mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Blue Civil War
California Dems Face Off on School Reform

Two Democrats are battling to become California’s superintendent of education—one is opposed to most school reforms, and the other is broadly in favor. Education reform has become a hot issue in California, where nine young students have taken the state to court over its teacher tenure policies.

Reuters reports:

Former charter school executive Marshall Tuck said on Friday he planned to unleash campaign ads and social media outreach next week to unseat incumbent state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a former lawmaker and teacher who has the backing of unions and the state party organization. […]

“[Tuck] doesn’t support school vouchers, he believes in separation of church and state and he wants to keep the money in public schools,” not privatize them, said his campaign manager Cynara Lilly.

Tuck said in an interview on Friday he supports teachers’ right to organize, but unions have “too big a seat at the table.” He opposes rules that require teachers with the least seniority to be the first fired during layoffs, and is against granting teachers tenure after just two years on the job. […]

[The incumbent] Torlakson has supported such elements of the reform agenda as stricter academic standards and a new plan by California Governor Jerry Brown to give schools more control over the state money they receive. But he is opposed to privatization or rolling back teachers’ job protections.

More Democrats inside and outside California have begun supporting school reform, according to Reuters. The Obama administration has proposed evaluating teachers based on their students’ test scores, and, as we noted yesterday, the popular charter school movement has found champions in a few Congressional Democrats.

The California election will be a fight to watch, and an indication of how school reform might play in other blue states. Could the winds of change be blowing in from the west?

Features Icon
show comments
  • Real_American78

    both are losers.

  • Arkeygeezer

    I do not see that “Liberal Internationalism” is any different from Domestic Liberalism. They both try to force diversity and secularism with large inclusive organizations, (U.N., E.U. or U.S.), and demand blind allegiance to that order. If the order unravels, it is a colossal catastrophe!

    There are some people and groups in this world who do not want to become tolerant, secular, disorderly, multicultural Americans. The more we try to force the American order on the world, the more the world pushes back.

    The President is hamstrung by the American People. He won office on the proposition that we would get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and try to get along with other nations through cooperation and negotiation through international organizations like the U.N. and N.A.T.O. Like most liberal schemes, it did not work.

    Now the President could not get public support for the use of Troops on the ground to resolve anything other than a direct attack on the American people in the continental United States. Since the “pax Americana” depends on the use of the U.S. armed forces, it looks like there are going to be some changes in the World.

    The President is steering the only course open to him under these circumstances.

    • Corlyss

      “(U.N., E.U. or U.S.), and demand blind allegiance to that order.”

      It’s worse than that. Liberal elites will never admit the UN or any of their favorite NGOs could possibly make a mistake.

      “Now the President could not get public support for the use of Troops”
      As an Army brat, ordinarily I believe strongly in the military, that they can do the impossible with nothing as the old joke goes. But I wouldn’t ask them to follow Obama into the next room, much less into a war. I am definitely against Obama trying to do anything militarily. He, like the last string of presidents since Clinton, has turned the military into Barney Fife – you know, the deputy from the Andy Griffith Show, who the sheriff required to keep his one bullet in his shirt pocket.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service