Getting your
Trinity Audioplayer ready...Ahead of the June primary election, the Bay Area News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates for California’s 14th Congressional District. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and clarity.
To read our endorsements for other important Bay Area races click here.
Name: Josh Newman
Date of birth: October 17, 1964
Current job title: Senior Fellow, UC Irvine School of Social Ecology
Other political positions held: California State Senator
City where you reside: Fullerton
**If you’ve held elective office before, how has your work directly and measurably improved your constituents’ lives? **
As a State Senator representing Orange County, I passed more than 40 bills with real, measurable impact for my constituents, spanning election transparency, workplace protections, environmental reforms, veterans support, and mental health parity. On education specifically, SB 1244 expanded dual enrollment, opening more college coursework to high school students; SB 1263 addressed California’s teacher recruitment and training pipeline during deepening educator shortages; SB 291 established a statewide standard for recess, guaranteeing every elementary sufficient time for play and decompression. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I consistently focused on solutions to problems affecting the people I was entrusted to serve.
**What are the top three problems you’re seeking to solve if elected? **
First, improving student learning and achievement — California’s reading and math scores remain stubbornly low, and too many students, particularly low-income students and students of color, are falling behind without adequate intervention. Second, expanding career technical education and workforce preparation. Too few students graduate ready for the jobs California’s economy actually needs, and CTE programs remain unevenly available across districts. Third, restoring civic education: democracy doesn’t sustain itself, and we are failing students by treating civics as an afterthought. An uninformed citizenry is not an accident waiting to happen; in many ways, it’s already happening. These aren’t abstract priorities; they’re a through line of my legislative career.
What makes you qualified to solve these problems?
My qualifications are personal, professional, and legislative. I’m a product of public schools, a Yale graduate, and a former Army officer who has stood in front of a classroom and carried education bills on the state senate floor. As Senate Education Chair, I authored landmark legislation on dual enrollment, teacher recruitment, and career pathways, while learning what works and what doesn’t in California’s public schools. With a 10-year-old in public school, this isn’t theoretical for me. I’m not coming to this job to learn it; I’m running because I know what’s needed to improve public education for every California kid.
**What differentiates you from your most serious competitors for this seat? **
Two things set me apart. First, experience: I’m the only candidate who brings to the race a combination of classroom teaching, military service, managerial success in the private sector, deep engagement on educational policy at the state level, and a proven track record of political courage and legislative success. Second, independence: unlike my most serious competitors, I’m not beholden to any of the public employee unions that have long dominated education policy conversations in Sacramento. That independence is what California’s students and parents deserve in the face of the current need to find consensus and solutions for public education.
**What objective metrics would you use to measure teacher performance? **
Effective evaluation should combine multiple measures, be conducted with consistency and fairness, and be used to support improvement, not just to sort or punish. The most important metric should assess student growth, over time and not rely unduly on individual test scores, which tend to reflect socioeconomic factors outside teachers’ control. I’d also include classroom observation by trained evaluators, student engagement indicators, and retention rates which gauge whether students are staying connected to school. What I’d avoid are the kinds of approaches that reduce teacher performance to a single metric and which have historically produced bad incentives and adverse outcomes.
**Should lower-performing teachers be easier to remove than current state law allows? Explain. **
Yes. California’s current removal process is lengthy, costly, and procedurally burdensome to the point that administrators too often choose to leave underperforming teachers in classrooms and students instead of doing the right thing. That’s not good for students, and it’s also not good for teachers, who are themselves badly served when poor performance goes unaddressed. The answer isn’t at-will employment; due process is important and should be preserved. But the current system has probably tilted too far towards protecting teachers at the expense of students. A fair, efficient, and transparent removal process should be a shared goal in California.
**When and how would you use the superintendent’s limited but concrete levers of power? **
The Superintendent’s authority is arguably more bully pulpit than bureaucratic, and I’d apply it accordingly. First, identifying and scaling what works: There are actually extraordinary best practices in literacy, CTE, and student support that never travel beyond the district where they originate. Second, reorienting the Department of Education itself. CDE has become too passive, too compliance-focused, and too often adversarial toward the districts it should be serving. Third, fixing the uniform complaint procedure, which too often fails the families it’s meant to protect. Fourth, modeling moral courage and leading local leaders to refocus on students rather than culture war issues.
**What did Tony Thurmond do right as California’s state superintendent for public instruction? **
Superintendent Thurmond deserves credit across multiple areas: He shepherded California’s schools through the massive disruption of the pandemic, advocating for resources and a return to in-person learning during an extraordinarily difficult period. He also elevated mental health as a legitimate and urgent school issue during a time when student well-being has been deteriorating across the state. He championed early literacy and supported the shift toward evidence-based reading instruction. And he has been a visible, vocal advocate for students and families, particularly students and families of color, by using the Superintendent’s bully pulpit actively and often effectively.
**In what ways did Tony Thurmond fail as California’s state superintendent for public instruction? **
Despite his positive achievements, Superintendent Thurmond’s tenure has been marked by significant failures. Pandemic learning loss in California was among the highest in the nation, and recovery efforts have been unacceptably slow. Meanwhile, persistent management dysfunction and staff turnover have undermined the office’s credibility and diminished its effectiveness. California’s chronic absenteeism crisis has deepened, with roughly one in five students now missing so much school that their academic trajectories are permanently affected, while responses have been inadequate. Most fundamentally, CDE has been allowed to become a passive, compliance-focused bureaucracy at a time when California’s districts desperately need a genuine partner.
**Explain your position on Gov. Newsom’s plan to transfer control of the Department of Education from the state superintendent to the governor? If it goes through, how would you lead the superintendent’s office? How might you push back? **
I’ve actually argued publicly that replacing the elected Superintendent with a cabinet-level Secretary of Education is the real reform that’s needed. The Governor’s proposal, currently advancing as AB 2117, is a half-measure that creates confusion without solving the underlying problem. If I make it through the June primary, I’d lobby my former Senate colleagues to stop the bill before it reaches the governor’s desk. If it passes regardless, I’d continue to use the office’s remaining “bully pulpit” power to advocate for the kinds of reforms and improvements to California’s public education system at every level that are so clearly needed.
**California State Sen. Dave Cortese (District 15) introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA 5 — the Education Equalization Act), which seeks to close the growing funding divide between basic and non-basic aid school districts “to ensure every student has access to a quality education regardless of their zip code.” Do you support Sen. Cortese’s legislation? Explain. **
Senator Cortese deserves credit for taking on the real and persistent inequity posed by the divide between basic and non-basic aid districts, and which genuinely undermines the principle that every student deserves the same quality education. But a proposition requiring voter approval faces significant headwinds: Californians are already slammed by high costs of living, and the current climate will make this a really difficult sell. The goal is valid, even if this particular vehicle may not get there. The Superintendent, Legislature, and next Governor need to find approaches that achieve the same equity without requiring conditions that don’t currently exist.
**With California facing a projected budget deficit and a steady decline in student enrollment, some districts are facing bankruptcy or school closures. What fiscal reforms would you implement to help districts manage right-sizing without compromising student services? **
California should shift how we fund public schools from the current average daily attendance (ADA) system to an enrollment-based approach. The existing ADA structure penalizes districts twice, first when students are absent and again when fixed costs don’t shrink with fluctuating headcounts. This reform alone would give districts more stable, predictable budgets. Beyond that, I’d deploy CDE as an early-warning partner, identifying fiscally distressed districts before crises hit rather than after; provide proactive technical assistance on consolidation and right-sizing decisions, which are politically challenging; and protect per pupil classroom spending from cuts that too often adversely affect students but not administrators.
**The Bay Area faces a critical teacher shortage. (A 2026 Education Week survey found that nearly 50% of California teachers plan to quit or retire within the next decade, a figure significantly higher than the national average, about 35%.) Beyond increasing pay, how would you make teaching a more attractive and sustainable profession? **
Those numbers should alarm every Californian. Compensation matters, but teachers are also leaving for reasons money alone won’t fix: unsustainable workloads, inadequate administrative support, deteriorating school safety, and a chronic lack of professional respect. As Chair of the Senate Education Committee, I convened a statewide informational hearing in 2023 specifically on California’s education workforce crisis, and the testimony we heard then was equally sobering. In response, I authored a bill, SB 1263, to address pipeline and preparation, because well-trained, well-supported teachers stay longer. I’d also expand mentorship for early-career teachers and strengthen residency programs that build retention from the start.
**There has been a wave of teacher strikes in the state recently. How would you handle balancing their demands with a shrinking state budget and declining student enrollment? **
The Superintendent has no direct role in bargaining, which happens at the district level. But the SPI should still actively engage around a fundamental fiscal reality: under Prop. 98, which was designed as a funding floor but has effectively become a ceiling, there’s a finite pool of education dollars in any given year. The imperative of every policymaker, and as every negotiating party, should be ensuring the health of the whole system, with students as the ultimate beneficiaries. All workforce proposals merit good faith negotiation, but that doesn’t supersede the obligation to focus funding in ways that put students first.
**With AI entering classrooms, should the state deploy AI tutors or restrict them? **
There’s probably no clear black-and-white answer here. AI tutoring tools, if used well, could offer something California desperately needs: personalized, scalable support for students who can’t access it otherwise. A low-income district deserves the same quality of academic support as a wealthy one, and in theory, AI could help close that gap. The challenges arise around not just costs but also thoughtful implementation: clear standards for data privacy, transparency about how tools are used, and teacher involvement in deployment decisions. AI should augment great teaching, not replace it, and the SPI should be part of any smart conversation around that.
**Critics often argue the superintendent’s role is more administrative than influential. If elected, what is the first major initiative you would personally lead to prove that this office can be a primary driver of change rather than just an administrator of the status quo? **
My first and most fundamental initiative would be transforming the organizational culture and operational posture of the California Department of Education, transforming its current culture of passivity, compliance monitoring, and adversarial oversight into something California’s nearly 1,000 districts haven’t reliably had: a genuine partner. That means changing how CDE engages with districts; reorienting staff from the current focus on compliance toward proactive collaboration and support; identifying and replicating best practices while providing guidance and support to address gaps and deficiencies; and establishing helping serve students, families and the educators who serve them as the clear standard for everything CDE does.
**What are California schools doing well? In what ways do you think California schools are unfairly criticized? **
California educates more English language learners than any other state in the nation, something rarely acknowledged in the conversation about low test scores. That context doesn’t excuse underperformance, but it is worth highlighting. Also on the positive side, California’s decentralized system contains genuine excellence in virtually every sphere (science, STEAM, the arts, CTE) that can be found in districts of every size and geography. The problem isn’t that California schools lack models worth emulating, it’s that we currently lack the structures and leadership to identify, elevate, and replicate them at scale, which will be a priority for me as SPI.
**Explain your policy on smartphone use during the school day. **
I support limiting smartphone use in schools. The data on outcomes is still emerging and not entirely conclusive, but evidence points in a consistent direction: less smartphone access during school hours correlates with better socialization, improved focus, healthier peer interaction, and stronger cognitive engagement. We don’t need a perfect evidence base to act on a signal that clear. Beyond the research, there’s a common-sense case: schools exist to educate and socialize young people, and devices designed to maximize attention capture have no natural place in that environment during instructional time. This is a case where reasonable limits serve students well.
**How can California schools improve math instruction? **
States like Mississippi and Alabama have delivered some of the most dramatic math gains in the nation over the past decade. We should learn from them and adopt high-quality, evidence-based instructional materials; train teachers thoroughly in how to use them; and hold the system accountable for implementation, not just outcomes. California has been too permissive about curriculum adoption, allowing widely varying and often unproven materials across districts. Coherence, consistency, and attention to what the evidence actually shows produces real results. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if that path might go through a “red” state.
**Explain your approach to teaching reading, particularly your thoughts on phonics instruction. **
Although there is a clear consensus around the science of reading among researchers, California has been too slow to act on it. The method the evidence most clearly supports is that Phonics-based, structured literacy instruction is how children best learn to read. California’s continued use of whole language and balanced literacy approaches has cost generations of students, particularly disproportionately low-income students and English language learners who can least afford to fall behind. I supported the shift toward evidence-based reading instruction in the legislature, and as Superintendent I’d accelerate it statewide, with fidelity to the research and urgency about implementation.
**Do you think the state Legislature should ban social media use for children? If so, explain. **
Yes. The evidence linking social media use to adolescent mental health deterioration, particularly among girls, is strong, and the gap between what social media companies have known about their effects and what they’ve disclosed publicly is itself justification for legislative action. California has both the standing and the obligation to act. An important qualification is that any ban should entail deliberate consideration on enforcement mechanisms, age verification, and constitutional boundaries. Done carelessly, a ban is unlikely to succeed. Done well, and with real teeth and genuine accountability for social media platforms, a ban would protect kids who can’t protect themselves.
Given the current national political climate, what is your strategy for ensuring California schools remain “safe havens” — particularly regarding the protection of student data from federal immigration authorities and protections for transgender students?
California schools should absolutely be sanctuaries for all students, regardless of their immigration status or gender identity. On data, I would work closely with the Attorney General to establish and enforce clear protocols preventing federal immigration authorities from accessing student records unlawfully, while issuing every district unambiguous guidance on their rights and obligations. On transgender student protections, existing California law is clear and I’d defend it without reservation. Both fronts require close coordination with the Attorney General and the next Governor. This wouldn’t be a fight to wage as Superintendent alone, but it is one I would engage fully.
**What do you think is the cause of the stark student achievement gap in California public schools? How would you fix it given the current powers of this office? **
The achievement gap has multiple drivers, but three dominate: chronic absenteeism, which falls hardest on low-income students and students of color; uneven access to high-quality, evidence-based instruction, particularly in early literacy and math; and the resource and opportunity disparities that follow zip code lines regardless of how we fund schools. Within the Superintendent’s authority, I’d systematically target all three, repositioning CDE as a committed partner for high-need districts rather than a compliance monitor; accelerating the statewide shift to evidence-based instruction; and using the SPI’s bully pulpit to bring attention to chronic absenteeism as the urgent crisis it actually is.
**Please tell us anything else we should know about why you’re the best candidate for California superintendent of public instruction. **
California is home to the world’s fourth largest economy, a global leader in innovation and opportunity. Our public schools should reflect that. They don’t, and that must change. As a veteran, businessperson, classroom educator, and State Senator who chaired the Senate Education Committee, I’ve seen both the extraordinary potential of California’s students and the structural barriers holding them back. In the Senate, I authored major legislation modernizing schools, expanding career pathways, and strengthening teacher preparation. As Superintendent, I’ll bring the alignment, collaboration, and urgency our system desperately needs. California’s future depends on its public schools. Our students deserve better.
**Lastly, what’s your favorite movie about going to school or being an educator in California? **
This may not be the most original answer, but “Stand and Deliver.” Jaime Escalante’s story is extraordinary and genuinely inspiring. An immigrant educator at a struggling East LA high school decides his students can master AP calculus, bets everything on that belief, and turns out to be right. What makes it resonate beyond what is now a very full genre is what Jaime Escalante understood and that too many administrators still don’t: demographics shouldn’t determine destiny, and high expectations are themselves an intervention. That’s not just a good movie message; for the next SPI, it should be a motto.