A conversation with... Dave Long

Dave Long, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s secretary of education discusses the issues

David Long—“Call me Dave,” he tells everyone—was appointed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s secretary of education March 28. That was just two weeks after the release of “Getting Down to Facts,” the comprehensive study of public school funding and governance in California that prompted the governor to vow that 2008 would be “the Year of Education.”

Long is already playing a key role in shaping that agenda as the governor’s chief policy adviser on K-12 schools. He brings a doctorate of education from Iowa State University and more than 40 years of professional experience to the post, having served as a teacher for 21 years as well as a coach, athletic director and administrator. He was superintendent of Lake Elsinore Unified School District and Banning Unified School District before being elected superintendent of schools in Riverside County in 1999.

Long is the immediate past president of the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association and was recently named chair of the Federal Education Safe and Drug Free Schools and Community Advisory Committee by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. He and his wife, Joanne, a principal in western Riverside County’s Corona-Norco Unified School District, have two daughters; he also has four adult children and 12 grandchildren.
As this interview took place in Long’s Sacramento office last July, the state Legislature across the street was still working on the 2007-08 budget.

You were reportedly among the first education officials to endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor during the 2003 recall election. Two years later, you helped lead the opposition to his special election measures targeting education funding. Now you’re the governor’s secretary of education. Do you feel that you’ve sent some mixed signals? What is your relationship with the governor?

First of all, what you said about one of the first superintendents to endorse Gov. Schwarzenegger as he was running during the recall. The answer is absolutely yes. Two of us, I believe, on the same day, so I was one of the first. The important part about that is then, when alluding to the second part of your question, a situation came up: I happened to be on the Education Coalition at that time because I was president of [the County Superintendent’s Educational Services Association]. During that time, some people removed their names from the endorsement of Gov. Schwarzenegger. I did not. I continued to have my name right on the endorsement because I believe in the man and I believe in what he stands for as a leader and as an educational leader. I didn’t agree with that particular decision [regarding the special election].

Just like my mother used to say: I love you very much but I don’t like what you just did. I honestly believe that within the next year or so that was borne out. But the important point was I never wavered and, quite frankly, took some heat for that. But I remained that way because I believed in the man. I believe in what he stands for. Now, for the last part of your question about mixed signals: From my vantage point as an educator coming from Riverside County, as a county superintendent and now secretary of education, I don’t see mixed signals. What I saw was one particular decision regarding an amount of money. But I’m very clear on what the direction is and his leadership role in this upcoming “Year of Education.”

Maybe if I could just clarify then. With Proposition 98, you can confirm then that Prop. 98 will be safe under Gov. Schwarzenegger? He is not going to, as one of the special election measures called for, [support] giving the governor extra power over the budget? You don’t see that’s going to be revived in any way?

I think as we sit here today we’re getting the answer to that question. Proposition 98 will remain and also the funded [cost-of-living adjustment]. But those two things came from the governor saying, “I want those things to stay.” Now the negotiations have started. The answer to that question is just what I said. He stepped right in and said. “I want those two to stay.” So I think that’s consistency; he said it’s important and he’s standing behind it.

Much of the governor’s education funding, though, is tied to categorical programs. From your longtime perspective as a local administrator, how do you reconcile the need for flexibility with the strings that these categoricals attach?

That’s an age-old question, as you know and, quite frankly, it’s one of the things that will be wrestled with in this year called “the Year of Education”—that is, categorical funding and the degree of flexibility that does and does not allow. It came from two or three studies; it was talked about in “Getting Down to Facts,” about that lack of flexibility with categorical funding. So, my answer is, yes, as a district superintendent, I’ve lived that as a county superintendent, and that’s why I’m excited, quite frankly, about being in the middle of this discussion—to talk about the degree of flexibility of those categoricals.

Speaking of your work on a local level, you’re recognized for your work in raising student achievement through your Riverside County Achievement Teams, and through other programs. You’ve said that you hope you can provide some statewide models. Can you expand on that?

First of all, realize that there are fine programs from many school districts and many county offices across the state. But you asked me about some of the work that we did in the county I just came from, and those achievement teams have met with great success over the last eight years. And some of the biggest success is coming from one of the big areas that everyone is pushing now and paying attention to, and that is closing the achievement gap. And the RCAT teams you asked about, Riverside County Achievement Teams, through those eight and a half years outstripped the state in increasing scores each year, and even with low-income, high-minority, high-mobility students—over 115,000 of them in 110 schools, over an eight-year period. And the biggest part of that was closing the achievement gap. So, that is a big push on all levels, national and state, to close the achievement gap. I have experience in doing that and have met with some success in that process, so that will be part of the experience that will come to the table.

You think, then, that you’ll be able to help local officials to replicate or adapt those models?

I’m always hesitant to say “replicate.” That’s why I started the answer by saying there are many best practices across this state. This happens to be one of them. And we can take components of that and put them with other best practices and hopefully be successful with some of those low-performance schools.

Speaking of county superintendents, what do you see as the appropriate role for county offices to play in the educational accountability process for our schools?

As we start down this path of working with all the components that we’ll be working on in education across the state, I think that we all recognize that the [California Department of Education] cannot handle all of the processes, that no one entity, in fact, can handle that. It’s too big. So, from my standpoint—and that’s not just because of my background—but experience also tells me that intermediate agencies are the ones that can best assist the state in these processes. So, I think that is a natural and a fitting part of the process to help carry out mandates and to deliver high-quality services. I think county offices are poised to do this and will do an excellent job with the delivery of those services. And those county offices, by the way, are also divided into regions. It’s a very well-organized concept.

And they do have the ability, then, to work well with the local, individual school boards?

Absolutely—and I’ll give you a perfect example: The governor stepped forward with the Williams settlement out of Los Angeles Unified about two and a half years ago. He turned to county offices and said, “We need your help to deliver these services to get to these decile 1 and 2 schools across the state and visit them regarding their part in the settlement—everything from facilities to curriculum to personnel.” And he turned to county offices, and it was delivered. I just use that as one good, positive example of how the governor recognized [the role of county offices of education], and the county offices responded.

At the federal level, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind, is currently awaiting renewal in Congress. Many educators resist NCLB’s measurements and standards and the consequences that NCLB threatens schools and districts with. What are your views on NCLB?

How much time do we have? [Laughter]
I’ve been deeply involved in No Child Left Behind since its inception. I was a part of the marketing team; 25 of us were brought to Washington to work on the marketing of No Child Left Behind. I worked on the teacher quality aspect, visiting other states with the Department [of Education] out of Washington. I then helped formulate what they called the Summer Institute for teachers to improve teacher quality, and it’s still going on four years later. So I have a deep involvement in No Child Left Behind. I am a big believer in the philosophy behind the bipartisan effort to put this [accountability aspect] into law. So, philosophically, I am a very strong supporter of No Child Left Behind.

Practically, there are some things that need to be changed and looked at to make it as viable as, perhaps, it should be. Take a look at, in one word, flexibility: States and local districts could use more flexibility—i.e., the absolute bar that is placed through No Child Left Behind as opposed to what we have as a growth model [for measuring gains in student achievement] in California, and some other states, too. Having said that, that’s already being looked at and, to the credit of the Department of Education in Washington, there is some compromise and flexibility that’s being worked on now with 10 pilot states. We need more flexibility. Washington recognizes that; they’re working on that. And I think in the next month or two, we’ll hopefully come to some agreement over that. I’m one of those involved in working with Secretary [of Education Margaret] Spellings on that.
Looking at reauthorization, probably the first hard look it’s going to get is in mid- to late September. So, you’re now 11 months away from an election. The clock is ticking so it’ll be interesting to see if they run out of time for reauthorization.

You mentioned the “Getting Down to Facts” studies that were coordinated through Stanford University. What is the Schwarzenegger administration’s plan to ensure these studies will result in positive changes for our schools?

Well, the governor took a very assertive and positive role in that and made, I think, a very positive and quick decision to start to synthesize, not just “Getting Down to Facts” but a total of about 22 studies. He appointed the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, headed by Ted Mitchell, so that was done very quickly. Ted has been working diligently for the last 18 months to pull that together. His charge is to then come out with some of the things that are important in pulling all of those studies together.

So, in response to your question about the governor, he made a very quick and positive response to help ensure that the quality and positive things that were included in all of those studies will come forward for the children of California. So I feel very good about that—and his quick action.

That will set the stage, then, for the Year of Education in 2008, right?

I always use the term “paint the picture.” The “Year of Education” does not mean starting July 1 and then going the next 12 months, that we’re going to paint the picture and have everything accomplished. That’s not what the Year of Education means. The Year of Education means that we’ll start that creative, assertive, thoughtful conversation, to start to paint that picture. We don’t know the timeline. … It’s going to take some time, so I always caution people that everything isn’t going to be accomplished in 12 months.

Can you explain what you see involved in this Year of Education? What results will come of that? What initiatives will come from that?

When that picture’s painted, there’s going to be a lot of different information coming from many different sources. We talked about some of them: “Getting Down to Facts,” the Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence. Then the Office of the Secretary of Education will be seeking input from stakeholder groups across the state. This will range from the individual entities in the Ed Coalition to chambers of commerce, business round tables, other educational groups, minority groups, religious groups. So we want to cover the state, asking for input and suggestions and reactions to paint this picture.

Many of the questions that surround education really revolve around the question of adequate funding. How do you define adequate funding and how would you look to marshal the community support that’s needed to provide it?

Well, that will be a part of this creative discussion. “Getting Down to Facts,” in four separate areas, mentions the fact that money alone will not fix the system, that we don’t want to just put money on the table to fix it but, at the same time, we have to take a very creative look at the system to see what’s working and what’s not working, and then move forward. I believe exactly as the governor does: Let’s take a look at what’s going on in the system, talk about and see what we can do to focus resources and even to change the processes or programs and then go forward together. “Getting Down to Facts,” in four separate areas, they say exactly the same thing.

Of course, there are any number of studies that show California’s per-pupil spending is below the national average. It’s generally placed down around 43rd in the nation. Do you think that might indicate that money certainly does play a role in improving education?

Absolutely. That’s why it’s going to be such an important part of painting that picture and having that discussion. We have to talk about all of the funding mechanisms. If we’re going to have this discussion, what I’m suggesting is that you can’t set the parameters on the discussion. Everything’s on the table. If people ask the question, “Do we need more money?” then we have to discuss what the sources of the money are, and I think that’s healthy. And I think that’s how we make decisions: Put everything on the table. What we want to guard against in this discussion is drawing parameters that say we can talk about this but we can’t talk about that. If we’re truly going to be looking and creating this picture with all these entities, then we want to be able to talk about all things, and we can’t set parameters on the subjects.

I’m saying let’s have that creative discussion and put everything on the table. That doesn’t mean that things can’t come off the table after you get into the discussion. All I’m saying is it’s not fair to take them off the table before you begin the discussion.

What issues that we have not discussed today do you think are really important for local school board members to know about?

I’ve been a superintendent in this state for 18 years. And I’ve worked with several different boards, and many individual board members. They have all been of quality. As we go forward in this year, we’ll be involving a lot of different entities in the state to paint this picture. But to the school board association, I would say that we appreciate what they do for the children of California and the positive decisions—and difficult decisions—that they make for the children of California. As we go forward in this year, another thing that I’ll be doing is celebrating some of the very high-quality programs and activities that go on in the districts across the state.
I’ll give you one example of that: On March 12, we will have the first annual Governors Academic Recognition Dinner. It’s going to be for all 58 counties. We’ll have 177 students that will be recognized for their achievements. From that will be announced the first-ever California All-State Academic Team. The governor will be a part of that, and this is one illustration of what we’ll be doing out of this office to celebrate and recognize the quality of the students and programs and the good work that the school board members and the school boards across the state put toward the students.