The bill, Assembly Bill 181, cleared the Senate 21-4 and the Assembly 52-4, margins that reflected an unusual moment of bipartisan agreement. Lawmakers from both parties appeared to share the same underlying anxiety: that California’s schools are falling short, and that simplifying the chain of command might be enough to finally move the needle on student achievement.

Under the new law, the elected state superintendent of public instruction will be stripped of authority over the Department of Education and reduced to a seat on the state school board. In the superintendent’s place, the governor will appoint an “education commissioner” to run the department directly.

Assemblywoman Darshana Patel, a San Diego Democrat, research scientist and former local school board member, made the case plainly during the brief Assembly debate.

“We can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different outcomes for our students, our schools and our communities,” Patel said. “They are the ones who are the real victims of this misalignment of our systems and structures.” She added that the restructuring “would promote more coherent policymaking” and give both lawmakers and the public a clearer line of accountability — specifically, the governor’s office.

That last point may be the most consequential piece of the whole overhaul. The governor has always played a significant role in shaping education policy, but the sprawling cast of other players — an elected superintendent, an appointed state board, county offices, local districts — has made it simple for any one of them to deflect blame whenever test scores or graduation rates disappoint.

Upending decades of entrenched bureaucratic structure, an idea Gov. Gavin Newsom first floated during his state of the state address in January, would be notable on its own. Pushing it through over the objections of the California Teachers Association, one of the most influential political forces in Sacramento, is something closer to a political upset.

“The proposal would divert attention away from the real needs of students and schools by introducing a significant governance change that is both unnecessary and counterproductive,” the union warned in a statement issued before the vote. “This proposal does nothing to improve student outcomes or strengthen public education.”

The teachers association and allied labor groups have for years wielded significant influence over who gets elected state superintendent, and those officials have generally echoed the unions’ central argument: that additional funding, more than any structural fix, is what schools need most.

Yet that argument has grown harder to sustain. State education spending has climbed dramatically since 2000, but achievement scores have not kept pace. Elementary reading proficiency, in particular, remains stubbornly and embarrassingly low across much of the state.

Momentum for restructuring began building last fall, when Policy Analysis for California Education — a research partnership involving faculty from five major universities — released an extensive critique of the state’s governance model. The report described a system riddled with “overlapping responsibilities, fragmented authority, and challenges in ensuring streamlined decision-making.” Not coincidentally, the recommendations in that report closely mirrored what Newsom proposed months later, and what eventually became law.

The larger question now is whether consolidating power under the governor’s office will actually improve outcomes for students, or simply reshuffle the deck chairs on a system many consider to be foundering. California is projected to spend more than $25,000 per public school student under the new state budget — a substantial investment that has, so far, not translated into commensurate gains in the classroom.

For years, the state’s education establishment has resisted straying from its familiar refrain that more funding is the answer, while showing far less enthusiasm for instructional reforms such as phonics-based approaches to teaching reading.

Now the responsibility for turning things around will fall to whoever succeeds Newsom as governor — quite possibly Xavier Becerra — who will inherit not just the title of chief executive, but, under this new arrangement, the role of the state’s de facto schools chief as well.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Would Giving California’s Governor More Control Over Education Actually Boost Student Achievement? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Four seats are up for election in the TVUSD. A Christian conservative political action committee has backed two candidates in the hope of resetting a controversial agenda. The Inland Empire Family PAC has put forward candidates Jon Cobb in Trustee Area 5 and the familiar face of Dr. Joseph Komrosky in TA 4.

Komrosky previously served on the TVUSD board representing TA 4 after being elected to the seat in November 2022. He was appointed board president by his like-minded colleagues Danny Gonzalez and Jennifer Wiersma, who were also elected to the board in 2022. The three trustees were backed by the Inland Empire Family PAC. Pastor Tim Thompson of 412 Church Temecula Valley has been the PAC’s spokesperson.

However, ongoing concerns over the trio’s controversial decisions prompted a June 4 Special Recall Election that targeted Komrosky.

Critics, including national organizations, blasted Komrosky, Gonzalez and Wiersma over their critical race theory ban; their controversial critical race theory “panel” that many TVUSD teachers dubbed “indoctrination camp”; their censoring of instruction about California’s gay rights movement; their attempted defiance of state education code; their firing of the district superintendent; the hiring of their team of attorneys at taxpayers’ expense to defend against ongoing lawsuits over their actions; their ban on pride and other flags; and their mandate that educators report to parents about transgender students.

Ultimately, TA 4 voters gave Komrosky the boot and the seat has remained open. Gonzalez had already resigned his TA 2 seat one year into his four-year term; the vacancy has continued.

Wiersma’s TA 3 seat is not up for reelection until 2026. She has remained on the dais as the sole far-right voice. With Cobb and Komrosky on the ballot, the Inland Empire Family PAC is attempting to reclaim a majority on the TVUSD governing board.

The PAC’s website continues to make statements that align with politicians who support Christian Nationalism. For example, the site claims that “public schools across the nation have become a place of indoctrination into a woke ideology. … Conservative school board members who hold to a Judeo-Christian set of principles is this nation’s ticket back to American academic superiority on the world scene.”

This year’s races for the TVUSD board are well-watched. In TA 4, Komrosky faces David Sola. Despite being recalled, Komrosky successfully filed paperwork to run in the November election.

In TA 5, Cobb vies against incumbent Steven Schwartz.

Schwartz, along with Trustee Area 1’s Allison Barclay, frequently criticized Gonzalez, Komrosky and Wiersma for their policies. Barclay is up for reelection and is facing off against Melinda Anderson.

Also running in the TVUSD board races are three candidates looking to fill the TA 2 seat vacated by Gonzalez. Emil Roger Barham, Gary Oddi and Angela Talarzyk are vying for the open spot.

In addition to the TVUSD races, the Inland Empire Family PAC is attempting to influence other school districts across the IE. The PAC is backing candidates in the Redlands Unified School District and the Riverside Unified School District.

The post Eyes On Temecula Valley USD: Riverside County Election 2024 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.