State Superintendent for Public Instruction Jack O’Connell discusses the impact of the budget on education today, and it’s predictably negative.  After going through the particulars ($7.4 billion cut to Prop. 98 funding, additional flexibility for local control, a repayment measure on the ballot to return $9.8 billion to education under Prop. 98 in the future), he makes a strong announcement:

The painful budget process at our state and local school district level calls out for reform of California’s dysfunctional budgeting process. It is time for a sincere and frank conversation about reform. Central to this conversation is the idea of throwing out the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget and simply using a majority vote. Nearly every state in the nation and Congress, as well as counties, and cities use majority votes to pass their budgets. California should follow suit.

I understand that the minority party may feel that this would make them irrelevant to the process but, if anything, it would hold their majority party colleagues even more accountable.

Most importantly, a simple majority vote would protect our schools and districts from the instability they are forced to endure anytime the Legislature cannot reach a budget compromise.

It is time to bring about substantive changes to the way we do business in Sacramento – we owe the people of California this much.

Good for him, and it’s explained and framed well.  And now we have to line up our lawmakers along the fault line of a majority vote restoring democracy versus an arbitrary shift like 55%.

Majority Vote

John Burton, Jack O’Connell

55%

John Garamendi, Gavin Newsom

Every leader in the Democratic Party should be able to articulate where they stand on this crucial issue, the most important one facing the state.  Call your lawmakers and ask them what they prefer.

The latest Field Poll is out (SF Chronicle here and Field PDF here) and it shows the favorability ratings of various leading contenders for 2010 gubernatorial race in both parties. And while the Chronicle wants to make this an “omg DiFi is the favorite” and “ha ha – Newsom sucks” story, the two most important things the poll actually tells us are:

1. DiFi has very high unfavorability ratings among Democratic contenders, and

2. Nobody – and I mean nobody – knows a thing about the Yacht Party potentials, except that they don’t like them.

Let’s take this in order. First, the Dems:

Among Dems only Gavin Newsom has higher unfavorables, but not by much, and since this poll was taken right before the election – when Newsom was getting pounded in the press and on the airwaves by the Yes on 8 campaign – this may be a low point for Newsom.

That makes the 39% unfavorable figure for Feinstein rather significant. Sure, she has the highest favorable rating – 50% – of anyone in the field regardless of party, but that’s not a great figure for such an established politician. As we’ve noted before, her numbers among Dems aren’t so hot either. I don’t see much basis for a DiFi inevitability argument, which the Chronicle is trying to get started.

Jerry Brown has a lot of room to grow, since much of that 32% “no opinion” are probably younger Californians who (like me) were born late in or after his previous terms as governor.

Antonio Villaraigosa has to be considered a sleeper here. At 39% “no opinion” that gives him room to grow as well. He has been building a solidly progressive reputation over the last year, coming out strong against Prop 8 and leading the fight for mass transit in LA (seriously, getting to 2/3 with a sales tax for rail in LA County is a major achievement). As Brian noted a few weeks ago, his endorsements were the closest match to our own. He is also making a high profile link with Barack Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. If you want to run for governor, it is a damn smart move to link yourself to a popular president who won CA by 24 points.

And what of the Yacht Party contenders? They have Bill Simon written all over them:

Even with enormous unknown ratings, none of them have a net favorability rating outside the margin of error, and Steve Poizner already has a significant unfavorability rating that will only grow once his links to voter registration fraud get a wider airing. The Chronicle article promotes Meg Whitman as a breakout star, but I’m not seeing it here. All California voters will need to hear is that she’s a Republican and that she was an advisor to the McCain campaign and that may be enough to torpedo her.

The only Republican who might have a snowball’s chance is Tom Campbell, the moderate Republican, but he didn’t fare well in a statewide race in 2000 (losing to DiFi). Of course it’s highly unlikely that the “down with the ship” Yacht Party primary voters will vote for a moderate like Campbell.

This goes to show that the 2010 governor’s race may well be decided in the June primary, which should be one of the most interesting primary fights we’ve seen in this state in a long, long, LONG time.

There are some other items of note going on beyond the Democratic Party (or at least somewhat beyond the Democratic Party). Some items of note:

Anything else?

[UPDATE by Dave]: I have a couple:

• Here’s a Republican being a Republican.  Classy as hell.

Santa Ana City Councilman Carlos Bustamante has quietly resigned from two state commissions he was appointed to by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, after his published remarks last month suggesting that a male candidate for Orange County sheriff could’ve gotten the job if he had breast implants […]

After the Orange County Board of Supervisors appointed Sandra Hutchens over Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters as the county’s sheriff on June 10, Bustamante joked to a blogger: “I kept telling the chief [Walters]: ‘Maybe we should get you some implants. Or a water bra.’ “

• More coverage on John Garamendi’s speech at the launch of Health Care For America Now.

• TChris at Talk Left looks at the death penalty in CA.  This is pretty shocking:

Since 1978, the federal courts have ordered new trials in 38 of 54 death penalty appeals in California, an unacceptable 70 percent error rate.

Read the whole thing.

• And this is a few days old, but just so you know, the yacht economy is rocking!!!  Thanks to that avoidance of sales tax, I’m sure!

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell has a post at the California Progress Report on the declining number of students in teacher credential programs in California:

Since 2001-02, the state has reduced the number of underprepared teachers in the classroom by 25,000. California, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning reported, “…seemed to be on the right track toward building a teacher development system with the capacity to produce an adequate supply of teachers and deliver them to schools where they were needed most.”

So while we’re improving the quality of the teachers in the field, what about the supply of future teachers: those students in college today who are considering teaching as a profession? Unfortunately, the picture isn’t so bright….

For example, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning recently looked at the number of enrollees in teacher preparation programs since the state’s last fiscal crisis in 2003. The Center reports the following: “During the 2002-03 school year, colleges enrolled 74,203 candidates in preparation programs. The next year, that number dropped to 67,595 and the following year (2004-05) the numbers declined further to 64,753, a loss of 10,000 teacher candidates in two years. Similarly, the numbers of teaching credentials awarded dropped from 27,000 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2006.”

O’Connell could be a bit clearer here on the causes of the decline. As a result of the last budget crisis, the CSU system – which handles the bulk of teacher training in California – was hit with hundreds of millions of budget cuts, and a significant increase in student fees for professional education programs. Most students entering these programs already carry significant debt loads from their undergraduate years, and the stagnant pay for California’s teachers often makes it difficult for young people to repay these loans – especially when you add in our state’s high cost of living.

O’Connell does an excellent job of explaining how the current education budget cuts might dissuade future teachers:

This year California once again faces a budget crisis with potential cuts to education of $4.8 billion dollars. Undergraduates or those students already in teacher credential programs are thinking twice about their career choice. They are aware of the 14,000 pink slips just sent to teachers to prepare them for potential layoffs. They are well aware of the “last-hired, first-fired” rule and they ask themselves, “Do I want to pursue a career that is so unstable that I will face potential layoffs year after year?”

If we don’t find a way to stabilize our funding to schools, California may soon be facing another crisis: classrooms full of students with no teachers at the head of the class.

This is already beginning to take place. Between myself and my sister, who teaches 5th grade in Orange County, we know nearly a dozen people who are in their first years of teaching or in a credential program. Many of them have expressed regret about entering the teaching profession, especially as they worry about whether or not they’ll have a job this fall. A friend of ours who came to visit on spring break a couple weeks ago, currently a substitute teacher in Santa Ana, told me she was happy she had an accounting background, and said she thought it would be better for her to pursue an accounting degree instead of a teaching credential.

Not only will the teacher firings discourage new teachers from entering the profession, but further higher ed cuts will have the same effect. The CSU system is facing another hundred million dollar budget cut, which will certainly result in higher student fees. Thanks to the global credit crunch, however, it is now becoming much more difficult to take out student loans – meaning even fewer students will be able to pursue the necessary education for a teaching career.

Californians have to ask themselves what they really care about. A state that prefers to fire 20,000 teachers and place teacher training out of the reach of interested young people is not a state that values education. Teachers have already carried much of the burden of public education for the last 30 years. But without more financial support, and without the ability to have a secure career, one of the state’s most valuable professions is in very serious jeopardy.

I’ve been attending the convention (my first state convention, actually), and the one thing that really struck me is how much more excitement is being paid to the Carole Migden-Mark Leno race than to the presidential election, likely a reflection of the audience.  The convention naturally attracts activists, who know about the intricacies of that senate race and Migden’s $9 million fine, especially because the convention is in San Jose, very close to Senate District 3.  Others have focused on the dynamics of the race and the hijacks at the convention, but the sheer resources that are being expended at the convention, both by Migden and Leno, and by other potential candidates for office, and I have to wonder–why bother?

As much as we may joke that politicians’ votes are for sale, does it really make sense for politicians and interests to spend thousands of dollars on “hospitality suites” as the parties are called?  I certainly enjoy the nightlife, but do they really do anything?  While it may make sense for some to host parties in order to get attention (who would know who Tom Torlakson is if he didn’t have an ice cream and apple pie social with live music?), for the higher-profile causes and politicians, especially those with Gubernatorial aspirations, does it really make sense to spend all the money on visibility and chum?  How many people are really going to be persuaded to support Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi for Governor because they got a Garamendi sign, button, poppy seeds (for planting), and an invitation to his barbeque?  Activists here know who John Garamendi is, and are (hopefully) not going to be persuaded by a picture and a Basque Barbeque.

Instead, it might make much more sense for Garamendi, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Superintendent Jack O’Connell, Leno, and Migden to spend their campaign money on building a grassroots field organization.  Indeed, that would likely help their campaigns more by creating a grassroots base and a field organization that could mobilize to deliver a primary victory, not to mention helping elect even more Democrats.  I don’t mean to revert to a trite complaint that better campaigners defeat the people who really deserve to win–an election determines who “deserves” to be elected.  But instead of wasting their money, it might be smarter for candidates for office to spend their money more efficiently, which would help the Democratic Party in general.  It would end up benefiting them, too.

We don’t have a state that’s given to paying attention to policy debates in Sacramento.  The political media is woefully thin and getting thinner, people are simply distracted by struggling to stay afloat economically, and any politics that actually does penetrate the state consciousness is national, like what surrogate said what about what Presidential candidate.  So it’s something of a shock to see so many flashpoints on the California budget fight, with particular respect to the potential defunding of education.  As notices about imminent budget cuts go out to state teachers, and school boards set their budgets for the 2008-2009 school year, Californians are waking up – almost entirely at once – to the enormity of this situation.  The idea that we can give pink slips to tens of thousands of teachers without exploring the far more sensible option of reviewing the structural revenue model in the state and making it reflect current needs and collective responsibility has really enraged parents, teachers, administrators and students.

It takes a lot to get California residents and voters interested in state public policy. But we may be on the cusp of something big here-of the magnitude of what led to Proposition 13 on property taxes in 1978 and the recall election in 2003 of Gray Davis that brought us Arnold Schwarzenegger as our Governor. In fact, when it comes to 2003, some are suggesting that Arnold is the same as Gray. If you have a couple of minutes, take a look at this local television news report and see how unhappy the Governor is with the comparison.

California is earthquake country and sometimes the ground moves slowly with a series of barely detectable minor quakes, but sometimes it shakes violently and new fault lines are seen. As the San Jose Mercury News put it:

“…there’s no denying the emotional power generated by thousands of teacher pink slips in schools all over the state.

“It’s difficult for people to grasp a debate over something as abstract as the budget,” said Fred Silva, a budget expert and fiscal policy analyst at Beacon Economics. “But how much your public school is going to have for an arts program, or a reading program, is not abstract at all.”

Frank Russo details the number of protests that have broken out statewide, mostly from grassroots groups.  When they line up with the growing coalition of traditional interest groups (education, labor, public safety, environment, health care and social services), the pressure on the Governor and legislative Republicans to recognize that California is worth paying for and that the public would be furious at across-the-board cuts will be enormous.  Just yesterday school superintendents, parents and kids rallied on the Capitol steps, and Jack O’Connell found something else to emphasize (over):

By the time Jack O’Connell, California’s state Superintendent of Public Instruction, made his way through the crowd to speak, he was greeted with thunderous applause and a warm hug. He fired up the crowd, telling them what they already knew-but his words were clearly destined for those in legislative session inside the building and to Governor Schwarzenegger, who was in Fairfield, delivering a speech on carpenter apprenticeship programs. He charged the Governor with an “abdication of one’s responsibility to set values and priorities” in proposing a 10% across the board set of budget cuts and characterized the $4.8 billion of cuts to education as a “hostile suspension of Prop 98,” noting that the voters in passing that measure had supported educational funding and had confirmed that priority 3 years ago-a reference to their rejection of a ballot measure in Schwarzenegger’s special election of 2005 that would have weakened it.

O’Connell was just one of the speakers who tied education to our future, our economy as a state, to reductions in imprisonment and crime, and to moral values. He said: “If you want to invest in the future, you invest in public education. If you want to shortchange the future, then you shortchange education. The cuts being proposed would be devastating to education. It would be a great step backwards.”

He directly challenged the Governor and Republicans on the framing of this issue: “We don’t have a spending problem. Our problem is with our priorities. When you hear people say we have a spending problem, you tell them we have a values problem. We have a problem with or priorities. That is why we need to make sure that the public policy document for the state of California is one that invests in the future.”

This is an unusual moment, where street-level organizing and grassroots action is really dominating the news.  The last time we saw this was when the Governor’s special election initiatives were thoroughly defeated in 2005.  A more confrontational politics is a direct result of a more confrontational grassroots.  Lines in the sand are being drawn.  This is an interesting time to be covering state politics.

Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi:

“Our state and its people cannot prosper in the 21st century if we force our schools to live on a fiscal starvation diet,” Garamendi said Thursday at Sacramento City College.

Assemblymember Dave Jones:

However, in doing so my Republican colleagues in the State Assembly decided that while they were prepared to cut education funding and health care for the poor, they just couldn’t stomach closing the yacht tax loophole. Too painful, apparently, to the Thurston Howell IIIs of the world. So they refused to provide the 2/3 vote necessary to close the yacht tax loophole. In doing so they robbed the poor to help subsidize tax avoidance by rich yacht owners. Are those the values we want reflected in our state budget? Those aren’t my values, that’s for sure.

Jack O’Connell, who is nominally in charge of education for the state, should find something else to emphasize.

Yesterday, David Dayen posted a story about the Alameda High School students who walked out and marched to their school district headquarters to protest the cuts to education. Dayen rightly said that it was, “really big deal” and continued:

It won’t be long before these students are joined by teachers and parents on the streets. […] Democrats need to simply defend the principle that the state is worth paying for.  The public will be with them.

Yet my morning Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert says:

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell will hold a morning news conference to urge California students not to walk out in protest of the cuts.

WTF? Why is the “Superintendent of Public Instruction” weakening the negotiating position for…public instruction? I haven’t seen the release, but if he wants to send the message that has been reported it simply makes no sense.

The Alameda students who marched on the school district made the transition from youth to citizen. They stepped up and are taking responsibility for their future. If anything, they should be applauded. I went to a great high school and yet I don’t think I learned as much in any month as those students learned pulling off this great act of political leadership. I have a hunch that if you ask them, they’ll say the same. The Alameda student leaders should be emulated:  in one afternoon they let the world know that they had learned enough to know they were going to get screwed by the GOP in Sacramento and mobilized and organized and made the papers and the blogs.

The GOP stranglehold on the state finances has dire effects and Superintendent O’Connell should be proud that these young adults understand the state budget and have the wherewithal to stand up the ideal of quality public education.

With social networking, organizing such events is easier than ever and personally I hope we see more of this, not less. The GOP budget disaster is an all hands on deck fight and I for one was proud and inspired to see Alameda high school students joining the fight — we need their help and they have proven they have game. Jack O’Connell should only be worried about the students who don’t walk out.