Two Strong Candidates Vie for California's Top Education Job

In November [2018], California voters will choose either Tony Thurmond or Marshall Tuck to serve as the next Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). Both are thoughtful leaders who have spent years working to improving the lives of children, but in very different ways.

Both are strong candidates. Here's how they differ.

Election campaigns can be brutal and shallow, but for at least a year both candidates have been taking the high road. Both clearly want the job, and each believes he is the choice for it. Neither candidate appears to believe that his opponent is a fool, a tool or a devil. Their numerous public debates and joint appearances have been cordial and informative. (Here are just five of them: 1 2 3 4 5) Even when interviewed separately (see the end of this post) they keep their messages positive. Both candidates emphasize many of the same priorities, including how to address California's persistently low funding for public education.

With luck, this collegiality will survive the election. Both candidates clearly feel called to the work of making government work in the interest of children. It seems likely that one way or another they will be working together for quite some time.

What is the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)?

The office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is a complex non-partisan role. The position was created in 1849 as part of California's first Constitution (which, like Ed100, was written in both English and Spanish). Similar to the office of Attorney General or Treasurer, voters in California elect the state superintendent directly. This independence is rare: in most states the governor or the state board of education appoints the top education official.

Narrow Power, and a Bully Pulpit

The core role of the SPI is operational leadership and administration of the California Department of Education (CDE). In effect, the SPI serves as the state's top education bureaucrat, but with a bully pulpit to influence the direction of education policies. The powers of the office are defined by a dense thicket of state and federal laws.

In fact, it is almost easier to define the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction by its limits than by its powers.

Operational power

The California Department of Education is a big organization, with about 2,500 employees throughout the state. Of these, nearly a thousand are teachers and staff in regional schools for the deaf and blind. Hundreds more work in federally-supported programs such as administration and oversight of school food services.

Despite its size, the CDE is a tiny part of the education system. California's education system is enormous, with over 6.2 million students and over half a million teachers and staff in K-12 alone. Most of the work happens in schools and districts, not in Sacramento.

The California Department of Education has a well-deserved reputation for bureaucracy, partly because that is the role lawmakers tend to give it. California's Education Code has no single author. It is the chaotic sum of decades of work by lawmakers in a political system. The CDE (and with it, the Superintendent) is regularly tasked with carrying out these laws or ensuring that others do so.

The CDE is responsible for providing the public with accurate and useful data

One of the CDE's most crucial responsibilities is to provide the public with accurate and useful data that can help school systems function and improve. California is far behind other states in this regard, partly because Governor Brown consistently opposed significant investments in data systems. The next Superintendent will almost certainly have an opportunity to advocate for major progress in this area.

Another notable function of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is to serve as the administrator of last resort when a school district implodes financially. Happily, this happens quite rarely thanks to a pattern of successful oversight by county offices of education, even during the Great Recession. When it does happen, though, the SPI is shoved into the role of designated villain, appointing an administrator to oversee the turnaround process, which often involves some tough love and litigation.

Convening, Connecting and Cajoling

The education system operates in parts, each with its own priorities and perspectives. Even when those parts function well individually it does not necessarily follow that the parts will align. The Superintendent of Public Instruction has the difficult task of creating conditions for educational success at a level greater than the sum of the parts. Prior Superintendents of Public Instruction have used the art of political persuasion to support major policy changes. For example, Delaine Eastin championed smaller class sizes and county oversight of district budgets. Jack O'Connell highlighted the need to close the achievement gap. Tom Torlakson is leading an initiative to increase the number of students proficient in more than one language.

Luckily, the new SPI in 2018 will take leadership of a freshly remodeled education system that has a lot going for it, including a growing sense that "alignment" can make a difference. Mike Kirst, the long-serving president of the California State Board of Education, is widely viewed as a lead architect of this remodel, which has involved hard-fought changes in standards, curriculum, assessment, finance and more. He explains the vision for "alignment" in this short video:

This strategic direction has won an impressive degree of support in California, and both candidates for SPI seem to be generally aligned with it. As Kirst describes, implementation has begun for many elements of the vision. The next SPI will be able to make a lot of improvement happen by staying the course.

Some gaps remain, however. Notably, the state critically lacks a cohesive system for early childhood learning. The state has also not stepped up to the essential work of creating a system of teacher "capacity building" and evaluation. Kirst argues that "the time is right" for that work to begin.

Dramatic improvement of the state's education data systems will be a necessary step in that work. Anyone who has ever designed, built, rolled out or lived through a data system remodel project will tell you: it's hard to do well and easy to get wrong. The Dilbert cartoons on the cubicle walls of IT departments are there for a reason.

Comparing the candidates

The best way to get a sense of the candidates is to watch the interviews linked at the top of this post. EdSource.org prepared an excellent comparison of the candidates' positions on policy matters (spoiler: they agree much more than they disagree). The voter guide is a good source, too.

The office of Superintendent is a bully pulpit

Policy positions aren't all that matter, of course. As described above, the SPI formally has less to do with calling the shots than with carrying them out through organizational leadership. But the office of Superintendent is also a bully pulpit. The SPI is the state's chief public advocate for the Big Idea of public education: each child matters and we all benefit when every child learns.

The table below compares the candidates on dimensions aside from their positions.

Moral Leadership

Being directly elected by the people of California provides the SPI with a certain degree of moral authority, which might be the office's greatest source of power.

Moral authority might be the office's greatest power

Both candidates agree that California's school system needs significantly more money to improve results for all children. But funding is not under the control of the SPI — ultimately, it's up to the political will of California's voters and the political courage of California's leaders.

When hovering your pen over your ballot, consider this: which candidate will more likely lead us toward an improved education system for all our children?

A post based on this one was added in 2020