A Historic Crossroads on School Reform

The settlers who framed California’s Constitution 144 years ago got at least one thing right: They separated education from party politics by making the state superintendent of public instruction a nonpartisan office.

It basically worked for more than a century.

In modern times, ambitious Supt. Max Rafferty relied on right-wing demagoguery to promote his short-lived political career in the late 1960s. But even then, his bruising battles were rooted more in personality and policy than in partisan politics.

The real politicizing of elementary and high school education at the state Capitol can be traced to landmark events in the 1970s and ‘80s: The granting of collective bargaining rights to teachers, which greatly enhanced union muscle; passage of Proposition 13, which dried up local funding and concentrated power of the purse in Sacramento, and the election of Bill Honig as superintendent.

With the state Capitol controlling local schools through its checkbook, the California Teachers Assn. amassed its rising power in Sacramento. The CTA lavished millions in campaign contributions on key legislators, mainly Democrats. And these legislators, in turn, paid special attention to the CTA’s legislative agenda. Honig, ostensibly nonpartisan but actually a Democrat with gubernatorial ambitions, aligned strongly with the CTA and alienated the Republican governor, George Deukmejian.

Depending on your view, this wasn’t all bad. As Bob Nelson, the anti-voucher campaign strategist, observed last week after the election: “If there’s got to be a ‘most powerful political interest in California,’ thank God it’s teachers--not bankers and lawyers.”

While Deukmejian and Honig still were talking, the Capitol did enact some education “reforms” in the mid-1980s. But ultimately, Deukmejian’s bitterness and Honig’s hyper personality and take-no-prisoners attitude polarized the education debate. And Proposition 98, the school funding guarantee that Honig and the CTA successfully sponsored, exacerbated the partisan gridlock.

*

Now we’re at a historic crossroads. California voters have reiterated their strong support for public education by rejecting private school vouchers. But, through polls, they have expressed their frustration with the present public schools and demanded real reform.

The grateful political and education Establishments are promising reform. But talk is cheap immediately after a big election victory--even such high-minded talk as Gov. Pete Wilson’s admonition last Tuesday to “let today be the last day of the education wars and the first day of an education solution. . . . Our children cannot wait any longer for the adults to grow up.”

A Wilson aide described this as a “can we all come together?” plea. The answer is maybe, but education suddenly is perceived as a politically profitable issue for 1994 candidates, especially those running for governor and state superintendent. This could motivate the Capitol to act swiftly or it could intensify the partisan gridlock.

There are discouraging signs from the gubernatorial candidates.

Wilson announced a “reform” plan that was sketchy and awkwardly presented, but it deserved more than the partisan cheap shots fired by his Democratic rivals, Treasurer Kathleen Brown and Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi. They blasted him for waiting three years to offer a proposal, which may have been a fair observation, but did nothing to promote the cooperative atmosphere needed to help schools.

Then Brown’s more comprehensive reform package triggered petty sniping from the governor’s office about one inconsequential statistic she had cited.

*

The fact is, these competing politicians could agree on a respectable school reform package in less time than it takes to organize a fund-raising dinner. They’re not that far apart on ideas to make schools more safe, accountable, productive, modern and locally controlled--without significantly added cost.

So why don’t they? First they have to fight over authorship and credit. Some even have to decide whether they’d be better off next fall running on a promise or a record of helping schools.

An additional fact is that there are only a few key players eligible to call signals in the education arena, and they do not include the treasurer and insurance commissioner.

They do include the governor, the CTA and some powerful legislators--especially Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Assembly Education Committee Chairwoman Delaine Eastin (D-Fremont), the early front-runner in the superintendent’s race.

What must happen to achieve reform next year is for the governor and Legislature to ignore Brown and Garamendi--but steal some of their ideas--and act as the settlers envisioned.