Editorial:

This year the State Superintendent of Public Instruction is a competitive race between the incumbent Tom Torlakson and Marshall Tuck. The biggest difference between them is that Tuck is pro-charter schools. Torlakson is pro-teacher, having come up through the ranks starting out as a teacher, and being consistently pro-union.

An interesting twist in the race was the recent ruling in the Vergara case, where a judge struck down the state’s tenure laws and other job protections for teachers. The judge ruled that the state’s teacher tenure rules violate the civil rights of students, claiming that the worst teachers end up in the highest-poverty schools, creating unequal conditions. This case ruling has now become the central focus of the campaign. Tuck supports the ruling and as State Superintendent, Torlakson has filed an appeal against the case.

There was a time when the State Superintendent shaped state legislation and provided the lead and direction of education in California. Today those responsibilities have diminished.

For better or worse, several decades ago, via a ballot initiative and by the will of the voters, much of the power and authority was shifted from the State Superintendent and handed over to the politicians.

With two state education boards in California, the elected State Superintendent of Public Education and the California Department of Education made up of appointed officials by the Governor, the office of State Superintendent takes on more of a symbolic leadership role. Therefore, the Vergara case is prominent in this race as it defines educational philosophy of the two candidates.

Tuck supports the ruling and believes that there needs to be a change in the tenure process. Tuck was president of Green Dot, a chain of public charter schools, and fully supports the charter school movement. Torlakson on the other hand believes in tenure for teachers and the role that the unions play in representing the teachers.

While there are many issues with education, teacher tenure should not be the scapegoat. Reform advocates see the unions as a hindrance as to what they believe is the right path for the future of education. They and Tuck believe that charter schools, which circumvent the unions, are leading the way.

The problems we are seeing today in education are the results of a lack of attention to educating our minority students. It has always been said that the future of a city, a state, a country depends on the education of its people. Unfortunately the education of minorities has been abysmal and now that the minority communities are the majority in California this lack of attention has come back to haunt the state.

In the past public education was not given the tools to deal with the issue of educating our ethnically diverse communities. Charter schools were born out of the need of the business community which requires high school graduates the ability to read and understand computer manuals. Even the military has become a place where wars will no longer be fought hand-to-hand but through the use of tools such as drones which require the capability to handle a computer program.

The Vergara case goes a long way towards deflating the unions but does very little in addressing the very real issues — How to attract stronger teachers? How to develop stronger teachers? How to retain stronger teachers? Nor does it address the equity of low income schools versus the middle class and upper income schools.

For Marshall Tuck his answer to these problems are charter schools. A charter school is based upon a business model and for all business models the most important thing is the bottom line, are they profitable for the owners.

Tom Torlakson believes in the educators and instead of diverting state dollars away from public education he wants to see those resources go where they will do the most good and that is in the classroom.

Torlakson understands teachers and the issues they face and is not so quick to blame the teachers for all troubles in education.

The State Superintendent of Public Education does not set education policy, the politicians do, but as the guiding light for public education Torlakson would shine that light on the educators and their needs to educate the students.

Whereas Tuck would put more of an effort into creating charter schools and promoting this business model.

For these reasons we support the re-election of Tom Torlakson as State Superintend of Public Education.