Next state superintendent should change the relationship with districts

By Rick Miller

As both candidates for state Superintendent of Public Instruction travel the state, debate, discuss, and answer thousands of questions, there is one key question no one is asking: How will you run the California Department of Education? At its heart, that is the fundamental job Messrs. Larry Aceves and Tom Torlakson want, and their answers matter greatly.

Since the Serrano v Priest court decision, shifting control of K-12 dollars from local districts to Sacramento to ensure equity, and the passage of Proposition 13, the state has slowly consolidated decision making within the power corridors of the State Capitol. Legislatures and governors have attempted to micro-manage reform, most often with one-size-fits-all solutions. The Department of Education has then been directed to implement these reforms and provide technical assistance.

But a fundamental shift in that dynamic occurred with submission of California’s second-round Race to the Top application. In turning over the job of drafting the RTTT application to district leadership, the state acknowledged a painful reality: Sacramento is fundamentally broken and unable to continue to provide effective educational leadership.

I witnessed this first-hand as the Department of Education’s staff lead for our application in the first round of RTTT. A team representing the Department, the governor’s staff and the State Board of Education stopped short on key reforms time and time again — not because we didn’t know what was necessary to win, but as a result of our complete inability to summon the collective political will, votes, or consensus to move forward.  To their credit, while they were ultimately unsuccessful in winning the grant in RTTT round 2, the seven district leaders put together a more compelling and specific set of commitments and recommendations for improving student achievement.

Even though the Race to the Top contest is over, the seven districts remain committed to working together and have formed the California Office to Reform Education (CORE). Fundamentally, the establishment of CORE recognizes that in a standards-based system with strong technology tools, educators can share and learn directly from each other in more meaningful ways than ever before. Educators don’t need to wait for the state to tell them what to do next to improve student learning. The question for the next superintendent is how – if at all – can the Department support this effort?

My recommendation is that the Superintendent should lead the Department – and the state – in evolving into “brokers” of expertise. Recognizing that the true experts for increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap will not come from the state government, there is nevertheless an important role for the state to play in cataloging successful practices and making them accessible so that all educators can learn from their peers and share materials, practices, and successes. But this can only be done if the state truly sees itself as an honest broker of the information and not the controller of it.

This will not be easy. A lot of people have a vested interest in power remaining in Sacramento, so the new superintendent will need a specific and thoughtful plan of action. This will matter each time he takes a position on a bill creating a new program, no matter how good the idea seems in theory; it will matter each time he is asked to support a program that is well liked or has a powerful constituency, but is not supported by data; and it will especially matter when the new governor and Legislature begin to debate what to do when the current round of categorical flexibility expires.

This is going to be the daily, critical work of California’s next state superintendent. And while I’m glad to know the candidates’ positions on merit pay, school choice, and the importance of parent involvement, I’d rather hear how they plan to do the job for which they’re running.

Rick Miller is a principal of Capitol Impact, a Sacramento-based education policy advisory firm, and a senior partner at California Education Partners. Previously Miller served as a Deputy State Superintendent for the California Department of Education, Communications Advisor for Microsoft Corporation, and as the Press Secretary for the U.S. Department of Education.

3 Comments

  1. Rick’s insights are instructive, but also a little depressing.  I wish I could argue against his point that Sacramento is controlled by vested interests who defend the status quo (at least on education policy reform endeavors), but I can’t. 

    He rightly acknowledges that good reform ideas “will not come from the state government” as a result of this death-grip over public education by a couple of powerful groups, and therefore districts ought to have more freedoms to experiment with new approaches. 

    But keep this in mind: the state still requires — by law – that only certain courses be taken by all high school students as a condition for graduation, that the state continues to dole-out (and therefore controls) dollars for district budgets, and the state will continue to strengthen a one-size-fits-all accountability matrix for schools.  In such an environment, only programs that are required, funded and measured will be valued.  And as a strong proponent of Career Technical Education – which is not included in the state graduation requirements, has lost its categorical funding protections, and is not part of the accountability measurements –I don’t see how California’s historic decline in CTE will ever be rectified.

    Even with a Governor who publicly pronouned “I love CTE” in his first State of the State Address and hundreds of bills introduced in recent years to address CTE in the State Legislature, the decline continues unabated.  Clearly, the status quo defenders do not value these industry-relevant, life-inspiring programs, despite all of the recent rhetorical support of policymakers.  And I’m not sure Rick’s candid assessment provides any insights as to how to turn this around.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. In addition, it would be helpful to have a State Board of Education that is on the same page with the CDE, the districts, et al, and not bent on pursuing its own independent agenda.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  3. Rick,
     
    Not taking a position on your suggestions, permit me to ask the obvious question. If CDE reached this low level of effectiveness, what is your share of responsibility in that? You have been with CDE for a long time and until very recently, and in positions of high responsibility. Yet , somehow, your part in the status quo doesn’t come across.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.

10.1Assessments(35)
2010 elections(16)
2012 election(14)
A to G Curriculum(25)
Achievement Gap(35)
Adequacy suit(19)
Advocacy organizations(20)
Blog info(4)
CALPADS(31)
Career academies(18)
CELDT(1)
Character education(2)
Charters(81)
Common Core standards(69)
Community Colleges(60)
Data(25)
Did You Know(16)
Disabilities education(3)
Dropout prevention(10)
Education Excellence Committee(15)
© Thoughts on Public Education 2012 | Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us