To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

2002 California Superintendent of Public Instruction election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California SPI election, 2002

← 1998 March 5, 2002 2006 →
 
Jack O'Connell.jpg
Empty.png
Empty.png
Nominee Jack O'Connell Katherine H. Smith Lynne Leach
Party Nonpartisan Nonpartisan Nonpartisan
Popular vote 1,756,762 1,177,783 1,101,489
Percentage 31.41 21.06 19.69

CA SPI 02Counties.png
Election results by county
  Jack O'Connell
  Katherine H. Smith
  Lynne Leach

SPI before election

Delaine Eastin
Nonpartisan

Elected SPI

Jack O'Connell
Nonpartisan

The 2002 California Superintendent of Public Instruction election occurred on March 5, 2002. Jack O'Connell, defeated Katherine H. Smith, Lynne C. Leach, and Joe Taylor to replace Delaine Eastin.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    531
    1 087
    328
    7 081
    424
  • ✪ State Superintendents Candidates' Forum
  • ✪ Message from Superintendent: Community Advisory Committee (Video with Erika Thompson)
  • ✪ LBCCD Board Meeting - August 28, 2019
  • ✪ John Merrow: "The Influence of Teachers" | Talks at Google
  • ✪ LBCC - Spring Flex Day 2017: "Now is Not the Time to Stop Talking About Race"

Transcription

Jennie Snyder: Welcome to the State Superintendent Candidates' Forum hosted by the Sonoma County Office of Education and The County Board of Education. I'm Deputy Superintendent Dr. Jennie Snyder. I thank you for taking time to be here today. I know in our community many have been challenged by the recent events. I'm pleased to have two candidates for the office of state superintendent of public instruction here with us today to share their perspectives on important issues relating to public education, which impacts all of us as administrators, classified staff, and community members. Before we get started, I would also like to introduce ... We've got a few county board members in the audience today, and I'd like to introduce them. Peter Kostas, who is the president of the Sonoma County Board of Education, Lisa Wittke Schaffner, and Andrew Leonard. All right. I would like to now introduce our candidates starting with Marshall Tuck, an educator, a former CEO for the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, former president of the Green Dot Public Schools. Marshall Tuck. Marshall Tuck: Morning. Jennie Snyder: And Tony Thurmond, California State Assembly-member, who was elected in 2014. Tony Thurmond: Morning, morning. Jennie Snyder: We have also assembled this morning a diverse panel of education professionals. I would like to introduce them to you now. We're joined by Jenni Klose, president of the school board for Santa Rosa City schools. Dr. Robert Haley, superintendent for the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District. Rachel Valenzuela, Director of Student Services and Special Education for the Mark West Union school district. And Pete Stefanisko, WDEA President and teacher of the Windsor Unified School District. All right. So, the panelists have drawn up questions. Each candidate will have up to two minutes to respond to each question. The time constraints that we have this morning are not intended to set up a debating situation. What we're really trying to strive for is to provide equal time for each candidate to share opinions and plans regarding the important issues facing us today. So, there will be a brief question and answer period at the end of the forum. That will be an opportunity for you to submit any questions. You'll notice on your tables you have cards. So, if you'd like to submit a question, write a question on the card. Jamie Hansen will be around to collect them. Please write one question per card. We'll compile them and we will select one question that really captures a shared topic. We may not have time this morning to get to every question, but we really do want to try to get to as many as we can so that ... We know that you've invested the time to be here this morning, so we want to provide that opportunity. Thank you for your ... Well, just one more thing. For today's discussion, if there are any folks out there who were not able to be here, today's discussion is being recorded and it will be posted on the SCOE.org website within 72 hours. Let your colleagues know. Our hope is that we want to communicate this conversation as widely as possible to empower school and district employees in our county. On behalf of the Sonoma County Office of Education and the County Board of Education, thank you for attending this forum this morning. At this time, I would like to give the candidates an opportunity to make their opening statements. We will begin with assembly-member Tony Thurmond. Tony Thurmond: Thank you, madam superintendent. Let's have a round of applause for our convenor. Thank you. Good morning. As mentioned, I'm Tony Thurmond. I serve in the state assembly just south of here. I'm your neighbor in Richmond. I represent Richmond, Berkeley and Oakland. It's an honor to be with you. As we came up today, I tried to really get my mind around the impact of what has occurred from the fires. Looking through notes and thinking about hundreds of your colleagues, peers and students who have lost a home, and who experienced a situation where they cannot go back to a school, or a school that is permanently damaged by the fire. I struggled to try to get my mind around what that must be like. I'll be honest, I cannot completely relate. I will say this; We've reached out to your legislators and to the governor's office to look for ways that we might be able to support in the aftermath and in the going forward in two ways. One, the state has a housing bond ... Sorry, schools bond. We know that many of your schools require repair. It seems to me that we should be working to prioritize the release of those funds. Those funds have been paused by the governor. We reached out to the governor's office to say, "Let's prioritize and expedite those dollars being moved, and move them to communities that have been impacted by disasters like the fire." The second thing is many of you know I've introduced a bill that we call a teacher housing bill. It gives money to school districts to build affording housing for all school district employees, both classified and certificated. We are reaching out to see if that bill can be modified to have some provisions that prioritize communities that have been impacted by disaster. We know that there are hundreds who are without homes, and so we'll do all that we can, in my capacity as an assembly-member and as a candidate, to help get resources to this community to support you. I'm running to be superintendent of public instruction for one reason. I believe that every student deserves the chance to have a great education. In my life, education has been a great equalizer. It's helped me to overcome humble beginnings. I believe that every student can achieve. I'm a Bay Area native. I was born in Monterey at Fort Ord, when it was Fort Ord. Now CSU Monterey. Before you is the descent of African-American slaves and immigrants from Panama, Columbia, Jamaica, and Detroit, Michigan by way of Mississippi. My mom came here as an immigrant to teach, and she taught in San Jose. My dad was a solider. I met my father for the first time as a grown man. I was almost 40 years old, 10 years ago, when I met my father. He said that the physical and mental scars of war made it impossible for him to return to his family. So, my mom raised four kids by herself until she couldn't. When I was six years old, my mom lost her battle to cancer. As you might imagine, my life was turned around. I want to express my condolences learning that our superintendent has lost a loved one to cancer. We know that's a very difficult thing. I was sent 3,000 miles away to be raised by a cousin who I never met, and she saved my life. She provided love, structure and housing, but she made sure I got a great public education. That education changed the narrative of my life. From a family coming from a low-income background, we could've easily fallen through the cracks. I think about it every single day that I easily could've ended up in California state prison. Instead, I ended up in the California State Assembly. We should make that type of trajectory for every single California student. I want to make sure that we give all of our students those opportunities. Instead, my education took me to city council and the school board. In 12 years working in schools, directing after school programs, teaching life skills, teaching career training, serving on a school board, teaching social work, and before you now as a legislator who's introduced bills that has given million of dollars to our local school districts to address issues that keep kids in school and make sure that they graduate. Who's passed legislation to give 400,000 kids in our state eligibility, ease and enrolling in the free lunch program. And whose legislation has resulted in a guarantee that any young person in California who was in foster care will have money to go to college. It's called a Chafee Grant. We have so much more work to do. We have to close our achievement gap. We have to close our teacher shortage. We've got to a better job of how we fund special education. And we've got to do more around STEM education to make sure our students are ready for the jobs of tomorrow. I'm deeply honored to have been endorsed in this race by your assembly members Jim Wood, your senator Mike McGuire, our current superintendent Tom Torlakson, our US senator Kamala Harris, The California Teachers Association, The California Federation of Teachers, and The California State Building's Council. I believe simply that if we shoulder the load together we can move California education in the right direction. We have no business being 46th in the nation in per people spending when we're the six wealthiest economy in the world. Let's make California education number one again together. Thank you very much. Jennie Snyder: Next Mr. Tuck share his opening remarks. Marshall Tuck: Great. Thank you, and thank you all for being here today. You work in the schools, or in the school district, or in the County Office of Education. I know that when you take time to come to an event like this, it means more work tonight, and probably more work last night, to get, if you're a teacher, your lesson plan ready and to make sure that your [inaudible 00:10:22] taken care of. So, thank you for taking the extra time to engage in this conversation. Like the assembly-member, I just can't imagine what you've all been through in the last month. Just appreciate ... And a lot of folks have really been putting in extra time for their students, for your neighbors. Just a lot more hope and kindness. It's been inspiring to watch from afar. Just know that, particularly for those most impacted, my prayers just continue to be with the folks in the community. I'm glad that you're having this conversation about what's going on in Sacramento because right now we have a state where we have so many educators working so hard every day, and yet at the same time over half of our kids can't read and write at grade level. So, we have to ask the question, how is this actually possible? I believe it's possible because I believe strongly that the state of California and our elected officials have not prioritized our public schools, have not prioritized our educators or our kids for decades. So, just think about it for a second. We know that funding matters in schools, and yet our elected officials in Sacramento have allowed us to be in the 40s in per people funding for decades. We know that nothing matters more to a kid's success than teachers. Yet over the last 15 years we've allowed this teacher shortage to grow and grow and grow without really providing the supports from our states capital. We know that creativity and innovation is the key to a classroom and the key to a school district. Yet our elected officials over the last 40 years have added more and more layers of red tape, bureaucracy and that California Education Code that takes innovation and creativity out of our schools. These things need to change. You know, a lot of people blame our educators for what's going on and some of the challenges in our public schools. Our teachers did not underfund their classrooms. Our principals and superintendents did not smother their schools and school districts with red tape. It was our elected officials in Sacramento, and that's what we need to change. We need people who actually are educators and know how to run schools. So, I've been in education for over 15 years. I was lucky enough in my mid-20s to decide I just had to work on stuff I cared about that was helping other people have a better life. Like many of you, I said, "public education, that's where to go." I helped create a group called Green Dot Public Schools, which opened a number of charter high schools, non-profit organization, unionized charter schools in the highest poverty areas of Los Angeles, and helped create 10 schools. Eight of those 10 schools recognized by U.S. News & World Report amongst the better high schools in the country. All high poverty kids in Inglewood, south LA. Early 2007, I left charter schools to go work in district schools because that's where most of the kids are, and that's where the focus needs to be. I helped create a group called the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which was a unique collaboration between the mayor of LA and the superintendent of LA unified to turn around the lowest performing schools in LA. Think of that partnership as a 15,000 kid, 18 schools school district, which I led just focused on our kids in Watts, south LA and east LA. Schools like Santee High School that had 3,5000 kids at it in 2008 when we started working there, and 35 were at grade level in mathematics. We didn't accept that. We made the changes. We did what we in this room know works in schools. We raised more money to invest in our schools. We brought incredible principals over and gave them a [inaudible 00:13:33] to lead. We got a principal to come work in Watts and east LA. We invested a ton in teacher professional development. We brought technology to our schools. We brought health and human services, internships, internships. We launched a parent college on Saturday's. Once a month, our parents in Watts in south LA went to school to learn how to get more involved in their kids education. With this collective effort between teachers, principal, community, city, we turned these schools around. Graduation rates were at 36% in 2008. Now they're at 81% in our schools. That's what's possible for our kids. You know it's possible because you see the work on a regular basis, but you also know that if we do not make real change in our states capital that we'll never educate all kids. Until our state gets serious about funding our schools, supporting our educators, truly getting flexibility and innovation in our schools and actually serving every single child, every single child, until our state truly prioritizes public education as the topic priority in this state for a decade, we won't educate all kids. We know it's possible. So, we've got drive change. I think that you all play a unique role in driving that change. You are the education leaders. Parents in the public look to you. You have felt the pain. Many of you've worked in education for decades. You have felt the pain of the lack of funding, the lack of support, the lack of innovation, the [inaudible 00:14:55]. You felt this. You should be the loudest voices saying, "It's time for our state to prioritize our kids and our educators. It is time for real change, and not more of the same." That's what our campaign is all about. I look forward to working with you all during this campaign and for a decade to take their schools from where they are to where they should be, which is the very, very best in this nation. Thank you so much. Jennie Snyder: All right. So, I will now hand over the microphone to our panelists for our first question. [inaudible 00:15:31]. Speaker 4: Thank you. Good morning. The first question will go to Mr. Tuck. Each of these questions will go to both of you, but we're starting with Mr. Tuck. The diversity of California is also reflected in a diversity of learning needs amongst students. How do you plan to support school districts with implementing universal design for learning and multi-tiered systems of support? Marshall Tuck: Yeah. So, it's a great question. Again, working with our high poverty schools, we still had very availability in terms of our kids needs. A couple things, how does this state actually think about diverse needs? One, I think local control funding is a good start. We're actually giving more dollars to highest poverty kids. We need to think about expanding that. Special education is an area of which I think about expansion. Rural areas. Other areas where there are unique needs for school districts to actually serve their kids. We have to think about that in terms of our funding and our resources. Secondly, I think we have to think about our actual personnel. In our schools, often times what we do is we find, for our kids of greatest need, we actually invest more in getting both professional development for our teachers, and also getting principals to come work in those schools. We actually paid principals more to come work in Watts and east LA in our most challenging schools because we know we needed that consistency of instructional leadership at the school level. Third is I think what's exciting in public schools is there are wonderful schools right now that are doing high, high quality differentiated instruction. I think what we have to do is find out what are those principals actually doing to develop their teachers to think about differentiation, and who are the most effective teachers on differentiation? What I want to do at the state level is actually give stipends to teachers of the year, principals of the year. To once a month, or actually twice a month, go and do Google Hangouts where we're sharing best practices. So, if you're a teacher and you're teaching eighth grade algebra and you're trying to figure out how did you differentiate on a wide range of spectrum in your classroom, which you actually have, let's actually find out ... You can go and find a teacher whose delivered remarkable results with a highly differentiated approach in the classroom and learn from them, rather than just a book or professor. Our schools, teacher to teacher, principal to principal, is the way we actually learn. Our principals love ... Once a month, they walk with each other on their campuses around a problem of practice. They'd go in and say, "Okay, for your students that are further behind, what are you actually doing to differentiate? And for your students that are further ahead?" The last thing I'll say on this is we forget that aspect a lot as well. In our schools, when we first got there, 1% of our kids were recognized as gifted, even though the district average is 11%. It's impossible, right? Why was that the case? Because district policy said teachers had to either lift up the kid to be tested gifted, or parents had to ask for it. Our families had no idea what the policy was. So, we have to actually ... We changed that. All kids tested. 13% tested gifted, and then we invested a ton in the gifted program as well. Those are some ideas. Tony Thurmond: I really appreciate the diversity of our communities. I think we have to do more to nourish it. I campaigned for prop 58 to really expand the way we do bilingual education. I'm a big supporter of dual language immersion. I think that we can help our students to become the global leaders of tomorrow. I think it's a rich program that really invites our families to want to stay in our community, stay in our schools, and invest in our schools. We have a political climate that I think has really worked against the diversity of our schools, our students, and our families. I've been out there on the forefront saying, "Let's push back against that." I've launched a round table discussion called Teaching Tolerance where we talk about the role that educators play in promoting diversity, and helping to push back on acts of hate that have happened on our school campuses. I'll just be honest. We have a president and a secretary of education who says they won't stand for transgender students, and for LGBT students, and who are attacking our dreamers. I believe that the superintendent of public instruction has to be a great champion for our dreamers. I voted for legislation that protects our dreamers. I've voted for legislation that protects LGBTQ students. I'm working on how we strengthen our curriculum to support the LGBTQ students. Our Teaching Tolerance round table is going to be featuring, as our next topic of discussion, addressing bullying, particularly as it relates to LGBTQ students. I think, though, we have to ... In order to really institutionalize what we need to do to benefit from the diversity of OUR schools, we've got to do two things. We've got to recruit and retain staff, and then provide them with the right professional development and coaching. I've introduced a bill that would give a scholarship to anyone who wants to become a teacher. It prioritized those who want to teach bilingual education, or who want to teach in areas where we have struggled to recruit teachers. And then we have to make professional development available for everyone. I don't know how it is here, but in the districts where I've worked, usually when we have professional development it means that one or two teachers gets selection to attend a training. I think we've got to make a full investment in all of our staff to be able to fully benefit in professional development. I'll support those types of programs if elected as superintendent. Speaker 5: Okay. Both of you have mentioned that California's been struggling with teacher shortages. As state superintendent, what are you prepared to do to help the state overcome the challenge and retain effective teachers in the classroom? Tony Thurmond: Thank you. As I've mentioned, I'm not waiting until election day to work on the issue of recruitment. I've introduced the first of its kind measure, a teacher housing bill, that will allow us to provide dollars to school districts that build affordable housing for those who want to teach. In many of our areas, including where we are, we know that our educators can not afford to live where they work. So, that's why I've introduced this bill so that school districts can take surplus property and build affordable housing for those who are teachers, and for classified employees as well. Secondly, I've introduced a bill with assembly-member O'Donnell that is a scholarship to anyone who wants to become a teacher. We've got to create a cadre of teachers and provide support. We've got to get at a whole lot of different things, including increasing teacher compensation. We have to look at the conditions under which teachers work. I know there are many educators in the room, and I thank you for what you do. As you think about the future generation of teachers, who would work in an environment where we ask you to take the lowest pay, we ask you to come into a place where you get blamed for the challenges of many students, even though our system doesn't provide the resources to adequately close the achievement gap, to adequately address social economic issues that impact our classroom. I think the way we approach teacher recruitment and retention is a combination of providing better benefits and compensation, teacher housing, teacher training, and coaching and support for our staff. Rather than blame, rather than finger-point, rolling up on our sleeves and working together to support every single student and to provide programs. I don't expect teachers to be the mental health clinicians of students who come to school with trauma. That's why I've introduced legislation that provides school based mental health programs and other programs to address the social economic issues that get in the way of students ability to learn. Everyone can learn, but we have to make sure we address those barriers that get in the way of students ability to learn. These are the types of programs I'll continue to promote as superintendent. Marshall Tuck: We have a teaching shortage today. I believe strongly in ten years we can have four applications for every one job across all subjects. The reason I believe that is teaching's an awesome job. What do we want out of a job? We want a job that is intellectually stimulating, a job that is personally fulfilling and makes a real impact. That's actually what people want in their job. Is there any better job than teaching, where you can truly change kid's lives? We've got to figure out how is it such a great job has a real shortage. It gets back to this fact that we have not prioritized our teachers and our public schools for decades and we need real change. So, what does real change for teachers look like? We have to increase compensation. Longer term, there's way too many parts of this state where two spouses can both be teachers and have no opportunity to buy a house anywhere near their school. That has to change. We've got to increase compensation over time. In the short-term, let's actually give free college for everyone who commits to teach for five years. Just immediately make that much. That's not a huge amount of money. Our state just needs to prioritize it and get it done, but it's not just about compensation. It's about support. I think we've got to really look at our university training programs and make sure that our teachers are actually prepared to teach on day one. A lot of the shortage is because of retention. Right? That's partly about actually not having folks prepared when they start. And then we have to have a lot more support when you actually begin your job. I spent the last two years at a group called The New Teacher Center where we work side by side with school districts to make sure every new teacher has a mentor for the first two years, and it worked. It works for our teachers, it works for our kids. A lot more support for our teachers. We have to get more support for our principals to be instructional leaders because we know that when you have a principal who's supporting a teacher, who knows actually how to think about what your course load is, who knows how to think about what supports you, how do you differentiate not just for kids, but for the adults, then our teachers thrive. If we do all those things, we can actually, without question, get to the point where we have tons and tons of people wanting to come into the profession. It is a wonderful profession. If you look internationally, the countries that are doing the very best in education, they pay their teachers more and they train their teachers better, they give teachers much more room to be creative and innovative, much more flexibility, and they have school leaders that understand instruction. We can do that here. Speaker 6: Mr. Tuck, how do you plan at the state level to ensure that we continue moving toward equity and education for historically underserved populations? What will be your specific stance on advancing equity and education at the state level? Marshall Tuck: Yeah. I think one thing to mention in the question is you mentioned moving forward on equity. I mean, the reality of our state, if you look at the achievement gap, it is not closed substantially in any way shape or form. We talk a lot about equity, but what are we actually doing about equity? Let's talk about some things I've actually done on equity, and then talk about how do you actually lift that up to the state level. So, first and foremost, we will not have equity until our highest poverty kids actually have more experienced teachers, more consistency of teachers, more experienced principals, more consistency of principals. We know without a question right now; Our higher poverty kids have a younger teacher population and a much higher turnover. Much higher turnover of principals. That has to be addressed. You don't get equity without changing that. How do we make those adjustments in our schools? As I mentioned earlier, we actually paid principals more to come and work in Watts, east LA, and south LA because it's harder job with more hours. We have to have more school districts actually finding to use those different strategies. We actually gave bonuses for teachers to come and work in our hardest to staff classrooms in our highest poverty schools. You have to make those changes. We invested dramatically in professional development to make sure that we were actually understanding the unique needs of our different kids from different communities. That has to happen. We actually invested a ton in restorative justice to really help make sure that maybe our teachers and administrators that didn't live in the communities are coming from at least had a good sense of what they were actually going through. That's how you move towards equity. We also have to think about time. So, we created zero periods and seventh periods because we know if kids are really far beyond, they need more time to catch up. You have to get creative with the master schedule and creative with your staffing in order to actually give the young people more time to help make that happen. As I mentioned earlier, there's tons of policies that are inherently unequal. The gifted policy in LA Unified, as I mentioned, inherently unequal because it guaranteed that more educated families, more high-income families, were going to have their kids gifted. We did not accept it. We shifted it. We actually filed a lawsuit against another policy that made no sense for high poverty kids. So, we need comprehensive change. At the state level, what the state should be doing is finding the schools in the districts that are doing the very, very best in equity. Look at the data. Who's closed the gap? What did they actually change? And how do you share that up and down the state so that we can learn from what's actually happening? Tony Thurmond: Equity is a top priority for me. I've already started that work. We've convened a round table series on not just looking at test scores, but looking at what works and what's not working for some districts. We're working to provide coaching to districts on how to strengthen their plans to close the achievement gap. As a legislator, we put more money into the budget this past year to have more coaches who can work with districts on where they need support on the plans that they have created to close the achievement gap. I've introduced legislation that gives money directly to school districts to work on things like chronic absenteeism. We know the achievement gap starts before kindergarten. We've got to invest more in early education. I'm proud that we've put almost half a billion dollars just in the last year or two in the legislator in early childhood education. In my bill, AB1014, and I'll ask my staff who are here today to give a list of the school districts in this county that have received those grants, I gave grants up to two million dollars to build supports that address chronic absenteeism because we know that that robs our kids of their education. Often the absenteeism are in grades kindergarten through third grade, and kids don't learn to read by third grade. It puts them on a path where they're more likely to drop out rather than go to college. We know that we've got to close the school to prison pipeline. That's why I introduced AB43, which puts a tax on private prisons in the state of California. We spend five billion dollars on private prisons. We spend very little on universal pre-school. AB43 would put a 10% tax on private prisons and other companies, and then transfer the proceeds to where it belongs, in universal pre-school in the state of California. We should educate, not incarcerate, and make sure that our kids have a great opportunity. We should be using more of our STEM opportunities to help close the gap. I teach a class at a juvenile camp where I brought Apple in to teach the young people about coding. There'll be a million and a half jobs in STEM and coding in a few years, and we'll only have half the applicants for those jobs. That makes no sense in California where we have access to the greatest technology. That's why this year I'm introducing a bill to increase the number of school districts that offer computer science so all of our kids, regardless of their economic background, will be ready for the jobs of the future where we put education at the intersection of innovation for our kids and for all of our economies and our communities. Speaker 7: Thank you. Mr. Thurmond, over the past few years, California has taken some positive steps in the support of the achievement of English learners. The ELA, the ELD Framework, the passage of prop 58, the EL roadmap all speaks to our great state's dedication to the success of these incredible children. How do you plan to support California's English learners? Tony Thurmond: I just mentioned earlier, I'm very proud of the work of prop 58. I'm proud that we've come to a place where we continue to prioritize bilingual education and dual language immersion. I think our biggest challenge really is in providing enough educators who will be in the space to teach those courses. I think we've got to ... Last year in the legislator, I'm very proud that we increased our funding for hiring more bilingual educators. We have to double down on that effort, and we have to double down on how we support professional development going forward. I think the most important question that the superintendent can address in his or her tenure is this question of funding? Funding has prevented us from doing all the things that we know benefit kids in our communities. As superintendent, we don't have any direct responsibility over what happens in this district, but we can be a great champion for increasing funding for our school districts. So, while I prioritize ELA, I want to make sure that we get the funding to make sure that we fill the teacher gaps, that we provide the professional development, that we provide the resources and support that many of our families need, whether that's adult education, whether that's support for families, and quite frankly for pushing back on the kind of political climate that has made many of our students for whom English is not their first language afraid to even come to school. We have to build a strong wrap around support network for our families. That starts for fighting for the funding to move us from being 46th in the nation to being number one in what we spend in our students in California. Marshall Tuck: So, I think what's exciting, as you mentioned, we're making some progress. We also have a long way to go with English learners. I think it gets back to even the question around equity earlier because our state we have a large English learner population. Yet, when you start digging in the details, we've made progress on policy. So, prop 58 was, I think, an important piece of policy that's going to allow for more bilingual education. That's going to help English learners. It's also going to help standard learners. You see a lot more families demanding dual language. It's just helpful in terms of growth. When we think about our English learner students, if you look at the data you'll still see, amongst our teachers that are teaching our EL population, still typically a younger teaching population and a higher turnover teaching population. That has to shift. If you look at the administrators of our higher percentage EL schools, you still see more turnover of administration. It gets back to the fact that we're actually not prioritizing our kids with greatest needs and equity. We have to make adjustments, but at the state level, at the county level, and the district level, in terms of our policy, to ensure that we have more consistency of instructional leadership, and instructional practice in the classroom for our English learners. Secondly, we have to really think about our training of teachers. This starts back at the university level. So, our universities in the state of California has to make a lot more steps forward to help our educators who are about to go into the profession understand how do you effectively teach English learners? If you go look at the curriculums right now, even though our demographics have changed dramatically in this state over the last couple of decades, in terms of our student public, higher poverty, more English learners, we haven't dramatically shifted how we are training our teachers at the university level. That's where the state superintendent has to work with the UC regions and the Cal states on really shifting our training. It needs to happen in order to get there. That's another shift that just has to absolutely be there. Again, at the school site, how do we provide more training to our teachers on a regular basis for our English learning population? Lastly, for every issue, there are shining examples of success in our state. So, the state's not just a cheerleader. The state superintendent should be finding out what's working great in Sonoma schools, what's working great in LA schools, on English learners? What changes have the practitioners and the educators actually made to time, to staffing, to instructional program, to support them? And how do we share those practices up and down the state? That's what I plan to do as state superintendent. That's why having an educator who's done the work is so important for this job. Speaker 4: Mr. Tuck, studies show that the process for acquiring a second language at an academically proficient level can take time. Given that many English learners are often placed in remediation courses during high school, few are given access to University of California A through G required courses. How will you support college readiness for English learners? Marshall Tuck: So, it's a big question. We'll try to do our best in two minutes. I think first and foremost, it has to start in pre-K. We have to move as a state to pre-K for all. We all know this work. Starting kids at five and six in public schools is too late. There's a reason that we all ... Everyone who has kids probably sent their kids to pre-K. If it's good enough for all kids ... I mean, if it's good enough for our kids, it should be good enough for all kids. So, we've got to move right away to pre-K so we're actually getting our students to be re-designated as early as possible in their educational journey. As I mentioned earlier, a lot we can do elementary and middle schools in terms of how do we actually make sure we're getting our young people re-designated as fast as possible. More dual language will help. More support for our teachers, principals and counselors who are working in our EL populations is critical and will help. But, we have to make those adjustments early. If you see, also at the high school level, a lot of folks ... Where we're coming up short is, if we're not teaching young people long division and fractions, they're just not going to get algebra done appropriately. We have to make those adjustments. We got to look at the master schedule. So, when we took over our schools in 2008, the number of schools in south LA and east LA that were not offering A through G to all of our students, and not surprisingly we had huge EL populations, all high poverty schools, a couple schools who were close to majority EL, and we weren't actually even offering the courses. So, I think every school district in the state has to really do a full audit of are they offering the courses that need to be successful for our English learners? And then lastly, we have to really improve both ... Much higher counseling supports. We know our counseling ratios in the state are ridiculous. It's like 800 to 1 is just way, way, way too high. For a high poverty family, for our English learners, they don't necessarily have a lot of support at home in terms of that journey to college and through college. That's where our K-12 system, our community college system and our university system has to work much better together and much more effectively to make sure we're starting to get those mentoring and coaching supports beyond just a classroom about what it takes to both get into college, and then what it takes to be successful. We have to tightly integrate. There's too much separation between what a high school is doing and what a college is doing to help that young person through that journey. Again, there are good examples of this. You're starting to see some school systems working with their community colleges and universities to think about what's a strong counseling path, mentoring path, for our young people to make sure they can persist after they get into college. Tony Thurmond: I'd start by saying I think that the A to G requirements should be for all students, even if they don't go to college. I think we should make all of our students college ready. I'm a big fan of career technical education programs, vocational programs and students who want to go into the trades and the apprenticeship training programs. I work very closely with them, but I think we have to start by making sure that all of our students are college ready regardless of what choices they might make. I've worked with a lot of our dual enrollment programs where our students in high school are also dual enrolled in the community colleges and they get access to community college. We need to deepen the support that we provide to our families of our English language learners, and all of our students, so they do have counselors, and so they have access to those who can help to demystify the process of going to college. We leave so much money on the table every single year in financial aid, in the cash for college programs that exist, because people don't know about them. They don't have the support. We have students who are eligible right now to attend a UC or a SCU. They get one letter in their junior year, and then that's all they get. And then they don't apply. What I say is we have to change our approaches to how we provide outreach and support so that we can diversify our colleges and our student bodies and make sure that everyone who wants it has the opportunity to go to college. I'm very proud of what we've started this year. This year in the legislator, we passed legislation that says that the first year of community college will be free. I think we have much more work to do because we know that the ability to go to college is slipping away because of the cost. We've got to push back on those companies that basically profit off of putting a lot of debt on our students who apply to go to college. We've got to make sure that we use up all the financial aid and the cash for college workshops. What I've done through my office is I've started to host ... I'm going to be hosting cash for college workshops throughout our communities. We've got to do these in multiple languages and support for our families and provide multi-lingual support for getting through the financial aid process and the application process for our students. I attended a program that supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds to get the support to go to college and stay in college. As superintendent, I'll work to expand those programs for our English language learners, and from students of all backgrounds. Speaker 5: What do you see as the top three issues facing special education in our state today? And what do you have as proposals to address them? Tony Thurmond: Funding, funding, and funding. Did I mention funding? As a school board member, I watch families constantly first beg to get the services that their student deserved, and then fight with legal support to get what they needed. Unfortunately, so many times people would say, "Well, we are not required to provide that service." My question was always what's in the best interest of that students learning needs? What is in his or her IEP? What's in his or her viable fore plan? What are the needs that we have? What we have found is we've created a system where special educators probably spend 40% of their time just addressing paperwork. We do not fund the level of structural education support that we need to. Those families who know to go get an attorney do so. They may be able to get the services that they need, but at a cost to all of us. At a cost to our districts, and at a cost to those other students who also need services. Now, I'm not begrudging those who get an attorney to go get what they are entitled to. I don't begrudge them at all. All I'm saying is we have to change the narrative and be working to provide every student with what he or she needs and support to their families. Many of the families that we work with don't understand what their rights are. They don't understand what's in an IEP. We delivery IEP's in language that are other than the first language of the families. We sometimes have these meetings without families having even been invited. So, in the legislator we voted on a number of bills to provide more support to our families. I think the number one thing that we can do, though, is increase funding for special education. We'll see a dramatic change in the quality of what our students receive. I am on the states advisory committee for special education. We lift up best practices and we share them from district to district. Clearly, we need more funding. I've made it known that this year I'm going to do a special education bill. I've invited districts and superintendents to share with me are there regulations that you can see that can be changed in the short-term until we can get to the long-term levels of funding that we need for our districts. I would just close by saying funding, funding, and funding. Obviously, we need to provide support and professional development to our educators, but until we properly fund special education in the state, we are really just barely doing the minimum of what needs to be done. Marshall Tuck: So, we agree on funding. We won't say it too many times. Let's talk about funding. What do we do about funding? So, first, I think what I can do as state superintendent is work with the governor and find other school chiefs and governors across the country and actually file a lawsuit federally, because right now we actually have a mandate under 88 to actually support all special ed kids in [inaudible 00:42:08]. We're not following through with that. The state's actually not funding it. I think we kind of talk about the unfunded mandate a lot. It's time to do something about it. In our schools, when we used every other channel and we could not have success for our kids, we went through the legal channel. I think actually having a focused national effort with a lawsuit against the federal government around the fact that it's underfunding this mandate is a must that we move forward on. That will take time. In parallel, the state needs to create an additional funding stream. It doesn't necessarily have to be a part of LCFF, but with the same concept of additional dollars, particularly for school systems with higher concentration of moderate to severe special ed in particular, which is where the cost really move forward. That's one big area. Secondly, we have to look at helping our educators. So, we know right now in our state over half of the special education teachers are not qualified to teach special ed. It doesn't mean they're not good at special ed, but actually weren't trained that way. So, we need to put a real investment around developing the capacity of our special education teachers, particular those that have had less experience or less training. That needs to be a focused effort, probably a focused bucket of dollars from the state to help fund that at the county and the district level. Secondly, actually, we can't forget our principals in our district leadership. I think because we're moving more and more, particularly from mild to moderate towards inclusion, we have to help our non-special education educators actually understand what does that mean for their practice? What does that mean for a principal and others? That's another big shift in terms of really focusing on the personnel and help building the capacity of those that are working in special education today. And then how do we actually investigate to recruit? I think we have to get serious about both financial incentives and other incentives to get people to actually want to come and teach special education. And then lastly is we're making more and more progress in terms of science and understanding how kids actually learn, as we think about the spectrum on autism and other areas. We're making real progress. There's certain schools and certain school districts that are just further along on special ed. This is why I think the county's can play a phenomenal role of let's actually find out what's working. Let's get all of our county [inaudible 00:44:00] to learn from that, and they can go out and share that up and down the districts. Those are a few different ideas. Speaker 6: Studies show us time and time again that parents who are actively involved in their children's education tend to have children who highly value it, and who perform better academically. There are some parents who also hold a high value in education, but whose personal circumstances prevent them from being actively involved. What is your philosophy around parental engagement? And what role do you see the state superintendent having in this regard? Marshall Tuck: Yeah. I think parent engagement is huge. My philosophy is we have to do whatever we can as a collective school system to get our parents more involved. It's not a theoretical one, it's what I've done for 15 years in education. As I mentioned, at the partnership, we launched a parent college on Saturday's. What that looked like was we literally went door to door and walked in east LA, invited our parents to come back to our schools. A lot of our families new to this country didn't have the experience of parent involvement. A lot of our single-family households, high poverty, multi-generational, had a bad experience with their local school. So, heavy investment to get folks to come back in. And then on Saturday's you can go right now. 9:00 am to 1:00 pm in our school communities and see parents coming to school to learn how to get more involved in their kids education. We invest in that. That took real dollars. It took time. What's exciting, we had both our parent coordinators and our teachers actually teaching the parent college. So, you saw really strong integration between the folks [inaudible 00:45:25] parents and the actual educators in the school site. The second thing this is we actually made our principals accountable for parent engagement. So, we work in schools. If you say you want to do something, but you're not actually having that be a priority for a school leader, it is highly variable whether or not that gets done. So, we actually, on our principal's evaluation, parent engagement was actually built-in to the evaluation. So, we invested about a million dollars a year in additional parent engagement. We actually then went and made sure that the leaders of both our schools and of our school district were held responsible for getting our parents involved. We had 7,000 parents go to the parent college. Not surprisingly, we have a lot more success with our kids and our parents are a key piece of it. No matter where you come from or what your background is, new to this country, high poverty, high-income, long-term in this country, you love your kid. The job of our schools is we have to actually ... When our parents aren't as engaged, we have some responsibility to help get them engaged. Make sure everything is translated, make sure we have a meeting on a Sunday, on a Saturday, on a morning, on nights. We actually have all opportunities for more families to get involved. We can't just put that burden on our teachers and our principals. That's why we actually hired parent coordinators at our schools to help do that work. So, we can't just keep adding more and more layers on. When folks are involved, it changes the game. I've got a six year old son. My wife and I are doing the very best we can to engage in his local public school to do our best. I've seen it work in schools. It can work for all kids. Tony Thurmond: I also think that parent engagement is critical. I know that you oversee student services, and I've worked with a number of student service divisions at various districts throughout the state where we prioritize those who can work with families in the community who do outreach, who do home visiting. I think one thing we have to always acknowledge that for many parents, coming to school is very intimidating. Even helping their kids with their homework is intimidating. I'll tell you, I'm trying to help my sixth grader through her math homework I find quite intimidating. We have to make schools places that are welcoming to our families because, yes, our kids success depends on many. Their parents, their community, their educator. I work with a lot of parents for whom the school was not a place where they had a positive experience themselves. They struggled to understand what's required, they feel fearful, they're afraid to ask for help. So, the bills that I talked about provide dollars to create community schools. Community schools have programs that help student and their family. Sometimes they're health related, sometimes they're home visitors. Even how we address the issues around chronic absenteeism. Notice I didn't say truancy because when people hear the word truancy, they think of the Truancy Court. They think of someone who's coming to point a finger and blame. As a person who's been a home visitor and who's worked with families where there's chronic absenteeism, I can't tell you how many families said to me they didn't understand how important it was for their child to be in school every day unless they were sick. And that caring for a younger child, while important, we have to find other resources. If there are barriers, we have to find other resources. Instead of saying, "Come to the truancy club that the SAR process creates," we said, "Come to the chat and chew." Right? We provide a meal, and we have a conversation. Parents who've been in that same experience have conversation with other parents to help them feel comfortable about how to work through barriers that keep their kids out of school. I'll continue to work on parent engagement. I've also go as far as creating student engagement models. I've created a student commission for the school district that I served on as a board member. I've introduced three bills with young people that gets student voice involved in our legislative process in what we do in our schools. I'll continue to seek that from parents, students, and community members as superintendent. Speaker 7: Mr. Thurmond, at what level do you believe California schools should be funded? And what sorts of funding increased measures would you support? Would you support reform of proposition 13? Tony Thurmond: I would support all of the funding measures. I'm happy to vote for them all. I think we have to educate Californian's that it is possible to change the funding formula for education in our state in a way that does not hurt seniors, or homeowners, or small businesses. As it relates to prop 13, there can be minor adjustments to how that law is set up that would immediately generate seven or eight billion dollars for our schools. That's something that I would support legislatively. I think it's going to have to be a state-wide campaign to educate those about how that will work. What most people just don't know is that the way our state budget works, it is constantly in fluctuation and that we are dependent on what the economy does. I was on the school board in 2008 when we were at our worst. The night that I was sworn in on the school board, I hadn't even put my hand down yet, I'm excited to come help kids, and they say, "We want you to vote to close 10 schools." [inaudible 00:50:28] that night hearing that. I said, "This is not what I came for." They said, "Well, it's bad for kids, but we're going to ask you to do it anyway." I thought, "That's the worst framing you can give anything." So, I voted against it. I went and I found other cities in our unified school district that gave money to help keep many of those high performing schools open. Those districts struggle to provide revenue. The only way that we can provide the revenue to make our schools number one again, to get out us out of being 43rd in the nation in 3rd grade reading and 3rd grade math, is to have a state-wide measure where we bring more revenue into our general fund. No more asking for those who are in early education to split up the dollars in prop 98 with those who are in K-12 education. We need a massive investment of funding in early education, in K-12 education, and in higher education. We need to create a continuum that makes California education number one in all those areas. Yes, I would support reform to prop 13. I think there are limits. The only way we're going to get there is reform in prop 13, some form of millionaires tax, some type of a sugary beverage tax. I'm open to having any conversation about what gets us a permanent funding source, and I have experienced doing this. This year I introduced legislation that created a permanent funding source to build affordable housing in our state. I know that it can be done because we just did it. I'm committed to working on it as a legislator and as superintendent of public instruction. Marshall Tuck: We're the wealthiest state in the nation, arguably the wealthiest state in the history of humankind. We've created the Silicon Valley. We have incredible creativity and innovation. Yet our schools have been funded amongst the worst in the country for decades. Over and over, another year comes by and folks in Sacramento say, "We're going to improve funding," and it is the same thing. We've been stuck at the bottom for decades. We have to change that. We will not have the best public schools in the nation, we will not be able to educate every single kid, if our funding is amongst the worst. We believe California has to set in stone we're going to be top 20% in per people funding as a state. That has to be the marker, and then we have to figure out how to get there, but we have to lay it out there and not just commit to it, but actually do it. The partnership schools, if we did not raise more money to fund our schools, we would not have double graduation rates. It just wouldn't of happened. We've got to make the changes. First, we've got to communicate to the public about the need to improve funding in public schools. You'd be surprised how few people don't know we need that. Partly I blame some of the campaigns we've run in the state. [inaudible 00:53:05]. "Hey, doesn't the lottery fund our schools?" 130 bucks a kid doesn't fund our public schools, but [inaudible 00:53:10] lottery. We've said, "Hey public, pass the lottery. We're going to get it done." Prop 55, I was a big supporter of prop 55. I donated to the campaign, fought for it. It was important to get it done. Our campaign for prop 55 was prop 55 and our kids will thrive. Where we all know, prop 55 and we'll stay at 41st in the country. Right? We have to change that. We've got to actually launch a large scale campaign publicly on what's possible in our schools. Secondly, we got to actually make prioritization in our state budget. K-12 funding, flat. Incarceration funding, up. Incarceration funding not going down, even though number of prisoners is going down. That is a decision that our elected officials have made. They have prioritized incarceration over public schools. Let's cut the budget around incarceration a little over 10%. You can pay for pre-K for all. That's a decision that should be made and make the move on it. Lastly, we've got to actually look at the overall [inaudible 00:53:56] Prop 13. One, giving local communities down to 55% to pass local measures [inaudible 00:54:02] make sense. Two, on the corporate side of things, particularly if DC's talking about decreasing corporate taxes. It's the time to make sure corporations are paying their fair share of property taxes, which hasn't happened for a long time. We need to look in the entire tax code and say, "What does it take to get into the top 20%?" We've got to spend taxpayer money well. We've got to be responsible, but we have to get there no matter what. We need new ideas and new people to actually help us get there. Speaker 4: All right. Okay. Mr. Tuck, where do you stand on charter schools versus traditional public education? And what kind of oversight and regulations should govern charter schools? Marshall Tuck: Yeah, I'm pretty unique on this one because I've worked in charter schools and worked in district schools. I actually can provide a lot of interesting perspective. Also, as a state superintendent, I can be someone who can help us move forward in a way that makes the most sense for educators and for kids. The reason I support non-profit charter schools is I think about my good friend Shirley Ford, who I met in 2002. In 2002, Shirley Ford's son Robert was finishing the eighth grade. He was set to go to Inglewood High School. Inglewood High School, at the time, had a 4% proficiency rate in math and had tons of violence. Shirley was just scared to death of sending her son there. She did not have the money to move neighborhoods to go to a better public school. Did not have the money to send her child to private school. So, she actually took a chance on a school that I helped create, Ánimo Inglewood, a brand new school with no track record, because she knew at least the possibility. She believes it changed Robert's life. Graduated high school, graduated college. He's now teaching calculus. That's why I think in our high poverty neighborhoods, with high quality charter schools, that they could make sense for families and kids and could be part of a public school system. I also believe, as someone who's worked in district public schools, that we have to address certain issues to make sure that charter schools make more sense and they don't actually hurt the broader system. So, certainly we need much more transparency and accountability around how our charter schools operate and how are they performing. The state needs to be more effective when charter schools aren't performing well to step in and help school districts and county's actually shut them down because there should be a higher bar for success. That needs to be there. We need to be more proactive about if there are policies that make it more challenging. For example, in charter schools, often times charter schools only accept kids at the start of the school year. We all know that during the school year, high transiency populations, new immigrants, kids coming out of the county camps. They don't start school on August 26th, but there's examples. In Denver, they actually created a system where charter schools in Denver have to accept kids during the school year to actually have more equal distribution of those types of students. So, there are policies we put in place that I think can actually move things forward, but we certainly have to make sure there's no conflicts of interests, much more accountability and transparency in what's going on. The state needs to lead on this conversation. Let's get together with county's. County's are really well positioned here to identify where is there good collaboration and learning between most kids in district public schools, and some kids in charters? Why is it a more positive environment? And how do you actually share that up and down the state? That's why I think the state superintendent should actually be funding much more collaboration between district schools and charter schools. The vast majority of kids are in district public schools. That's where the majority of the focus needs to be. I think that there's ways to allow charter schools to provide some additional options for families and do it in a way that's more collaborative with some policy changes. Tony Thurmond: In charter schools, I'm a co-author of a bill that flat out bans for-profit charter schools. Last time I checked, public education meant public education. We have charter schools that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange that made 50 million dollars. When you look at their results, they have not been very good. So, I'm proud to say that California will ban for-profit charter schools if this legislation is passed. As for the non-profit charter schools, I think simply requiring the same accountability that we require for traditional public schools. That means that special education services shall be provided, and that students should not be pushed out if they have a special education need or a behavioral need. I voted on legislation that was passed this year and signed by the governor that guarantees that this will no longer happen. Similarly, that there should be full transparency that, like school districts here, like all of you who are on a school board, charter schools should follow the Brown Act and make all the information fully public. If someone has a financial interest in a charter school, that should be fully reported. There should be full transparency. I'm on the record for supporting legislation that would do all of these things. That's a level of regulation that I think we need to have for our charter schools. Speaker 5: Next topic we're going to talk a little bit about, some recent changes in the state. In what ways do you believe local control accountability plans have improved education in the state? And what parts do you see that are working? And what parts do you see that need to be re-examined? Tony Thurmond: Can I give the same answer again? Funding, funding, funding. Right? I campaigned for prop 30. I campaigned for prop 55. The Local Control Funding Formula, I think is very important. Needs to be extended. If you think about it, it really only created a level of funding that goes back to the 2008 funding levels. I'll tell you the truth, most people in government think that all of our funding woes in education are over because of Local Control Funding Formula. I think we have much more work to do. We have to go beyond that. I think LCAP is very important. I love that it invites the entire community together to really design the programs, to help those students who are intended, but I think the truth of the matter is ... And I fought to preserve some LCAP funding that was taken away by county superintendents and Office of Education. 20 million dollars was stripped out of the budget. Many of the superintendents contacted me and asked me to help. We got most of that ... I'd say a lot of that money restored. Here's the concern that I have. It's like being told, "We're going to give you two thirds of what you need and let you decide the third that's not going to get funded," and then blaming you for the third that doesn't get funding. I think that the conversation we should have is how do we build on the Local Control Funding Formula. Local control is very important, but how do we build on that and properly fund education rather than saying, "We're going to let you make the decision." We know that you have rising costs around education. We should have an honest conversation about how we properly fund education, how we build on the Local Control Funding Formula, how we build on what LCAP and local control are all about. As I've said throughout this conversation, I will prioritize increasing funding for our schools, not demonizing our districts and say, "Instead, we're going to make sure you receive the proper funding that you need to educate every child," and build off of what LCFF and LCAP have provided us. Marshall Tuck: Quick thoughts on LCFF, and then transition to LCAP. Two obviously interrelated. I think with LCFF, one, that was an incredible piece of policy in terms of actually finding and giving more dollars to our highest poverty kids. My son, who's six years old with two parents who are highly educated, he's less expensive to educate than a lot of the kids that were in our schools and [inaudible 01:01:04] elementary and [inaudible 01:01:05] elementary [inaudible 01:01:06]. That piece is very strong. Also, giving more flexibility to educators to make decisions around dollars, I think that's a really important part of that formula. I think it's important to make sure those dollars are going to the highest need kids. I think there's some examples where it's not happening that we've got to make sure that we're all working together to change. I think within the LCAP, a couple things that I like, and then areas for improvement. One, moving to multiple measures, I think, was a good progress on the LCAP. Actually having a process that's inclusive with the collective school community district wide, county wide, to actually develop what is the plan for the school and how to move forward are things that I think were quite helpful. Some of the challenges, I think, we have to work through. You see them, particularly the folks who work in the county and the district as well because you feel the over side of it. I think we've got to be careful not to make sure that the LCAP just becomes backdoor categoricals. I've talked to some educators that feel like as it's getting thicker and thicker into what you have to put into the LCAP that that can be problematic. The whole point of giving flexibility to educators to make decisions that are closest to kids can be taken away if we make that too much of a bureaucratic process. I think secondly having eight different metrics that we're moving towards on multiple measures as a collective school or schools system is really, really good, but you can't focus on all those in any one given year. So, I think one of the challenges that you're experiencing, as you know, is in a school or school district you can probably pick two, maybe three, big strategies to focus on to move your personnel to make changes. If you try to do all eight at once, we all know that doesn't work. I know it because I've tried it in my past. So, you actually got to make sure .... I think giving more flexibility to say, "Okay, we're going to get to all eight over a decade, but our district and our school is going to focus much more deeply on a couple of metrics for a couple years." Make progress, build that rhythm of building capacity of adults, of making change, of improving, and then move to the other areas, I think, is a big area to go to. I think this is a huge area where the county's can play a unique role in really helping districts. [inaudible 01:02:51]. Districts that are struggling, much more capacity building from the county, and I think also hopefully from a district to district level going forward. Speaker 6: Mr. Tuck, what is your position on districts that retain all local property taxes that exceed their LCFF funding? For instance, basic aid districts. Many of them have doubled or tripled the funding of other less fortunate districts in the state. How is this in with keeping with the Serrano decision? Marshall Tuck: Yeah, back to equity. There's huge inequity in the current funding system. Whether it be from a basic aid district that gets a lot more dollars. Whether it be from a higher income neighborhood that's able to raise a lot of money. And whether it be from the fact that if you really dig into the numbers within districts, often times our highest poverty kids just aren't getting the same personnel and experience levels to their schools. So, we have to make adjustments there. When I think about basic aid, what I want to do is, and it's not talked about very much in the public education conversation, is the basic aids to me are the shining example for why we need more funding. What we're doing is showing the public ... Very few people in the public understand that we even have these basic aid districts that are in wealthier neighborhoods, that have more funding, and not surprisingly, those schools are typically doing better. What I want to do is go in and highlight this as example number one for why we need to increase funding in the state of California because there are districts that have more funding that are seeing higher rates of success, that are seeing ... Both in terms of proficiency rates, in terms of graduation rates, in terms of decreased expulsion and suspension rates, in terms of college placement, college graduation. I think that we should be lifting this up. I think, to your point, also thinking are there creative ways to think about the legal case to go back and say, "There isn't really equity. Can you use those potentially as a way to lift up the floor on our overall base funding?" So, when you think about the strategy of how do you get us to talk 20% in funding, I think lifting up basic aid district is a huge way to do it. Is there a way both from a larger scale marketing campaign to make sure people understand with more money you can pay your teachers more, which they do in certain income neighborhoods? With more money, you can more time for professional development. With more money, you can hire more teachers, unless you actually have both smaller class sizes plus also more time in your master schedule for planning and for collaboration, right? That's what we have to kind of make sure folks understand. And then should we look creatively as can you actually go on the Serrano case and think about is there a way to come back to that in terms of a foreseen mechanism because of basic aid to actually lift up the overall funding by leveraging. Our state Constitution has equal access to quality public education built into it. I filed a lawsuit against that and we won, in our schools in LA, on a different issue. We can do that, I think, potentially with the basic aid districts. So, I think we lift them up and have everybody else reach them, versus necessarily bring them back down. Tony Thurmond: If you're asking if I've considered a legal strategy to change how we do funding, I'm not looking to do it through the courts. I think, at best, any superintendent, at best, serves eight years. Maybe they serve four years. I think that the reality is that any legal action, any court action, will take decades. So, we've seen this. I can't think of anything more important than correcting the lack of funding for all of our students. I think we're wrapped up in a debate right now where we're having conversations about districts that receive LSFF and basic aid districts, but I think what we're really hearing is that every parent cares about the success of their student. And that every student should have success, regardless of where he or she goes. I'm going to always talk about equity and [inaudible 01:06:25] students who need additional support, but I want us to have a system that says every student, regardless of where he or she starts, regardless of their background, is going to be given the best opportunity." I think at the end of the day if we're fighting over the same pot of dollars, we're losing. That's what our narrative has been in California. I think our conversation has to be about how we expand that pot of dollars. I care about a lot of the subjects that we've talked about here today, but I'm going to always hone in on the first. That is increasing funding is a wide scale way for all of our school districts and all of our communities in the state of California. I think that is the challenge. I think it may take a few years. I think that's where we've got to put all of our energy. That's the conversation that we have to have. Someone said to me once something. I didn't know how to take it. They said, "It's statistically proven that more funding doesn't help kids." I thought, "Well, you haven't spent any time in any school, right?" Our parent clubs and our PTA's supplement what our schools do. They show results as a result. They pay for computer teachers, computer labs, and things that we need in every single school. Let's just have an honest conversation. We need more funding for all of our schools. Yes, equity is critical. We need to lift up those who have experienced the highest social economic barriers, but we need to focus on all of our districts, basic aid as well, and helping all of our students, all of our school districts, to have a great per pupil spending amount. Enough money to support every student and those who work in their districts. Jennie Snyder: Okay. Just a reminder to the candidates to ... We're going to try to stay within our time limits. In about 20 minutes, we will open it up to questions and answers from the audience. Speaker 7: Mr. Thurmond, what is your vision for career technical education funding, programs, and facilities for students who are not on the A through G track? Tony Thurmond: I'm proud of our work this past year to increase funding for our career technical education. As I mentioned, I'm also teaching a class of high school students. They happen to be in a juvenile camp. We talk a lot about career technical education and connecting young people to apprenticeships, and to other opportunities. I'm very deeply been involved in building these programs that get people not just into construction, but in the solar panel insulation that create opportunities. As I said earlier, I think every student should be college ready. I don't think we should say, "You're going to college, you're not going to college." We make every student college ready. I think we should do everything that we can to help our students who might want to enter into an apprenticeship training program, who can be in a high-paying, high-rewarding, and deeply important job in the community. For example, today we started in this building with no water in the building. Someone came to our rescue, and within moments we were with water. I'd lift that up as a small example, but we've got to make sure every student has access to career technical education. We have to fund it better, absolutely. I think it's a great way for us to give hands-on experience to students who need to be engaged in different ways. I walked into a class this year, it was a geometry class. Every student in the class had their head down on the table. I wanted to put my head down too. I'll be honest, right? It was my time to come in and present, and I had a different conversations with the students about geometry. I asked the students, "Where do you see it applicable to your life." We talked about angles and intersections. What came out of that was a planned field trip to the Carpenter Apprenticeship Training Program so that students can see how to apply geometry in a way that's hands-on and do some hands-on things. I think that career technical education is a great opportunity for our students. I think we should make it available to all students to give them a sense of where they might want to go, what their career pathways are. I think especially for our students who choose not to go to college, but I really think we have to start by saying we'll make every student college ready and do a great job of better funding career technical education in California. Marshall Tuck: Yeah, I think we have a lot of work to do on career tech as a state. We've got to move our schools generally in the 21st century. I think moving career technical education to the 21st century makes a lot of sense as well. We agree that we should ... For all kids, you want to have a pathway for college prep. We also can dramatically improve the way that we think about career tech. Step one, I'd like to see state superintendent, governor, legislator and our business community, put together what do we really think are the best estimate of what are going to be the jobs 10, 15, 20, 25 years. What's nice is you can't predict the future, but we should have a sense of what jobs are actually going to be available. When we talk about career tech, it's not yesterdays career tech, it's tomorrows career tech. Secondly is then let's actually figure out how do we actually backwards map and look at our overall program of study at the high school level in particular, but even think about going back to middle school and elementary school. Are we actually developing the skills in our courses that are actually going to help make those young people successful for those jobs and for those skills those actually need to be? Third is, I think there's a lot of work to be done between our community colleges, our regional occupational centers. There's still a couple in our ROP programs. Our high schools around .... When we think about career tech and the pathways, let's make sure we're not having high school separate from ... Kind of connected but separate from ROP and separate from community colleges. Particularly with some of our labor partners in the trades. Really think about what are clear pathways where if you take a certain pathway in high school, that could lead to you in an apprenticeship in a certain job, or that could lead you to then go to a community college for one year or two years certification program, which leads to a job for tomorrow. So, I think all these things are possible. And then you when you kind of get back to it, what does that mean at a macro level policy wise for the state? I think, one, we have dedicated dollars for career tech right now. I think we got to make sure we're learning from that. We spent this money, what did we learn from it? Let's actually think about continuing that, particularly when you have to redesign certain one time investments. Either facilities to think about, career tech for tomorrow, as well as thinking about retraining some professionals. If you're going to little different skills for career tech for tomorrows job versus yesterdays, probably a little more PD dollars as well to get there. It's a really good opportunity for community colleges and our high schools to really think differently about how we're integrating on creating more folks for the jobs for tomorrow for those that choose to go that path rather than choose the college path. Fully agree you've got to have both opportunities. Speaker 4: Mr. Tuck, how would you protect the rights and ensure a quality education for all students including transgender students and students struggling with their gender identities? Marshall Tuck: Yeah. I think we're doing a good job as a state. We've got to keep doing it in terms of pushing back on DC. As we know, the federal government doesn't have a lot of real control over schools. I know there's probably different political opinions in this room. I'm not a fan of the current administration. I think that the current state of education is grossly unqualified for the job, but I think one of the challenging impacts coming out of DC is that our transgender kids, and also our undocumented immigrants, there's a different level of fear in our campuses. I think step one is we have to continue to push back against that, but you push back by actually investing in how do we help our educators talk to our young people just given the current environment, which I think has escalated. Beyond that is we think about, for our transgender youth, in our schools it's about how do you actually make sure that our teachers, our counselors, our office staff, our classmate staff, and our principals are really creating a really open environment, which then can allow for our young people to flourish. One of our schools, Santee High School, which I did this after I left the partnership in 2013, but I was really proud of it. We had a club and the students were one of the first in the state to have a transgender bathroom. The students actually drove that. They had full support from the teachers and the principals, but the reason they felt comfortable was this was a culture that was built on that campus that was focused on inclusion. That's something we have to do. I think the last thing I want to really explore collectively in this state, whether it be around transgender, I think there's a lot of big just overall gender issues right now when you think about what's going on in the broader society. How do we just help our young people ... Getting back to citizenship and tolerance at a younger level and introducing those ideas into our schools, I think, is actually really important. We're actually just getting back to not just core academics, but how do you build better people and how do you actually build more inclusion in terms of how we're lifting up our young people for the future. We have to make sure every single school is completely safe. I think that the state superintendent can also think about, "Is there a quality index on schools that are doing a better job with inclusion and not? And then again, how do you find the ones that are more effective at doing that. And go to the ones that aren't." If school districts aren't being affected there, then the state should intervene because every kid needs to have a safe place to go to school and be who he/she or otherwise is. Tony Thurmond: Just this past week, or I guess it was this week, the state board of education passed guidelines to provide LGBT education in our schools and to help students see examples of those in the LGBTQ community who've made contributions in our state. I've offered to work with Equality California and others to provide professional development and support to educators to ensure that this curriculum is rolled out in a way that is cultural competent and supports our students, supports our communities, to lift up our students. I'm very proud this year to have voted ... Actually, I carried a bill that creates more rights in the workplace for transgender individuals and more protections. I voted to pass the gender neutral bathrooms to protect our kids in bathroom spaces. As I mentioned, I'm leading a round table of educators across the state where the conversation is what do we do about bullying? And how do we provide more support to our students who are transgender and LGBTQ? What we're looking for, how do we provide resources to educators to do that in a culturally competent way. I'll continue to lift this up. I'm working with Equality California and others to find the funding to expand on curriculums that are now in place to support educators who work with our students. I think we are in a climate where our students are being directly bullied by the president and his administration. I think it's very important that the superintendent stand up and say that we will stand up for our students, and that we won't accept hate here. It's never okay to have hate in our schools, and that we'll address it when there are acts of hate through coaching, through teaching, and support for our students and their families. Speaker 5: What role will the bargaining associations play in your decision-making? Tony Thurmond: None. I would say that every group is invited to give input, right? I invite every group to give input on decisions. One thing that people will say about me is that on every piece of legislation, I talk to all sides. And then I tell people what I think, and I tell people where I may not be able to support what people are asking for. I'm proud to really work with our bargaining groups on things that help our schools. When I was on the school board, our bargaining groups step forward and identify ways to save money in our district when we were having a huge deficit, and to help students who were hungry or had other challenges. I have a pretty good relationship with them, but at the end of the day no one group has more influence than any other group on decisions that I'll make. I seek out input from everyone. I think we need to have stakeholders groups that can give input and give perspective. At the end of the day, I always say the same thing. This is my 10th year being in elected office. The one mantra that I've always carried has served me quite well. Vote in a way that make your kids proud. That has carried me through some very tough battles. Sometimes I agree with bargaining groups, and then there are times when I vote for things that they would rather I didn't. I view my job as to do everything through the lens of what's best for students. I've conveyed bargaining groups and management groups to come together on really difficult issues that no one wanted to talk about, like increasing the reserve cap. Even on the issue of teacher tenure where there was a lot of disagreement and a lot of tension and a lot of acrimony. I brought people together, and I'll continue to bring people together, to have those conversations. I'll work closely with bargaining groups, I'll work closely with management groups, but everything that I'll lead will always be through the lens of what's best for our students. Marshall Tuck: I support organized labor. I think our bargaining [inaudible 01:19:30] are the folks who do the work for kids, right? Teaching's very complex. School systems, there's less complexity. How do we maximize relationship between teacher and student, and how do we actually then have a lot of supports wrapped around that? When you think about whether be bargaining for our teachers, for our classified staff, for our counselors and others, it's critical that their voice is a strong one. As I mentioned, when I worked in charter schools, Green Dot was one of the only unionized charter schools in the state. We actually wanted to encourage our teachers to organize because we thought that was important in public education to work with labor. At the same time, part of the job of the state superintendent, and I'd say the most important part of the job, is to always represent students. There are times where you can be consistently supporting bargaining unions, or consistently supporting parents, or consistently supporting other groups, but also we have to disagree and you have to push back. It's really important that we have somebody who has a proven track record of always making the best decision for kids. I think that's pretty clear in my background. One example where in our schools we just invested a ton in developing our educators and additional teacher professional development. 2009, however, our schools down in south LA when the layoffs hit public education, we had 15% of our teacher gets layoff notices at Markham Middle School and [inaudible 01:20:46] Middle School and [inaudible 01:20:47]. This is because the state law said all layoffs are done only based on seniority. I believe seniority matters. I think it has to be an important part, but our highest need kids were having half of their teachers get laid off. This is a time where I picked up the phone and we called the governor. We actually called our partners in labor and they said, "Hey, there's nothing we can do about it." They said that's actually the law. That just didn't work for our kids, because we're going to have our neediest kids lose teachers at a rate much, much faster than the rest of the district. So, we picked up the phone and called the ACLU and actually launched a lawsuit. It didn't 10 years, it took two years. We actually got a settlement where we were able to keep our teachers in those schools and got additional dollars for those schools because it was determined that it was actually going against their constitutional right to a quality education. I just share that example in the sense I'll work very, very closely with our labor partners. Also, when need be, we're going to push and do whatever makes the very, very most sense for kids. Good news is most of the time what makes sense for educators makes sense for kids. New Teacher Center, we always said, "When you focus on teachers, our students succeed." That's kind of an underlying mantra, but ultimately it's always kids first. Speaker 6: Tell me your thoughts on the current state of the law with respect to teacher tenure. Can you suggest any reform that creates a balance between protection of students, schools and teachers? Marshall Tuck: Yeah. I think that tenure's an important part of the work. Every teacher I've worked with, or most, have said that it's important. I think Dr. Shirley Weber, who is a member of the assembly-member, I think seen as the anchor on education, certainly the longest track record. She's recently endorsed our campaign as a strong supporter. I think the bill she put forward not too long ago, I think, was a really thoughtful and logical bill on tenure that made sense for kids and made sense for teachers. In that bill, basically, extend the time to tenure by a few years, and then also had an optional year and made sure that a teacher had multiple years of successful and satisfactory evaluation in order to get that. That was a law that ... AB1220 that I think was a good law that unfortunately got put on hold that just extended the timeframe by a couple years, and then also made the process a bit more rigorous. I remind people in our state ... You look at our community college process for tenure. It's a longer process and it's more rigorous. You look at our university process for tenure, it's a longer process and even further more rigorous. So, I think that giving tenure after what is an equivalent of 18 months for a new teacher when you come to teach, and at 23 and a half, after a principal's only had 18 months of working with you, that's just too short, I think. Unfortunately, the end result is that you have some, typically, I think often times, our kids of highest needs feel the impact of that. So, I think it's really important that we extend it a bit. I think just supporting Dr. Weber's AB1220 in its original from, which was extending it by a couple of years and actually having an additional, optional year. So, basically within four or five years you'd get there depending on what their decision was. And having to have some positive evaluations along the way. Tony Thurmond: I think most people you talk to will say that three years makes more sense for tenure than two. I think even teachers will say that. I think what teachers will ask for, though, is if you're going to separate someone from their employment, that there should be some opportunity to appeal the decision and have your chance to be heard. I agree with that. I've actually introduced legislation that attempts to resolve this issue in California by moving teacher tenure to three years and building in some appeal processes for someone who finds themselves removed from their position. The one thing that I would add, though, is I think that if we wait until two or even three years to give some someone feedback that they're not doing a good job, we've missed the opportunity. I think we should change the whole conversation. Front load professional development at the beginning of a teachers tenure. It is crazy to me that we ask some teachers to pay for their own induction process. We should be making sure every single teacher right from the start has the best new teacher training that we can provide on everything from classroom management to ways that you can look to engage kids. And that when there is an issue, teachers should get feedback right away. Should get coaching right away. Whenever possible, there should be opportunities for some peer coaching as well. It is a proven best practice in just about every sector that peer coaching has a strong and positive impact on the work in every sector. Our conversation, though, around teacher tenure has been this, "Kids aren't doing well. Okay. It's time for you to go." I think we're all losing. I think we should change the conversation, and have a conversation about upfront training and professional development about coaching. If there are challenges, immediately providing feedback and coaching. If there needs to be a decision for a teacher to be removed, there should be some appeals process in place. I'm not just talking about it, I'm trying to be about it. I've actually introduced legislation to this affect. We welcome your input on these subjects. This has been a conversation that has been acrimonious at best in the legislator. I think together we can come up with balance in this policy that benefits us all and works through the lens of what's best for our kids in California. Jennie Snyder: Okay. All right. I believe the panel has one additional question. Is that correct? And then we will transition to taking some questions from the audience. Speaker 7: Mr. Thurmond, teachers face a host of challenges in the classroom, including needing a higher standards in teaching in an ever diversifying student population. At the same time, all students, especially those from low-income families, deserve to be taught by great teachers. What specific policies would you propose to strengthen the entire teaching continuum so that teachers are recruited, inducted, supported, and compensated like the professionals that they are. Tony Thurmond: Reclaiming my time. If I were to pick up from the last response, I would continue from there. I think it starts with a new beginning. Teacher training, making that standard across all districts, providing teachers with the opportunity for coaching, and professional development. Not just one or two teachers at a site. Teachers tell me all the time that now that we are prioritizing different things now in our state tests, but many teachers feel that they haven't been given the opportunity to have professional development to think about critical thinking and how we work towards critical thinking. So, let's make sure that we provide all of our teachers with professional development. I've shared my ideas about increasing compensation. I think we're experiencing a particularly daunting challenge right now. We need some unique approaches, so I introduced the teacher housing bill, the scholarship bill. I think that we need to continue to support teachers, principals, and staff at every level because I think it takes the entire school community to support our kids. I think we need to change the conversation away from blame, and honor and cherish our teachers for what they are. We all had great teachers in our lives, and many of us still do. We should change the conversation away from blame. What can we do to help our kids that starts with having a teacher in front of every class? I don't know how you close the achievement gap when every year school start not having teachers at the beginning of the year. As a school board member, I struggle with constantly seeing RIF notices and layoffs in March, and then racing to fill those same positions and calling those people back in September and in August and often being told those teachers are no longer available to us. I believe if we take the approach that we're going to properly fund education, we're going to provide great new teacher training, we're going to provide a professional development, we're going to create pathways for those who are in classified positions who want to become educators, that we're going to invest more in early childhood education, trainers, professionals, teachers, train them and give them more access, I think we'll create a strong cadre of teachers. I think we'll create the environment that our world class educators deserve so that we can get the results that all of our kids will benefit from. Marshall Tuck: We discussed [inaudible 01:29:02] earlier, but it's worth reminding. Teaching's a wonderful profession. I think it's a real indication of the failure of this state to truly prioritize our kids and our public schools by the fact that we actually have a teaching shortage. I think it's the clearest example that the fact that our state, and our elected leaders in our state, have not prioritized our public schools for a very, very long time. I think it's important for all of us to reflect on that and say, "Hey, how do we actually get some real change that's going to shift that equation?" We've talked about some of those specific ideas. You have to increase compensation for teachers over time. I like giving more compensation versus telling folks necessarily where to live. [inaudible 01:29:42] it's their profession. Let's pay people more to be in this profession. Immediate scholarships, it's not that expensive. The legislator should pass it immediately. Scholarships for those that commit to teach for five years. We've got to improve our university training program. So, open to all ideas, but I think we should move as much as possible in the curriculum to undergrad so that that fifth year is really in the field for an entire year, residency type program, learning from an experienced, highly effective teacher. On day one, when my six year old son goes to school on day one, it's someone who's actually been working with a really good teacher for a year. That's their first class, not just 40, or 80, or unfortunately, in some of these intern programs, 20 hours of student teaching. It's about having a mentor for every teacher. New Teacher Center, look at our results. Dramatic increases in reading and math when our new teachers actually have an experienced, effective teacher coaching and mentoring them during their process. We've got to focus on our principals. Far too often we talk about improving teacher practice and we neglect principal practice. We know that the very, very best schools that are most effective instructional have a strong instructional leader at the helm of that school who knows that her or his job is to support their teachers and help them get better. So, we have to really double down our investment in training our principals to be really strong instructional leaders. If we do all of those things, people will love this job. We'll have people going over and over into it because it's just a wonderful job that truly can change a kid's life, but we've got to get serious about making the changes now and stop talking about them and actually do it. Jennie Snyder: All right. Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now transition to some questions from the audience. The first question, this is a topic that I'm sure is impacting districts throughout the state, do you have a plan to address the significantly increasing costs for PERS and STRS retirement contributions from school district employees? So, we'll start with Mr. Tuck, and then ... Marshall Tuck: Yeah. I think we've got a huge issue. You all, particularly the superintendents and the county office, but I imagine everybody in this room, understands the numbers, which is not too long ago in 2014 the legislator basically pushed the entire financial burden of the [inaudible 01:31:58] liability on the school districts. In 2014, school districts were paying 9% of their pay roll to STRS. That's going to be 19% in 2019. That is locked into [inaudible 01:32:08] right now. You are feeling every single year our ability to do the things we are talking about is dramatically hampered because your budget is actually having to spend more and more dollars there. So, I think step one is got to be ... We need to acknowledge that we have a challenge. State superintendent sits on CalSTRS. If there's any job of the state superintendent, it's to be the voice of superintendents and educators up and down this state to say, "We have a huge problem, which most of the public has no idea about. Our budgets are getting more and more dollars, not tomorrow dollars, today dollars, going towards funding these liabilities. And the state is not helping us at all. In fact, the state pushed that liability to school districts." So, this is a hard problem to solve. There's no question about it. I actually think the leadership in the state has just allowed our liabilities to grow. Certainly people who have earned a pension, you can't take their pension away from them, but we've got to come to the table. People, in terms of districts, having to put money into pension. We're going to have to make an adjustments there. In terms of taxpayers having to actually help solve this problem. We have to get to the table right away. State superintendent, governor, legislator, business community, taxpayer advocates, labor. Right away and say, "We have a hundred billion dollar liability in CalSTRS. We need to all get in a room and start solving it because the longer it takes us to solve this problem, every single year the ability to have more PD for teachers, more program for our kids, it is mathematically decreasing. You know it because you see it in our budgets." I think it's just been a gross neglect, actually, by particularly the state superintendent who's supposed to be the representative of kids, teachers, parents and educators, that were at least not trying to start solving this problem. I do not have all the answers, but I know it's got to ... We need to start working with focus tomorrow. We know the different factors, but it's time for some just straight-forward honesty and problem solving, which you do it in your schools. We've got to do it state wide. Tony Thurmond: It is clear there are rising costs that have to be addressed. Our districts see these rising costs at the same time that they have less funding. Enrollment is down, there's less funding for our districts. The issue of pensions is not one ... You can't cut your way out of it. People deserve to have a pension. I think the conversation is what do we do together to address these rising costs. You asked me earlier about increased funding and I shared with you why I would support an effort that would give us immediately seven or eight billion dollars more to address our educational needs. I think that's certainly part of the equation. I think we have to have a conversation about what our costs are, and how we prepare ourselves as districts to address those rising costs, because they're not going to stop. We can't shift the responsibility just to local districts without giving districts more resources. That's what I've tried to do as a legislator is to provide more resources directly to districts. We need no more unfunded mandates. I think our work together is to look for ways to cover these rising costs, but we cannot ignore the fact that we need additional funding to address, in part, these rising costs. Jennie Snyder: All right. Thank you. You both talk about increased funding to address teacher attraction, retention, equity, EL support, et cetera. Yet, the superintendent of public instruction has little or no budget authority. How will you, as the state superintendent for public instruction, increase funding for public education? Tony Thurmond: I think that you're correct. The superintendent doesn't get to vote on legislation, but the superintendent does get to sponsor legislation. As a legislator, I appreciate my relationships with the 120 members in the legislator right now. I'll continue to work closely with them. I'll sponsor legislation that will continue to provide funding to our districts. The bill that I talked about today, AB1014, that immediately moved 35 million dollars to our local districts, I worked with the Department of Education to get it out on the streets, to get past bureaucratic red tape, to get it in the hands of our local districts. The other important role for the superintendent is working closely with the governor to ensure that the governor supports a healthy and rigorous funding program for the schools in the state of California. And then is a champion going into communities to help educate our voters about supporting measures that will provide more funding in our schools in a way that doesn't hurt our voters. I think we've lost at the ballot box on these types of measures because of misinformation and people fearing that they are going to loss personally. I think the superintendent has to work very closely with our voters to understand this, work closely with the 58 county superintendents to organize across districts, to provide more funding and best practices, and then work very closely with the governor and the legislator. I am very proud of my relationships with this governor, and the next governor, or whoever will become the next governor, and with the legislator, to be able to sponsor legislation, and to advocate it throughout our state. Marshall Tuck: Yeah. Long-term, this state has to get the governor, the state superintendent, the legislator, business community and labor community, all have got to commit to improving our public schools. When you think about what we need as a state, we need those entities to come together and say, "For the next 10 years, public education will be the top priority in the state of California and we are going to do what it takes to go from where we are to the best public schools in the country." The state superintendent can not do that alone, but you've got to figure out what is a job and what can the state superintendent do. So, a few different specific ideas. One is, we need a large scale marketing campaign for the public to understand, one, how low our funding is and, two, what's possible in public schools. Just a really fun, aspirational campaign that's not a month or two month, that's over multiple years. The reality is, the ability to actually get most TV stations have to actually launch PSA's. There's ways that a state superintendent can actually go and launch a large scale marketing campaign with not a whole lot of cost in this state. Just anchored around our schools on TV, on digital. Just bringing that promise of renewal of public education back to peoples minds. Secondly is, we can go raise philanthropic dollars to launch some large scale pilots, and then use those to tell the taxpayers, "With more money, this is what we can do." At the partnership, we raised a hundred million dollars over a decade to help pay for our parent college and to help actually fund our principals more. So, what I want to do with the state level is I actually want to raise a lot of money at the state level, philanthropic dollars, to fund some of these pilots. So, if there's a school district or a county that wants to integrate K-12 and healthy human services, let's fund that with philanthropic dollars if we can't get the public dollars. Let's go back to the public and say, "When we did this, student achievement increased." Hey, let's actually raise some additional dollars to maybe increase funding for teachers in one district. Then you go back to the public and say, "With 300 bucks more a kid, or a 1000 bucks more a kid, these are results we actually got." Those are things the state superintendent can do right away right out of the gates. And then lastly, while in parallel, we are working on more funding, we can do so much to actually help our educators in the field. This is the job of the state superintendent to actually understand what is working, who is able to find the way to take the dollars the furthest in terms of success for the educators and students, and how do you share those best practices at scale? Jennie Snyder: All right. So, as you know, the recent wildfires brought devastation to our educational facilities. This includes pre-K facilities where over 500 licensed early education slots were eliminated by the fires. Unfortunately, quality early education still struggled before the fires. Now, it is more important than ever to invest in early education where the investment shows the most longevity. How would you, as state superintendent, address early education as to improve educational outcomes for all students in the K-12 system? Marshall Tuck: Yes. Per the fires, I think fast tracking both bond dollars and fast tracking actually just people to go help and rebuild as fast as possible is just essential. This is the biggest national disaster, in terms of fires, this state has ever had. So, I think is where the governor, the legislator, and the state super just has to fast track these things. On early education, we discussed earlier, age five is just too late. Every single person in this state with ... Not everyone. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people with means in this state send their kids to pre-K. It's time for us to do it for all kids. I really believe strongly that we need to go right into the budget today and figure out what can you actually move over. I believe strongly incarceration is the place to go. Our number of prisoners has gone down, and yet the funding for incarceration has not. Let's move those dollars. A little over 10%, move it. We don't need to wait. Move those dollars over to pay for pre-K for all. That is a doable decision that elected officials are just choosing not to make. Let's make that happen right away. If we can't all of it, let's move immediately to pre-K for all high poverty kids. While there are some decisions ... Paying teachers 30% more is going to take several years to get those kind of dollars. Funding pre-K for all, I believe strongly that is a decision of political priorities. Let's decrease the priority on incarceration and move the public dollars over to pre-K and make that happen with pace. Prisoners, down. Cost, not down. That doesn't make any sense. We've got to move those dollars to pre-K. I think strongly the public is there with us on pre-K. We just have to communicate more, all of us, to make sure people realize how far the achievement gap already is when kids are age five. The growth and science of how young people learn at age one, two, three, four, it is just coming with real pace. So, the need for us just to start earlier and earlier is absolutely essential. We have to find the funding. If we can't go and get dollars externally, let's get it from the current budget right away. This should be, in my opinion, top priority for the state. Period. Tony Thurmond: As I mentioned at the start of today's forum, I've already been in touch with the governor's office to advocate for releasing more of the state bond money for schools. The governor has titrated it down. What we've said is, "Release more, and build in some criteria for communities that have been impacted by disaster." As it stands now, you have to apply for those funds. There's no criteria for communities that have been impacted by the fires. What we're asking for is something new that says, "Prioritize communities like Sonoma and Napa that were devastated by these fires." We're doing the work now. You know that I support universal pre-school. I'd ask you to look at my track record of moving new dollars to our system. Three hundred million dollars to support people with developmental disabilities. A billion dollars to support Medi-Cal programs, including [inaudible 01:43:12] school base health and mental health and health centers. Half a billion dollars to support early childhood education. And a measure that would provide some new funding to expand pre-school programs in our state. I talked to you about the state is spending the five billion on prisons. My bill would tax the profits of those companies to generate revenue for pre-school until we get a permanent measure. You all know this. Without a permanent funding source, we've not been able to introduce any new programs. So, we have to have a permanent funding source to have universal pre-school. Now, that's sad. Other states have done it by having the political will to introduce a permanent measure. I go back to our conversation. We can create seven or eight billion dollars right now, right now, by right-sizing how commercial property taxes are paid so that big corporations, millionaires, and others who have a lot of wealth provide that money to our state. They've been robbing our school districts of that revenue for decades. We can right-size that now and generate a permanent funding source to have universal pre-schools. I'd ask you to look to experience and track record. We can't just move money from the budget to another place. We have challenges. We have structural budget challenges. I'm ready to fight for a permanent funding source for our kids to have universal pre-school. Jennie Snyder: All right. Thank you very much. Let's thank the candidates again, Mr. Tuck and Mr. Thurmond. Thank you very much.

Contents

Results

California Superintendent of Public Instruction election, 2002[1][2]
Candidate Votes %
Jack O'Connell 1,756,762 31.41
Katherine H. Smith 1,177,783 21.06
Lynne Leach 1,101,489 19.69
Joe Taylor 157,736 2.82
Total votes 5,593,770 100.00
Voter turnout 26.01%

Results by county

County O'Connell Votes Smith Votes Leach Votes Taylor Votes
Santa Barbara 68.88% 47,266 18.79% 12,897 10.25% 7,032 2.08% 1,425
San Luis Obispo 68.51% 37,311 18.31% 9,969 11.25% 6,126 1.93% 1,053
Ventura 60.44% 68,269 19.02% 21,482 18.14% 20,491 2.40% 2,714
San Francisco 56.55% 57,731 14.56% 14,861 26.61% 27,166 2.28% 2,324
Marin 49.09% 24,314 22.28% 11,038 26.20% 12,979 2.43% 1,202
Alameda 46.66% 83,084 25.78% 45,895 24.31% 43,278 3.25% 5,788
Colusa 45.61% 1,733 25.84% 982 24.42% 928 4.13% 157
Los Angeles 45.45% 374,729 22.20% 182,991 27.62% 227,714 4.73% 38,963
San Mateo 45.39% 42,658 23.21% 21,815 28.22% 26,516 3.18% 2,985
Lake 43.02% 4,434 22.52% 2,321 30.70% 3,165 3.76% 388
Mendocino 42.74% 6,128 25.03% 3,589 28.52% 4,089 3.70% 531
Sacramento 42.51% 76,943 27.23% 49,282 26.76% 48,423 3.50% 6,336
Humboldt 42.27% 11,363 22.15% 5,954 32.04% 8,615 3.54% 953
Yolo 42.08% 12,232 23.78% 6,913 30.81% 8,956 3.33% 968
Santa Clara 41.91% 78,857 26.17% 49,242 28.64% 53,890 3.28% 6,179
Fresno 41.74% 41,555 25.47% 25,362 28.17% 28,045 4.62% 4,604
Merced 41.42% 10,478 20.85% 5,275 33.74% 8,536 3.98% 1,008
Madera 41.13% 6,862 26.98% 4,501 28.12% 4,691 3.77% 629
Mariposa 40.95% 1,993 25.44% 1,238 30.33% 1,476 3.29% 160
Sonoma 40.90% 39,111 27.26% 26,068 28.64% 27,387 3.20% 3,056
San Joaquin 40.88% 32,605 28.67% 22,865 26.26% 20,943 4.20% 3,351
Santa Cruz 40.88% 19,641 29.34% 14,095 27.23% 13,080 2.55% 1,225
Glenn 40.19% 1,824 27.32% 1,240 26.29% 1,193 6.19% 281
Stanislaus 40.18% 25,000 25.79% 16,045 29.65% 18,446 4.39% 2,730
Tehama 40.04% 4,917 23.43% 2,878 29.99% 3,683 6.54% 803
Napa 39.91% 9,217 28.50% 6,581 28.31% 6,538 3.28% 758
Solano 39.44% 20,153 27.02% 13,807 29.45% 15,047 4.09% 2,090
Tuolumne 39.23% 4,828 30.22% 3,720 27.28% 3,358 3.27% 402
San Bernardino 38.97% 56,909 26.06% 38,050 31.09% 45,394 3.89% 5,678
Riverside 38.67% 61,317 23.76% 37,673 33.98% 53,882 3.60% 5,707
Inyo 38.68% 1,888 23.83% 1,163 33.54% 1,637 3.95% 193
Calaveras 38.66% 4,379 29.76% 3,371 28.07% 3,180 3.50% 397
San Diego 38.51% 134,789 29.77% 104,183 28.11% 98,397 3.61% 12,644
Mono 37.60% 746 23.34% 463 36.90% 732 2.17% 43
Kings 37.57% 4,812 24.22% 3,102 31.55% 4,041 6.65% 852
Trinity 37.49% 1,465 28.45% 1,112 28.53% 1,115 5.53% 216
Amador 37.50% 3,224 28.10% 2,416 30.23% 2,599 4.18% 359
Placer 37.09% 21,620 31.16% 18,165 28.50% 16,612 3.24% 1,890
Shasta 37.03% 11,588 28.33% 8,864 29.12% 9,111 5.52% 1,727
Tulare 36.98% 15,519 30.35% 12,737 27.91% 11,711 4.75% 1,994
Monterey 36.87% 19,150 28.06% 14,575 31.00% 16,104 4.07% 2,116
Sierra 36.57% 445 30.24% 368 29.50% 359 3.70% 45
San Benito 35.16% 2,880 22.48% 1,841 39.08% 3,201 3.27% 268
Plumas 35.05% 2,138 32.35% 1,973 30.05% 1,833 2.54% 155
Alpine 34.75% 147 24.35% 103 38.30% 162 2.60% 11
Modoc 34.80% 973 30.87% 863 28.86% 807 5.47% 153
Sutter 34.16% 4,300 32.16% 4,048 28.08% 3,534 5.59% 704
Butte 33.77% 14,664 34.92% 15,160 27.69% 12,021 3.62% 1,573
Kern 33.48% 31,289 29.19% 27,280 32.87% 30,716 4.47% 4,174
Contra Costa 33.37% 53,763 46.01% 74,130 18.05% 29,090 2.57% 4,138
Del Norte 32.93% 1,652 24.64% 1,236 38.94% 1,953 3.49% 175
Siskiyou 32.50% 3,457 30.87% 3,284 31.88% 3,391 4.75% 505
El Dorado 32.47% 11,660 30.29% 10,878 33.38% 11,987 3.86% 1,386
Orange 32.13% 128,998 28.66% 115,088 35.55% 142,723 3.66% 14,708
Nevada 31.50% 7,932 34.18% 8,607 30.42% 7,660 3.90% 982
Lassen 31.47% 2,145 32.55% 2,218 32.21% 2,195 3.77% 257
Yuba 31.11% 2,785 31.93% 2,859 32.54% 2,913 4.42% 396
Imperial 30.92% 4,892 17.52% 2,773 43.81% 6,932 7.75% 1,227

See also

References

  1. ^ "Registration and Participation" (PDF). Secretary of State of California. 2002-03-08. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-07-29.
  2. ^ "Election results" (PDF). Secretary of State of California. 2002-03-08. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-07-29.

External links

This page was last edited on 31 January 2020, at 01:21
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.