessful,” she said.

One way forward, she said, could be through a ballot initiative and appeal to the voters with the stories of students who are receiving an inadequate education in California public schools. But she pointed out that a statewide ballot initiative to change teacher tenure, Prop. 74, was defeated in 2005 by a 55-to-45 vote margin. 

“I think somehow they’re going to have to show more harm and have their storytelling be even better,” Snell said.

The poll, conducted by Lake Research Partners on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the largest number of voters, 76 percent, cited equity in school funding in deciding whom to vote for, with 76 percent saying it was “important” and with 50 percent considering it “very important.” That latter group favored Torlakson by 57 percent to 43 percent for Tuck, according to the study.

Voters in both major parties favored making school funding more
equitable moving — 90 percent of registered Democrats, 69 percent
of registered Republicans and 78 percent of voters who declined to give a party preference.

Torlakson was the teachers union candidate while Tuck was backed by so-called education reformers. Both their campaigns received record-breaking financial support — an estimated $30 million — from their respective backers, making it the most expensive political contest in the state, almost three-times more expensive than that of the governor’s seat.

The report also showed that 70 percent of voters said that “Stopping Wall Street and corporations from taking over schools for profits” was important in their decision-making process, with 56 percent rating it as a top priority.

But the public seemed split on the issues around teacher tenure and due process. Two-thirds of voters reported that “removing teacher tenure protections” was important in casting a ballot. Yet, nearly the same number said that “preserving due process protections for teachers” was important.

Nearly 4 of 5 Tuck supporters, 79 percent, said they wanted to eliminate teacher tenure protections while 69 percent of Torlakson voters said preserving due process protection was a higher priority.

Other key issues for voters were reducing standardized testing, which 61 percent of voters agreed should change, and increasing the number of charter schools. More than half of voters said they would like to see a boost in charter school options.

Dani Klein Modisett

Via Mom.me | By Dani Klein Modisett

If you walked in the backdoor of my house this week unannounced, the one right next to the refrigerator, you may have found yourself looking straight at my ass. That’s because, more than once, I was bent over the freezer, my hand trolling around in my son’s Halloween candy bag for a “fun” size Snicker’s — or 6. I was aware that if my kids knew I did this they would not be happy, so I had a candy excuse strategy in place if they caught me and challenged me on my choice to pilfer their stash.

“My eating this candy is in your best interest,” I’d say. “It is better for you on a few levels. Number one, it makes me happy, and if I’m happy, then I will be a better mother. Number two, the more I eat of it the less you will be eating, which means less sugar coursing through your small veins and less tooth decay. My eating your Halloween candy, despite what it looks like, is a win-win situation for everyone.” Obviously I knew eating their candy was a mistake, but I took comfort in knowing it’s a common one. Heck, Jimmy Kimmel has had an ongoing bit about it for at least three years.

I was unexpectedly reminded of my crafty Mom spin this past Thursday morning while in a bit of a sugar fog, having polished off everything but the Laffy Taffy the night before. I was settling in to read the paper, jolted awake seeing the Los Angeles Times’ figures on how much the race for State Superintendent cost. Over $31 million dollars. Let me repeat this figure: THIRTY ONE MILLION DOLLARS for a position described by more than one source as having very little clout. Immediately incensed, I went looking for more details.

One article I found, “The most expensive political contest in California is for an office nobody’s heard of,” described the limitations of the position.

“The superintendent post has little political power. The governor appoints the state Board of Education and typically has his own education advisers. In any case, the state Department of Education doesn’t directly run California’s schools and has limited policy sway.”

Call me naive, but $30 million dollars is a lot of money to spend on anything, let alone an elected office with very little power. This news wouldn’t have hit me so hard if I hadn’t just been at a meeting at my son’s middle school, Thomas Starr King in Los Angeles, where they were assigning shifts for parents to don plastic gloves and show up with buckets of ammonia to clean the bathrooms. Apparently, there is not enough money in the school’s budget to hire adequate custodial staff. That fact made this quote I read from incumbent and victor Tom Torlakson, and a lot of the other soundbites from teachers’ union members, sound a little insincere and a lot like my Halloween candy spin.

“We are all committed to making our schools better and helping our students achieve their dreams. No one wants that more than California’s teachers.” Huh. Tough to buy that helping students “achieve their dreams” is their priority given that the teachers’ unions spent over $10 million dollars keeping Torlakson in office. They could have paid for a lot of dreams with that money.

Among all these presumably brilliant business minds and passionately committed educators on Torlakson’s side, couldn’t someone have pulled out of the maelstrom of campaign excess and said, “Hey, guys and gals, maybe we could take a few million and help an actual child!”

But it’s not just the unions that are to be held accountable in this spending debacle. If making the schools and curriculum better for students was No. 1 on everyone’s list, wouldn’t someone in this insanely expensive campaign on either side have interjected some reason? Torlakson’s opponent, Marshall Tuck, raised most of his money through wealthy independent donors, including Steve Jobs’ widow, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and L.A. philanthropist Eli Broad.

Among all these presumably brilliant business minds and passionately committed educators on Torlakson’s side, couldn’t someone have pulled out of the maelstrom of campaign excess and said, “Hey, guys and gals, maybe we could take a few million and help an actual child!”

Clearly the answer is no. And that, for those of you kicking yourselves for slipping a Hershey’s bar in the pocket of your bathrobe while no one was looking, is by far the biggest mistake of this week.

LA Unified board member Steve Zimmer

Steve Zimmer was the only member of the LA school board with a public response to yesterday’s victory by Tom Torlakson, who won a second term as state Superintendent for Public Instruction.

In it, Zimmer makes clear his disdain for the wealthy funders who backed the losing candidate, Marshall Tuck, congratulating the state teacher unions for standing up to them and urging them to continue, with a particular eye on next year’s LA Unified school board elections.

At the same time, Zimmer decries the millions of dollars spent on the campaign, arguing that the money could have been better used for programs benefitting students.

While Zimmer argues that “collaboration trumps conflict,” his disregard for Tuck supporters is, nonetheless, unequivocal, as he points to the “corporate education reform billionaires who have an endless magazine of resources to shoot at folks trying to solve the problems facing our schools.” 

Here is his complete statement:

“The results of yesterday’s election once again confirm that public education is not for sale. Against a gale storm of unprecedented funding, Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Instruction narrowly won re-election.

This was the most expensive State Superintendent race in U. S. history. I congratulate Superintendent Torlakson and urge him to continue his collaborative approach to transforming outcomes for all students in California. I look forward to continuing our close working relationship so that the Department of Education expands the resources available to classrooms in support of student learning throughout our District.

I also offer my best wishes to Marshall Tuck whom I have known well for many years. I know that Marshall will continue to be a passionate advocate for schools serving students in the most peril.

While it is tempting to feel exhilarated in the wake of this important victory, I mostly feel exhausted. I am sick and tired of dodging bullets from corporate education reform billionaires who have an endless magazine of resources to shoot at folks trying to solve the problems facing our schools.

There must be another way we can have this important conversation. Instead of reflecting on how the millions we spend distorting truths, attacking and bullying one another could help real kids in real classrooms today, the California Charter Schools Association is simply reloading their guns for the Spring School Board elections.

I am sure CTA and our other labor partners will gear up their defense systems again in response. I have a long list of programs we could fund in LAUSD with the close to $20 million dollars that went into this latest battle. More and more it seems like a zero sum game in which kids lose every time.

The solutions to the problems facing our kids are never simple. They require us to roll up our sleeves and work together to find the difficult answers in policy, in pedagogy and in practice. Finding solutions starts with listening. Teachers listening to parents, parents listening to teachers, school leaders listening to the community and everyone listening to our students. The last half dozen election cycles have had a ton of screaming. Close to $50 million dollars worth. And barely an ounce of listening.

I still believe that collaboration trumps conflict and that we can find common ground. I still have hope that we can transcend the power struggles in the name of the promise that public education still holds for families who dream of a better life for their children.

If we remember that we hold those dreams in our hands, maybe we can do more than dust ourselves off and prepare for the next battle.”

Tom Torlakson

Tom Torlakson was re-elected yesterday as California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, with 52.1 percent of the vote to 47.9 for Marshall Tuck, making it the closest of all statewide races.

This was his victory statement:

“We knew it wouldn’t be easy. They were strong, but we were stronger. They were tough, but we were tougher. After all, we’re teachers – we did our homework.

We knew that when Californians look for direction on how to improve education — they don’t look to Wall Street. They don’t look to Silicon Valley. They look to the people who are in the schools in their neighborhood every day – the teachers, the school employees, the teacher’s aides, the nurses, the counselors.

There are still many votes to count. But it looks like tonight is a win for the people who do more than talk about improving education – tonight is a win for the people who do something about it.

I congratulate my opponent for running a strong campaign. And while I disagree with him in many respects — I believe he truly wants California’s children to succeed — and I wish him well.

We are all committed to making our schools better and helping our students achieve their dreams. No one wants that more than California’s teachers. But teachers cannot do it alone — and we cannot do it under siege.

So if you truly care about our schools, our children and their futures — wonderful. Join us. We’re right down the street — at a school in your neighborhood. We want your help. We need your help.

We said it a lot during our campaign – because it’s true: Our students only get one chance at a great education – let’s all keep working together for a better future for California and our kids.”

“Education has now surpassed the economy as the No. 1 issue on voters’ minds in this election, so it’s a race that’s being conducted outside the confines of partisanship that marks the other down ballot races,” Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research said on a call with reporters yesterday, discussing the poll. “It’s also a race that sort of features an issue on which people are particularly concerned and aware, but have not yet made up their minds.”

One topic at the heart of the race is the state’s reform movement, which is backed by deep-pocketed supporters and aims to expand charter schools, versus the power and influence of the teacher unions.

Torlakson, the incumbent, has the backing of the political establishment and the state’s two large teachers unions, while Tuck was a charter school administrator and has the backing of reform groups as well as editorial boards throughout the state.

“The argument can be made that this is the most important election on the California ballot this year. That’s not because the superintendent’s office is particularly powerful. But no matter what the outcome, this represents a very important step in the growing debate over education policy in California,” Dan Schnur, director of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, told reporters.

Schnur added that the superintendent’s race “is one of those rare campaigns that is much more important than the office itself.”

Dave Kanevsky of American Viewpoint theorized that the reason there are so many undecided voters despite education being the top issue is because people can’t fall back onto any partisan lines, and that both sides have spent about the same large amount of money getting their message out.

“There’s a lot of information on both sides, but [voters] don’t know how to vote and they in essence don’t want to make the wrong vote,” Kanevsky said.

So, if you are one of those undecided voters out there and you still haven’t voted, below is a roundup of LA School Report‘s important stories about the state superintendent race:

• Top Five issues in Tuck vs. Torlakson race
• Poll: Minorities, Republicans key in close state superintendent race
• Vergara appeal (or not) divisive issue for Torkalson and Tuck
• Marshall Tuck: ‘We need fundamental and urgent change’
• The debate — Torlakson vs.Tuck — that only a few people noticed
• Race for California school chief a referendum on change
• Garcetti endorses Torlakson in state superintendent race

Polls in California close at 8 pm.

“There’s going to be a coalition of Republicans and minority voters if Tuck is going to do well on election day,” said Michael Madrid, an Unruh Institute fellow, on a panel conference call with reporters discussing the the latest results from a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll. Only 10 percent of Latino voters in California are registered Republicans and only 1 percent of blacks are Republicans, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

The poll shows Torlakson ahead of Tuck 32 percent to 29 percent with likely voters, with a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points and a huge percentage of likely voters, 28 percent, still undecided. The election will be held tomorrow.

“This race could easily go either way,” said Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on the conference call.

Torlakson, a former teacher and state legislator, has the backing of the Democratic establishment and the state’s two large teachers unions. Tuck was a charter school administrator and has the backing of reform groups as well as editorial boards throughout the state.

Both candidates are Democrats, but Tuck has a 20 percent advantage with Republicans, according to the poll. Combined with the fact that the Latino vote tracks almost the same as likely voters, 33 percent favoring Torlakson to 28 percent for Tuck,  the two other groups are key to Tuck’s chances, according to Madrid, who is an expert on Latino voting trends and a former political director for the California Republican Party.

“I know there has been a concerted effort to make the argument, especially with the Vergara decision, the charter schools argument, where Marshall Tuck was overseeing some of those charter schools, there’s clearly going to be a push to turn out ethnic minority voters,” Madrid said. “That’s an area where you are seeing Marshall Tuck gain some more support than you might otherwise envision in a traditional Democrat on Democrat race.”

Click here to learn more about the Tuck vs. Torlakson race.

Tom Torlakson (left), Marshall Tuck (right)

* UPDATED

A new Field poll shows that the race for state Superintendent of Public Education is tightening. Some might say it’s now nip and tuck.

A survey conducted over the last two weeks in August of 467 people who said they were likely to vote in November found that the incumbent, Marshall Tuck, a former charter school executive, now leads the incumbent, Tom Torlakson, by 31 percent to 28 percent.

It’s not only a slim and un-projectable lead, there were another 41 percent of voters who said they were undecided, making this race appear a virtual tossup.

As the better known candidate, by virtue of his incumbency, Torlakson registered a 40 percent favorable rating with voters and a 14 percent unfavorable rating. Another 46 percent had no opinion.

Tuck’s favorable/unfavorable ratings were 27 percent and 11 percent, with 62 percent expressing no opinion.

Previous Posts: Marshall Tuck to Oppose Torlakson for State Superintendent

* An earlier version inverted the results for who is leading.

Tom Torlakson (left), Marshall Tuck (right)

* UPDATED

The lower court’s final ruling in the Vergara case has pushed it into the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction as the latest proxy fight between supporters of reform and protectors of the status quo.

Tom Torlakson, the incumbent, is urging the state to appeal.

Marshall Tuck, the challenger, is urging the state not to appeal.

“While the statutes in this case are not under my jurisdiction as state Superintendent, it is clear that the Court’s ruling is not supported by the facts or the law,” Torlakson said in a statement today. “Its vagueness provides no guidance about how the Legislature could successfully alter the challenged statutes to satisfy the Court. Accordingly, I will ask the Attorney General to seek appellate review.”

Earlier today, Tuck put out his own statement, saying, “Now that the Vergara ruling is official, my opponent State Superintendent Tom Torlakson and other Sacramento insiders should do the right thing for California kids and drop any plans to appeal the ruling.”

Efforts to learn what California Attorney General Kamala Harris intends were not immediately successful. The state has until Oct. 27 to file an appeal. (The LA Times reported Saturday that the state filed an appeal on Friday.)

Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu‘s final ruling in Vergara vs. California, released yesterday, affirmed his decision in June that five California laws governing teacher tenure, seniority and dismissal violate the state constitution by denying students access to a quality public education.

As a political issue, it creates another fault line in education policy, dividing proponents of reform who are seeking to hold teachers more accountable for classroom success and those who view the court ruling as another assault on public school teachers, whose jobs are difficult enough with crowded classrooms, larger numbers of students from poverty and growing numbers of students who don’t speak English.

It’s ideally suited for a statewide election in which the challenger has a background in the reform movement and the incumbent is a strong union supporter.

“I applaud the nine students who took a courageous stand for all of California’s kids,” Tuck said of the Vergara plaintiffs. “But the truth is, no student should ever have to go to court to get a quality education – and no elected official should ever put bureaucratic laws ahead of students’ interest.”

Torlakson, who was named a defendant in the case and is supported by the teachers unions that joined Vergara as co-defendants, was widely expected to favor an appeal.

“School districts have always had the power to dismiss those who do not measure up, and this year I helped pass a new law that streamlined the dismissal process, while protecting the rights of both teachers and students.It is disappointing that the Court refused to even consider this important reform,” he said.

Prior to the final ruling Torlakson had remained vague about his intentions regarding an appeal. The deadline on filing means he must make a decision before the November 4 election, making it an obvious issue for Tuck.

Already, he has. His staffers are citing polls conducted in the aftermath of the Vergara trial that suggest voters agree that the state’s two-year tenure period is too short to determine whether a teacher is truly effective and that the dismissal process for ineffective teachers is too long and expensive for public school districts.

Further, he has created an online petition to engender public support to urge the state to drop any plans to defend “a failing system in need of major change” by appealing the Vergara ruling.

*Adds LA Times report, saying the state has appealed.

Randi Weingarten, AFT President

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) kicks off its annual convention in downtown Los Angeles tomorrow bringing more 3,500 national union delegates to the home of LA Unified, the second largest school district in the country.

On the agenda: fending off what the union sees as its biggest threats, including billionaire money, an assault on tenure, and the “pervasive fixation on testing over teaching and learning,” according to a union press release.  A proposed hike in union dues is also on the table.

It is less clear whether the delegates will seek a resolution asking for the resignation of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, as its counterpart, the National Education Association, did at its convention last week.

The gathering is attracting political and union heavy weights: AFT President, Randi Weingarten will deliver the keynote address Friday morning, following a speech by Governor Jerry Brown. Other speakers include Mayor Eric Garcetti, and California State School Superintendent Tom Torlakson, a teachers union ally who is facing a November re-election fight against education reformer Marshal Tuck.

AFT is the second largest teachers union in the country, representing 1.5 million teachers, health workers and school-related personnel nationwide.

Alex Caputo-Pearl, the newly installed president of the Los Angeles teachers union (UTLA) will lead a panel on social movement unionism that will include teachers union leaders from Chicago, St. Paul, and Philadelphia.

“It will be about how to take on some of the challenges that unions are facing by building a broader alliance with parents and community all around the quality schools agenda,” Caputo-Pearl told LA School Report.

“Obviously we’ll get to talk about some of the dilemmas we face in Los Angeles, like the billionaire funded Vergara lawsuit, as well as some of the problems with Superintendent John Deasy putting forward an unacceptable offer around pay,” he said.

The union is currently in contract negotiations with the district but appears to be at an impasse. UTLA leaders flatly rejected the district’s recent proposal of a 2 percent raise for 2014-15 plus a retroactive 2 percent bonus for 2013-14, calling it “insulting.”

Meanwhile in a letter to members posted on the convention website, AFT President Weingarten explained why she is recommending a dues hike, taking members’ annual contribution from the current $213 to $225 a year by 2015.

“We face continued assaults through privatization, profiteering and deprofessionalization in the schools, universities, hospitals and institutions that serve the American public,” Weingarten wrote. “The dues increase is intended to support organizing efforts, mobilize political power and enable us to incubate new approaches and solutions to helping those we serve, their families and our communities.”

On Saturday union members will rally at Staples Center Plaza to join with California postal workers protesting Staples’ plan to use store employees to staff U.S. Postal Service counters at Staples stores.

The conference will end Monday with a press conference on due process with teachers and community leaders.

All speeches, general sessions, and business discussions, will be live streamed here.

Previous posts: Top 6 shockers: how Weingarten and Deasy agree on tenure, Strike talk emerges on Caputo-Pearl’s first day as union chief, Weingarten: Bad Teachers Need Another Profession

Tom Torlakson

Associated Press writer Lisa Leff takes a look at the race for California Superintendent of Public Instruction

San Francisco (AP) — Tom Torlakson, the veteran lawmaker seeking a second term as California’s elected superintendent of schools, and Marshall Tuck, a former charter school executive hoping to unseat him, are both Democrats.

The two agree the state spends too little on education, favor giving local districts more discretion about how to use their funding and share support for the Common Core State Standards, the national learning benchmarks that have generated a backlash over whether they undermine states’ rights.

As they prepare to compete along with a Republican candidate in the June primary, however, Tuck and Torlakson’s backgrounds and perspectives on a handful of hot-button issues are making the nonpartisan race a referendum on whether change is coming quickly enough in a state where the traditional might of labor unions is being challenged by increasingly restive education reformers.

Tuck, 40, who has never held elected office, counts himself among the latter. A graduate of Harvard’s business school, he spent five years leading Green Dot Public Schools, a Los Angeles charter school operator, and six years as CEO of a nonprofit founded by former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that took control of 17 poorly performing public schools.

He says his experience running schools that were staffed with unionized teachers but given flexibility in terms of recruiting, setting curriculum and measuring results persuaded him that state government stifles innovation in education more than promotes it.

“Is Sacramento creating the conditions for superintendents, principals and teachers locally

Marshall Tuck

to be most successful? The reality is they are not right now, and I don’t think the current people leading are capable of leading in that area,” he said.

Unlike Torlakson, who has been endorsed by California’s two main teachers unions and the state Democratic Party, Tuck opposes California’s generous teacher tenure system, has challenged the law that bases teacher layoffs on seniority and believes strongly that student’s standardized test scores should be a factor in teacher evaluations.

He also supports California’s pioneering “parent trigger” law, which Torlakson voted against when he was a member of the state Assembly. The 2010 law allows parents at low-performing schools to petition for a takeover that can include installing new leadership, closure or conversion to a charter school.

These positions don’t make him anti-union, just impatient with the status quo, Tuck said. He has secured endorsements from the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle.

“A lot of people are like, ‘Hey, why wouldn’t you just wait until 2018 versus going up against an incumbent?” he said. “I’m like, ‘Are you kidding? We have 2.5 million kids who can’t read or write at grade level.'”

Torlakson, 64, spent eight years as a high school science teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area before entering politics full-time in 1980. He said he has earned the chance to follow through on the major policy shifts upon which California has embarked since he was elected as superintendent of public instruction in 2010.

During a second term, Torlakson said he would prioritize additional funding for implementing Common Core, ensure an effective transition to the new school funding formula that directs more money to schools with the most disadvantaged students, and continue championing programs that meld academics with career preparation.

Torlakson also touts his productive relationships with the unions, with Gov. Jerry Brown, with the Brown-appointed state Board of Education and with former colleagues in the Legislature, where he served for 14 years. All played a role in securing passage of Proposition 30, the temporary tax increases that helped restore school funding cuts made during the recession, he said.

“I’m a great advocate for kids. People believe me, they trust me because I’m a teacher, and as a coach I know all about creating teams,” he said. “So I have the experience, we are living up to all of the promises we made when I ran and more, and we are continuing the momentum.”

He said he is open to revising the law that grants teachers tenure after two years and including student test scores as “a tool in the toolbox of teacher evaluation.” But such changes should be made as part of a comprehensive teacher preparation initiative that seeks to cultivate good teachers as well as get rid of bad ones and only with “buy-in from everyone involved,” he said.

Silicon Valley Education Foundation Chief Executive Officer Muhammed Chaudry agrees with Torlakson that California already has adopted an ambitious agenda for reforming its public schools and said he thinks Tuck’s candidacy is premature.

“Changing courses right now would be disastrous,” Chaudry said. “It’s no longer about policy. It’s about execution now.”

Former state. Sen. Gloria Romero, who sponsored the parent-trigger law and ran for state schools chief four years ago, said that while she disapproves of Torlakson’s allegiance to the California Teachers Association, she has more faith in him at this point than the untested Tuck.

“Unless I’m willing to vote against Brown and (Attorney General) Kamala Harris, which I’m not, I can’t vote against Torlakson. They are all part of the same sauce,” said Romero, who does not plan to endorse either candidate in the primary.

A third candidate seeking the superintendent’s post is Long Beach educator Lydia Gutierrez, a Republican who also ran four years ago and has expressed doubts about California’s embrace of Common Core. Under California’s new primary system, the top two vote-getters in the June 3 primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

While Gutierrez does not have the money her two opponents do, it would be a mistake to count her out because “opponents of Common Core, who are not numerous in California, are highly mobilized and motivated,” said Stanford University professor David Plank, who directs the nonpartisan Policy Analysis for California Education research center.

“Tuck will have financial support from the reform community, the people who are frustrated with the current regime. Torlakson will have support from the education establishment and the unions. Gutierrez is a wild card,” Plank said. “So it’s really anyone’s guess how this is going to go.”

Marshall Tuck

Marshall Tuck, a former charter school executive, is challenging incumbent Tom Torlakson to become California’s next State Superintendent of Public Education. The race includes Lydia Gutierrez, a former teacher who also ran four years ago. The three are on the statewide June 3 primary ballot.

We caught up with Tuck at a forum last week, and we interviewed him this week. Here’s what he had to say:

Q. Why are you running to be the next State Superintendent of Public Instruction?

A. California is 45th in math and reading today, and we have over two million kids going to school right now that can’t write and read at grade level. Twenty years ago we were 44th. That tells you we need fundamental and urgent change in our state, recognizing that will take a long time and will be very hard but we need to get focused on it as soon as possible.  And I don’t believe the current State Superintendent has got the urgency or the willingness to push the big issues that we need to push to help improve school education.

Q. Most voters have probably never heard of the State Superintendent. How would you explain to them, what the job entails?

A. I believe strongly that the role of the state superintendent and California Department of Education is to figure out how to create the conditions for principals, teachers and parents to be successful locally. That is really what that job should be doing, which is going to require us to make significant changes to how the CDE and the state superintendent operate.

Q. Apart from what you say is a lack of urgency, what else sets you apart from Superintendent Torlakson?

A. If you look at our background experiences that we bring to the table it’s a very clear contrast of somebody who, in my case, has been working and running school systems, versus somebody who’s been working in politics, in his case, for three decades full time now.

I’ve spent the last 12 years leading two different school systems — one, a charter school network and the other, a network of traditional district schools in LA. The current state superintendent has spent the last, almost 20 years in Sacramento and before that at the state legislature.

Q. Are you saying there is a fundamental and philosophical difference between you and your opponent, in how California’s public school system should be fixed?

A. Absolutely. The vast majority of superintendents in our state want to get more flexibility from No Child Left Behind, but Torlakson did not lead that effort for our state because of an unwillingness to utilize student achievement data as a portion of a teacher’s evaluation. In this case it led a number of school districts to come together and to ask for those waivers directly, which is unprecedented nationally.

Q. So what would you do?

A. I would quickly move to get flexibility from the feds on NCLB waivers, and I believe we could get the vast majority of superintendents to agree to make that change and commit to use student achievement growth as a portion of evaluations.

Q. Lets blue sky it here: You’re elected, it’s your first day on the job, what’s at the top of your priority list that is within your power to change?

A. The state board of education can give a lot of waivers to school districts from the California education code — a 2,300 page book of rules and regulations for operating schools. It’s the State Superintendent’s and the CDE’s job to work with school districts to push those waivers forward. So what I would move to do right away is getting the CDE focused on working with local superintendents to push forward as many waivers as possible to the state education code to give school districts and school sites much more flexibility over how they use their money, over their staffing and over their curriculum.

We need to change the culture at the CDE from one that relies on compliance and regulation to one that allows more flexibility from local state law because getting more waivers from NCLB and the state code gives us greater conditions for success.

Q. Statewide, teachers and principals have reported challenges and lags in transitioning to the new Common Core standards. How would you help expedite that process?

A. I think we’re not doing enough there. And there’s not enough leadership. We are really behind in implementing Common Core at a state level and particularly, giving guidance at our schools around budget.

We haven’t provided the resources to help educators make this really difficult transition, and that’s something that the right kind of state superintendent needs to be out in front of in terms of identifying practices that are working very well for developing teachers and developing different practices and sharing those as fast as possible across the state. Technology allows you to do that.

Q. How exactly?

A. If you go on the CDE’s web site and see what kind of resources are available, it’s minimal and very un-user friendly and very difficult to access. That has to change.

Q. The Local Control Funding Formula, which is changing how schools are funded, requires districts to invest in parent engagement programs. Why is that important?

A. The State Superintendent should be bringing transparency an information to parents and also actively organizing parents and community members to get more involved in the policy making process so that their voice, really, is prioritized.

Of the things that have been passed in Sacramento, one of the strongest pieces of legislation is the Parent Empowerment Act. If a school is not serving children well, parents need to have power to take control and make change at that school because it’s unacceptable for children to go to pubic school and not get quality education.  The fact that parents now actually have real control, I won’t just defend it, I will help make sure every parent up and down the state knows that they have that right.

Every day, in classrooms throughout California, teachers inspire students. Despite inadequate pay and difficult working conditions, teachers are changing children’s lives and preparing them for the road ahead. Within a school, there is nothing more important to a child’s success than an effective teacher.

Yet I’ve seen firsthand how the state’s education law and a lack of political will from Sacramento make it almost impossible for public schools to place an effective teacher in every classroom. In 2008, I led the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools as we took over management of Markham Middle School and 16 other historically low-performing public schools. Just eight months later, we received notices that approximately half of the teachers at Markham would be laid off, including some of our best and most promising educators. At the same time, public schools in wealthier neighborhoods were facing far fewer layoffs.

That’s because, like most schools in low-income neighborhoods, ours had a majority of teachers who were younger – and, according to the state education code, seniority was the only criteria for layoffs. Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) was the law, regardless of the consequences for students. When we asked the LA Unified School District and the CA Department of Education for help keeping our best teachers on the job, they said their hands were tied. But instead of accepting disaster for Markham’s students, we decided to challenge the status quo. Working with a courageous 7th-grader named Sharail Reed, the ACLU filed a lawsuit (Reed v. California) to stop seniority-based layoffs, and to demand fundamental fairness and equal educational opportunities for students in every neighborhood.

Even though the current State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Sacramento education establishment argued against Sharail Reed, she prevailed in court – and her school was eventually protected from devastating layoffs. Five years later, the Reed case is still winding its way through the judicial system because Sacramento continued to defend seniority-based layoffs and other outdated rules.

But today in Los Angeles, a new trial begins. Vergara v. California has the potential to shake up the broken status quo, modernize the state’s unfair and outdated education code, and bring California closer to fulfilling the constitutional guarantee of educational equality. The question is simple: does every child in California have the right to receive a quality education?

If the answer is yes – and I believe it is – then we have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to provide all children with effective, dedicated teachers who can help them learn and succeed. And because politicians in Sacramento refuse to change the broken system, I support the Vergara lawsuit as one important step in a much larger effort to dramatically improve public schools.

In addition to its focus on ending seniority-based layoffs, Vergara demands reforms to laws that protect ineffective, even dangerous teachers at the expense of students. I know we can protect employees’ due process rights while also protecting students’ rights and safety. Vergara also calls for changes to the lifetime employment guarantee in the education code.

When I led the Partnership for LA Schools, we were forced to grant or deny teachers lifetime tenure after only 18 months on job. Eighteen months is not enough time to make such a consequential decision. I support a common sense tenure system; but I believe we need to strike the right balance between employee protections and students’ needs. In the wealthiest state in the wealthiest nation in the world, no child should ever have to go to court to get a quality education, and no elected official should ever put outdated regulations ahead of students’ needs.

But the truth is, even if the Vergara lawsuit is successful, we’ll still have a lot of work to do to ensure an effective teacher in every classroom. All of California’s leaders need to work to advance one of the core goals of Vergara – to streamline the state’s 2,300-page education code and make sure state law is fundamentally fair to every student. At the same time, they need to work with parents, educators, and local communities to lift up the teaching profession and support teachers – not just focus on the few who don’t belong in the classroom. To that end, state education leaders and school districts should:

• Expand and improve teacher training and professional development.
• Raise teacher salaries and pay teachers more for taking on leadership roles.
• Develop principals as both instructional leaders and personnel managers.
• Give teachers and principals the flexibility to do what’s best for their students.
• Restore school staff such as counselors and janitors, so teachers can focus on learning.

The Vergara lawsuit and school personnel issues are controversial. But if our elected officials had not failed to do their jobs, lawsuits such as Vergara and Reed would not be necessary. I hope this effort succeeds because it provides a unique opportunity to remove legal obstacles to educational equality. We need to do whatever it takes to help Sharail Reed, Beatriz Vergara, and each of California’s 6 million students have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Marshall Tuck is a candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Tuck was said to be considering a run for State Assembly, but has instead decided to challenge Tom Torlakson, who will be running for a second four-year term.

“The current state superintendent has been an elected official for 35 years,” Tuck said in an interview with LA School Report. “He’s been part of the education establishment for a very long time. While certainly well intentioned, he’s not making the fundamental changes we need to help our state.”

As an example, Tuck cited Torlakson’s resistance to certain reforms, such as using student test scores to evaluate teachers, which helped cost California a federal waiver from No Child Left Behind regulations. That led eight school districts within the state to join forces, seeking a federal waiver on their own, which was granted earlier this month.

“For the first time ever, the federal Department of Education granted a waiver to individual entities,” said Tuck. “That’s because our State Superintendent wasn’t leading. We needed to go and do that ourselves. Think about the amount of time spent by those districts going around the state.”

Tuck’s campaign sets the stage for another showdown between teachers unions and “school reformers.” As the LA Times‘ Howard Blume pointed out this morning, unions spent $3.9 million to elect Torlakson in 2010.

The primary for State Superintendent will be held in June 2014. The two top vote-getters will then face off in the November general election.

Previous posts: Partnership Head “Exploring” Run for Public Office; Joan Sullivan to Head LA Partnership Schools

Marshall Tuck

Marshall Tuck was 33 when Mayor Antonio VIllaraigosa asked him to leave his position at Green Dot Public Charter Schools to become the first CEO of a new entity called the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools.

Six and a half years later — just a few weeks before Eric Garcetti takes over as the new Mayor of LA — Tuck is stepping down from the position and considering his options.

Tuck told LA School Report the timing of the decision had nothing to do with Villaraigosa leaving office or with Garcetti’s arrival.

“This was a hundred percent personal decision by me,” said Tuck. “The timing has to do with my belief that the organization is in a really strong place… We’re out of the start up-phase. I felt that it’s a good opportunity.”

Tuck doesn’t have any specific job lined up — at least not one that he’ll share with us — although he said he wants to work on making changes to education policy at the state level. He’s also “exploring” the idea of running for public office.

“There’s a lot of talent focused on school systems, but we need more talent focus on driving policy change… in Sacramento,” he said.

Taking Tuck’s place as head of the Partnership will be former Deputy Mayor for Education Joan Sullivan.

Previous posts: Joan Sullivan to Head LA Partnership Schools;  Garcetti’s Education Staffing Plans Unclear; Garcetti Praises Partnership School

Joan Sullivan

Today was Joan Sullivan’s last day as Deputy Mayor for Education, and it turns out she won’t be out of work very long.

That’s because she’s been tapped to take over for Marshall Tuck as the new CEO of Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which manages 22 schools within LAUSD.

According to a press release, Tuck “chose to leave the Partnership in order to advocate for policies and practices that expand access to quality education for all children. Marshall and Joan will work side by side through the summer to ensure a smooth transition.”

Founded by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in 2007, the Partnership is now a 501(c)(3), meaning it has a board that chooses its own CEO. Sullivan is currently a member of that board.

The timing of the move is somewhat curious in that it comes less than a month before Eric Garcetti is sworn in as Mayor. Although the Partnership is now separate from the mayor’s office, Garcetti may have been hoping to have some say in who heads the non-profit — a source told LA School Report that a member of the Garcetti team emailed him a few days ago asking for suggestions of who should be the new Partnership CEO.

Previous posts: Garcetti’s Education Staffing Plans Unclear; Garcetti Praises Partnership School, Differs with UTLA Poll; New Mayor’s Wife Has School Reform Past; An Unbalanced Breakfast for Mayors Villaraigosa & Garcetti

Candidate Garcetti visits 99th Street Elementary School with Partnership CEO Marshall Tuck

On Wednesday, Mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti toured 99th St. Elementary School, one of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s 22 Partnership for Los Angeles schools.

Appearing at the Watts school with Partnership CEO Marshall Tuck and a handful of others, Garcetti was full of praise for nearly everything he saw.

“This and the other 21 other Partnership schools will be a core part of the educational system in Los Angeles,” said Garcetti, who missed a City Council meeting in order to appear at the school.

However, the Mayoral candidate took issue with several recent education developments, including the recent UTLA poll on LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy, the California Democratic Convention resolution against school reform, and the polarizing language Garcetti says is being used by education opponents to mischaracterize each other.

His campaign also told LA School Report that an education-focused debate with opponent Wendy Greuel would likely take place on May 6 or 7.

Garcetti visits 99th St. Elementary’s parent center

During the tour of 99th Street Elementary, Garcetti praised many of the things he saw, including the school’s strong emphasis on the students’ California Standardized Test scores, its “blended learning” classrooms where students use tablet computers, and its parent center, which is furnished by DirectTV.

When asked if he would support a corporate partnership in public schools, he replied, “absolutely.”

“I don’t want to see DirectTV High,” he said with a chuckle, “but absolutely. We have, for too long, seen our corporate partnerships, our community partnerships dwindle.”

The candidate also responded to questions about hot-topic education issues that have been in the news lately.

Asked about State Democratic Party’s recent resolution condemning the efforts of StudentsFirst and Democrats for Education Reform, Garcetti, a Democrat, said: “Resolutions like that, I reject.”

As he’s often done in the past, Garcetti called for a bridge between the two sides of the education divide:

“I think that we have wedged each other too much on education. We’ve turned people who are reformers into privatizers, people who just want to make a buck in schools, and vice versa — people who care about teachers are suddenly painted as union lackeys. There are people who care on both sides of this issue.”

When asked about UTLA’s recent recent straw poll aimed at Superintendent  Deasy, Garcetti said he respectfully disagreed with the union that’s endorsed him.

“I’m a big fan of the Superintendent, I think he’s doing great work,” said Garcetti. He also noted that the results don’t have any direct effect on the district’s leadership.  “At the end of the day it’s the School Board that appoints the Superintendent.”

Garcetti and Tuck outside 99th Street Elementary School

The membership of the School Board is still in flux.  However, Garcetti said he hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate in the District 6 race between union activist Antonio Sanchez and LAUSD teacher Monica Ratliff.

“It’s tough to sit down and have the conversations with candidates while you’re running yourself, and I think endorsements are due at least a conversation,” said Garcetti.

“I’ll see if I have time –– I will, as Mayor, certainly be involved in School Board races.”

Interestingly, Garcetti himself was endorsed by UTLA without being formally interviewed.

Garcetti and his opponent, Wendy Greuel, squared off last night in the second of a long series of debates, which will include a debate solely focused on education on either March 7 or 8, according to a Garcetti spokesman.

Previous posts: Mayoral Candidates Respond Differently to UTLA Vote on Deasy; Greuel Endorses New Teacher Evaluation Plan; Greuel to Garcetti: Let’s Debate Education Today, Garcetti Calls for Education Debate