KERRY MAZZONI

Kerry Mazzoni, a former assemblywoman from Marin County who recently became Gov. Gray Davis’ new education secretary, is a product and proponent of the California public schools.

She comes from a family of educators whose influence prompted her to work in Head Start and other children’s centers, putting to use the bachelor’s degree in child development that she received at UC Davis.

For several years, she served on the board of trustees of the school district in Novato, the town where she attended junior high and high school. She twice was president of that board, in 1990 and 1993.

Beginning in 1994, the Democrat represented Marin County and part of Sonoma County in the Assembly, where she focused on a variety of education issues. November marked the end of her third--and last, under term limits--tour of duty in the Assembly.

As Davis’ point person on education, she will advise him on school-related matters and sell his proposals to legislators. By all appearances, the two tend to agree on most key issues. One notable example: They both vehemently oppose school vouchers.

An avid reader, hiker and traveler, Mazzoni, who will turn 52 this week, recently returned from a trip to South Africa, where she fulfilled a lifelong dream of going on safari. She is the mother of a grown daughter and son and lives in San Rafael.

She was interviewed by phone on her second day on the job.

Question: Why do you think Davis chose you as his top education advisor?

Answer: We are very like-minded as it relates to high standards, assessment and accountability and the belief that all children can learn, and that we must stop making excuses. We both share a very strong support for a quality public system of education. It is the tie that binds us as a society.

*

Q: Why are you so interested in education?

A: My father was a teacher and vice principal and principal. My mother had a teaching credential and did substitute work. My grandmother and aunts were teachers. Education was always something that was discussed over dinner. . . . In the Assembly, I was very concerned about the success of our schools and very concerned that students have the opportunities they needed to be successful.

*

Q: Davis has firm--some would say rigid--opinions about how education policy should proceed in California. How is your relationship with him, and will he be open to an advisor who occasionally disagrees?

A: I feel very good about my relationship with him. I carried one of his bills [the reading bill that provided for teacher academies]. I had previously done work in reading, and my maternal grandmother was a reading specialist. She was always sending me books and wonderful children’s literature.

I think the governor will be very open to me and to my perception of what is happening and what needs to be done in California. The governor and I are on the same page.

*

Q: Do you part ways on any significant issue?

A: I can’t really say. He and I have not had an opportunity to sit down and talk about the future.

*

Q: There is a good bit of rancor in the education community about one aspect of the cash-reward system. Many educators are saying that schools qualifying for rewards under the new Academic Performance Index should get as much as $150 a student. Yet, the school-accountability legislation refers to $150 a student as a maximum. So many schools qualified that the level will end up being closer to $68 a student. What’s your thinking on that?

A: I know that has been a concern in the field, but the legislation was clear in saying “up to $150.” I think it’s wonderful news for California that so many schools did so well, and we didn’t have enough money. I can’t say I feel terribly strongly about it.

*

Q: Are you comfortable with the high monetary stakes that have been attached to the API, with some teachers at low-performing schools that show big improvement eligible for a $25,000 bonus?

A: I think the governor has appropriately made rewards significant for our lower-performing schools. That’s also an issue of attracting and retaining well-trained teachers in those schools.

*

Q: But the only criterion, so far, is the Stanford 9, a nationally normed test that is not geared to California’s standards. Are such high stakes appropriate in that case?

A: You have to start someplace. I’ve had discussions with people in other states who have struggled with testing, and I’ve decided that we probably went about it in the right way. A nationally normed test is the least controversial. We want all our students to have basic skills. . . . One of the wonderful things about the legislative process [is that] we can fine-tune. . . . We had no way to judge where our schools were in California. We didn’t have a uniform test. The Legislature was really hamstrung in terms of trying to focus resources where they were most needed. With a statewide test, we will now have the data we need to improve the system of public education in California.

*

Q: Speaking of data, the API will lack data on graduation and attendance rates for years to come. What do you plan to do to promote the development of the California Student Information System?

A: Everyone in education, including the governor, wants to make sure we have good data, the kind we can use to track students. There are concerns that it’s too far out in the future.

*

Q: What about the high school exit exam, another planned component of the API? Given the high potential failure rates, would you be open to postponing it beyond the class of 2004, which under current law would be the first class required to pass the exam to receive diplomas?

A: I think the proposal that [former interim Education Secretary] John [Mockler] took to the State Board of Education is comprehensive and good. [The proposal would make the test shorter and easier, among other changes.] What’s important also is that there will be a group of professionals looking at the issue and providing guidance for policymakers. It’s too early to draw any kind of conclusion.

*

Q: What are your top education priorities?

A: My highest priority is to advise the governor and help provide the kind of information he will need in terms of legislative initiatives. Another will be staying the course on the many initiatives that have begun. That is very important; we need to allow the reforms to work and to monitor them.

*

Q: As you know, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a suit against the state of California over the issue of disparities in school facilities and education opportunities. Davis’ administration has countersued 18 districts, contending that the districts are responsible for ensuring that facilities are appropriately maintained. How extensive should the state’s responsibility be in this issue?

A: The state sets standards and provides funds to ensure children have access to a quality education. It’s also important that school districts are accountable for their actions. The state has provided a lot of support for schools with a number of initiatives--including class-size reduction and higher standards--but the state can only do so much. We have a strong value of local control in this state. Local school boards need to be held accountable.

We’ve set that up in our accountability system. If a school is low achieving and is given additional money to address that [and still does not adequately improve], then it is the state’s role to come in and take over. I don’t foresee it happening. If you look at other states, that hasn’t necessarily happened. The accountability system has been enough of a motivator.

*

Q: Delaine Eastin, the state superintendent of public school instruction, has advocated universal preschool. How do you feel about that idea?

A: I have long been a supporter of quality early-childhood education for all children. It’s a very huge challenge. Child care is a very expensive item for families. It’s very important that students come to school ready to learn. But there are issues, finding facilities and teachers, among them. Our early-childhood educators are very, very low paid.

*

Q: What is your view of vouchers and charter schools?

A: On vouchers, we have to be ever vigilant because supporters of vouchers will always try again. I am an absolute opponent of vouchers. I chaired the “No on Vouchers” committee in Marin County in 1993. In the most recent case [the Nov. 7 defeat of a statewide universal voucher initiative], what you saw was that the public doesn’t like them. I strongly believe that if we did not have a statewide testing and accountability system in place, we would not have been able to defeat vouchers the way we did. What you saw was that the public was very supportive of what we’re doing. They’re not willing to walk away from public schools. They have seen the changes. Test scores are up. Class size is down. We are investing money in instructional materials, in teacher training.

After I chaired the anti-voucher committee in 1993, I supported charters because they could address some people’s concerns on school choice. I think there’s a place for them within our system. One of the great benefits of a charter school is that once a parent makes a choice, that is the first step to involvement. That happens also in local public schools. There are many opportunities for parents to make choices even without that separate structure of charter schools.