In an editorial about the gubernatorial race in California, the Sacramento Bee endorsed former San Francisco MayorG avin Newsom and State Treasurer John Chiang. It specifically rejected former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa because of his alliance with the charter school industry.
What was crucial in its decision, says the editorial, was the charter school issue.
Gov. Jerry Brown is a hard act to follow. No California governor has served longer, or more consequentially.
In the past eight years alone – his second stint in the office – the state has gone from a $27 billion budget deficit to a $6 billion surplus. Unemployment has fallen from 12.2 percent to 4.3 percent, a record. Along the way, Brown has realigned the state’s criminal justice system, overhauled public school finance, licensed more than a million undocumented drivers, put the state at the forefront of addressing climate change and taught Californians a little Latin.
Whoever succeeds him will not only have to pick up where he left off on those issues, but also maintain his defense of California against Trump administration assaults on our environment, trade, diversity and tolerant values. Not to mention our many in-state challenges – affordable housing, health care, underfunded public employee pensions, higher education, water policy and so on. Oh, and the near-term likelihood of a downturn in the state economy.
So voters have their work cut out on June 5 in culling two candidates from a field of more than two dozen contenders. A few prospects are prepared, but let us stipulate: None are Jerry Brown.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom sat down with the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board to discuss affordable housing, the California economic divide and other key election issues ahead of the June 5 primary. Emily ZentnerSacramento Bee Editorial Board
The best-equipped candidate for the economy to come – state Treasurer John Chiang – is running an anemic campaign and is probably terminally underfunded. The best-financed and most experienced candidates – former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom – have, in their personal lives, made unnerving and public errors in judgment.
More immediately, there are the great gobs of money from billionaire charter school advocates going to independent expenditure campaigns backing Villaraigosa. Though Newsom, too, has his billionaires – hello, Silicon Valley – the charter movement has direct implications for public schools in California.
It is largely because of this latter development that our top two endorsements go to Newsom and Chiang.
Newsom, the 50-year-old frontrunner in the polls, has been running for governor for so long, and has put so much thought into the matter, that when he speaks, his positions manage to sound both glib and over-detailed. That’s too bad: His principles, hedged though they often seem, generally channel the liberal majority of this blue state.
Like Brown, he’s for strong climate policy, locally focused school finance and aggressive use of the courts to beat back the overreaches of the Trump administration. But he departs from the governor on some other popular but expensive points. He says higher education should get more state funding, as should universal preschool, and he advocates – rashly, given the cost – single-payer health care, a position that has endeared him to California progressives.
If he gets elected and the state economy dips, as experts expect, he will surely disappoint them.
Chiang, 55, may not have Newsom’s San Francisco charisma, but he does know economics. Call him a wonk, but so is Brown, and like Brown, he knows the value of deliberation and frugality.
Since his 1997 appointment to the state Board of Equalization, Chiang, a child of Taiwanese immigrants and a graduate of Georgetown law school, has served in a series of statewide offices with, as he puts it, “no drama.”
That hasn’t meant no guts: As controller, he withheld legislators’ paychecks after they blew a voter-approved deadline for passing the budget; some still haven’t forgiven him. During the recession, he also refused an order from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to slash state workers’ pay.
He downplays his personal story, though it is compelling; his sister was brutally murdered when he was a young man, and his family encountered blistering racism during his childhood in suburban Chicago. Like Newsom, he champions public schools, and his ideas to address the state housing crisis with a big housing bond have been both sensible and aggressive. It’s too bad his campaign is such a dud; he’s the best choice for fiscally conscious Californians – and for Republicans who might want to vote strategically and try to get a moderate in the November general election in this heavily Democratic state.
Villaraigosa, 65, would give Newsom the toughest runoff in November. He was Assembly Speaker and ran California’s largest and most complicated city during the worst of the recession; once an up-from-the-streets labor organizer, he has become more pragmatic with age.
But his alliance with rich charter school advocates in Los Angeles could backfire at the state level. Privately operated public charter schools have been an important alternative in low-income districts, but they also have pulled students – and enrollment-based state and federal funds – out of the regular school system.
In the L.A. schools, where the charter billionaires and Villaraigosa worked together with the best intentions, that trend, combined with soaring pension obligations, has spawned a financial disaster. Now comes a $12.5 million independent expenditure for Villaraigosa from charter philanthropists Eli Broad, Reed Hastings of Netflix and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The charter school issue is as important to get right as it is divisive. California has challenges enough without letting its factions hijack the governor’s race.
This is a remarkable turnaround for the Bee, because in the past it was an unabashed cheerleader for charter schools. When I visited Sacramento several years back, I met with the editorial board. It was cool to the point of being hostile because of my criticism of charters. At that time, Michelle Rhee was a star who had recently married the mayor of Sacramento. So, either the internal dynamics of the Bee editorial has changed, or the membership of the board changed, or the board learned more about the charter industry. Whatever the reason, this endorsement is great news. It demonstrates that the bloom is off the rose for charter schools, and the billionaires who back them.
The Network for Public Education Action Fund endorsed John Chiang because of his clarity about the negative fiscal impact on the state’s public schools. Hopefully, Gavin Newson will learn from the Bee editorial that it is safe to support traditional public schools, which enroll the vast majority of the students in California, instead of an aggressive industry that promises more than it delivers. At least, do no harm.
The times, they are a’ changing.

President Trump has declared this week, National Charter Schools Week:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-proclaims-may-6-may-12-2018-national-charter-schools-week/
LikeLike
No, Trump got it wrong.
This week is Teacher Appreciation Week.
LikeLike
Well, Diane, Obama got it wrong, too. He declared Teacher Appreciation Week to be Charter Schools Week. Another reason I learned to hate him.
LikeLike
“The times, they are a’ changing.” I SURE HOPE SO. This country is GRATING, big time.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “grating”? Thanks!
LikeLike
Make America Grate Again!
LikeLike
Right over my head!!!! Duh!
LikeLike
“In the L.A. schools, where the charter billionaires and Villaraigosa worked together with the best intentions”. Well, sure, their intentions were to privatize public education, enrich their family and friends, purchase the LA school board, bankrupt LA Unified, and leave chaos and disruption in their wake. Best intentions…for them….what a load of garbage….
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES. Sadly the “best intentions” of so many who believe that they must intervene into educational policy are based upon the theory that the making of profit is always the “best choice” goal.
LikeLike
California claims to have provided driver’s licenses to over a million undocumented illegal aliens! see
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article207939584.html
The Golden State is looney tunes.
LikeLike
Villaraigosa just seems horribly corrupt. Ugh. Some of the things he’s been involved in!
Pushing pyramid schemes, how he seems to be wholly owned by ed reform billionaires.
At some point don’t people get sick of this? Sick of being sold and manipulated and lied to? Aren’t we due for some kind of “good government” era? I don’t romanticize it- there will always be self interest and there’s so much billionaire money sloshing around that no one will be squeaky clean, but just SOME semblance of serving the public?
Why is the Net Flix guy running public schools? For no other reason than he’s rich, right? What does this even say to students? The best people are the richest people? What kind of lesson is that?
LikeLike
I have seen Newsom on Bill Maher. He is a good looking, seemingly informed, smooth talker. As a corporate Democrat, he may suffer from the same blind spot as Brown with regard to public education and the “free market.” As least Newsom would not likely create a deficit unless charter expansion remains unfettered. We know the eventual outcome of such as scenario is to create a deficit, but with the state having such a robust economy, California may be able to mask its losses. Let’s hope, if Newsom wins, he will have the wisdom and courage to take an honest look at all the harm that privatization is inflicting on children, families and communities.
LikeLike
Jerry Brown at least had his OWN ideas about schools. He had a theory of public schools that he didn’t crib from Jeb Bush or Eli Broad.
That’s really all I ask. When I elect these people I am not electing Eli Broad. I expect them to DO THEIR OWN thinking. If they don’t then why bother having them? We’ll just hire figureheads who disperse public funds. We can replace them with a decent accounting firm. If I wanted people to dispense funds to contractors I don’t need a school board member- I need a bookkeeper.
They are becoming irrelevant. If people in Los Angeles had wanted the school board to be a rubber stamp for “ed reform” as imagined by think tanks and lobbyists and billionaires they could save a lot of money and time and just dispense with the school board. They’re redundant.
LikeLike
The only way to send a message to the rubber stampers is to stamp them out in elections. Then, politicians will get the message that issues like support for public schools count.
LikeLike
One may be better than the other as far as public schools but the truth is both of these guys became multimillionaires either in office or immedialtely after they left and they weren’t hired as consultants for their brilliant business ideas- they were hired because they could provide access to government officials.
It’s pay to play, and it’s blatant. I do not know how bad it gets before it collapses, but it will collapse because this level of systemic corruption in government isn’t sustainable. It can’t just get worse forever. It will fail because the self-dealing is a kind of Ponzi scheme.
LikeLike
In the case of Villaraigosa and the Herbalife pyramid scam it’s about more than government access. Herbalife used him to sell the scam to the Latino community. Netflix has a good documentary about that called “Betting on Zero”. (shh… don’t tell Reed Hastings).
LikeLike
The most interesting part of this to me is it is now apparently okay for newspaper editorial boards to dissent from the ed reform echo chamber.
That’s different. Past due, but welcome.
We need a public debate on whether we want to privatize public schools. We’ve never had that debate because ed reformers have carefully dodged it for 20 years.
LikeLike
The privateers have been sneaking around in the shadows for too long because they know destroying the schools 90% of the students attend will not be popular.. The public is becoming much more savvy about privatization. More people are aware privatization is a power-money grab designed to subtract from the working people and add to wealthy people’s portfolios.
LikeLike
Still, Newsome is being aided in funding by numerous PACS some of which are pro-charter/reformers money – usual suspects Koch, Waltons, Gates et al – while D. Eastin has pledged no PAC moneys. Sorry, But Newsome is not to be believed. Too much outside money flowing into his coffers to be legitimately considered against charters, post election – watch him do the bait and switch routine. Too much at stake to consider him legitimately against charters and his language in the debates always hedges on the reformer’s talking points. Nope. Sorry. He’s not the right candidate for public schools.
LikeLike
But Eastin is at 1% in polls. And she was a board member of a charter school.
LikeLike
Yes I am aware of her history. But, you have to admit that you yourself once supported the idea, but have since changed your opinion. Why couldn’t have she done the same? Further, the PAC money alone flowing into Newsome’s campaign makes me quite weary of who he is going to be beholden to. Too much outside funding flowing into CA from the usual foundations toward Oakland, SF, Ross Valley School District, LA they are all under attack from outside funding sources….I just can’t trust him and I don’t like how he’s answered the education questions in the debates – I can recognize a talking point a mile away, and he hit them all.
LikeLike
The Network for Public Education Action Fund has endorsed State Treasurer John Chiang for Governor in California.
LikeLike