We recommend voting for Josh Newman for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Only 47% of California kids can read at grade level. In San Francisco, it's even worse — SFUSD is in the bottom 10% of 287 California districts for reading, and only 21% of Black students and 18% of English learners meet state standards in SFUSD. This isn't because kids can't learn. It's because California has been teaching reading wrong — and the Superintendent's job is to fix that.

For decades, California schools used "balanced literacy" — an approach that asks kids to guess words from pictures instead of sounding them out. The research is clear: it doesn't work. What works is phonics. Mississippi proved it — they switched to phonics in 2013 and went from 49th to 9th in the nation for 4th-grade reading. The poorest state in America is now one of the best at teaching kids to read.

California has the research, the resources, and enough high-performing schools to know what educational excellence looks like. What we've lacked is leadership at the state level willing and able to say clearly: this is the standard, this is what works, and here's how we're going to get there.

Josh NewmanCandidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Newman chaired the Senate Education Committee, where he shaped education policy, secured major investments, and co-authored a $10 billion school facilities bond. His plan for the Superintendent's office is modeled directly on what made Mississippi's reforms work. Mississippi didn't just pass a law — they built a statewide Literacy Coaching Corps of trained instructional coaches embedded in schools, required universal early screening so struggling readers were caught before they fell behind, and sustained the effort across multiple administrations for over a decade. Newman wants to bring that same model to California: a California Literacy Coaching Corps, universal early screening in every district, and transparent district-level dashboards so parents and school boards can see who's implementing evidence-based instruction and who isn't.

Newman also championed the District of Choice program, which lets families send their kids to public schools outside their home district. The LAO found that 90% of transfer students moved to higher-performing schools — and instead of weakening the schools they left, the competition pushed home districts to improve. Those districts studied what families wanted, added new programs, and saw test scores rise faster than the state average. That's the kind of pro-family, accountability-driven policy GrowSF supports: give parents real choices, and let the results drive improvement across the whole system.

Newman is also the only candidate willing to say something important out loud: this office should probably be appointed, not elected. Most states vest education authority in a cabinet-level Secretary of Education who serves at the direction of the governor — creating cleaner accountability and a direct connection between education priorities and the state's chief executive. Newman supports moving to that model through a constitutional amendment. We agree. Few voters pay attention to this race, and the current system insulates education governance from the accountability it deserves. The Governor should own education outcomes, and the person running California's schools should answer to them.

What about Al Muratsuchi?

Al Muratsuchi wrote California's phonics law — a major accomplishment. As Chair of the Assembly Education Committee, he authored AB 1454, pushed it through after a previous version died in 2024, got it passed unanimously, and secured $200 million in funding. He also found $180 million in shady payments going to a charter school network and wrote AB 84 to crack down on charter school fraud. The law's main limitation is that adoption is voluntary — districts can take the funding and training, or not. That's why the Superintendent matters: someone has to build the accountability systems that make sure districts actually follow through. Newman's Mississippi-modeled plan for coaching, screening, and transparent data is the most specific implementation roadmap in this race.

Why not Frank Lara?

Do not vote for Frank Lara.

Lara fought the 2022 school board recall that up to 76% of San Franciscans voted for. While parents were demanding open schools and basic competence, Lara called the recall a billionaire-funded plot to "privatize" public education. He defended the board members who renamed schools instead of reopening them. San Francisco voters remember. They should remember now too.

Lara has opposed Phil Kim on the SF Board of Education — the same Phil Kim who has finally started moving SFUSD's reading and math scores up. Lara wants board members who answer to the union, not to students and families.

His platform tells you everything. He calls standardized tests "expensive instruments of racism" and wants to replace them with projects graded by teachers and community members. In plain English: he wants to stop measuring whether kids are learning. When half of California kids can't read at grade level, the answer is not to throw out the tests. It's to teach better.

He wants a statewide ban on new charter schools, a ban on vouchers, and forced unionization of every charter and private school in California. He's a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. He reposted a statement blaming the United States for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Lara is running on ideology, not outcomes. His whole career has been about protecting the adults in the system, not the kids. He would make California's education crisis worse.