Here is a conversation with Larry Aceves:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=744730392194
Here is an Q&A with Tom Torlakson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIKvNbnAS8s
I could not figure out anything about these two from the election voter information guide. I had to listen to these guys and still can't nail down much. I don't trust Torlakson after I heard him, even though he sounded slightly better than Aceves on paper. Aceves on the other hand comes off better live.
So what isn't there? There was no mention of the concept of education as a critical view of society and how to promote that view through curriculum in the sciences, humanities, and arts.
The problem I see with both is they can not get their heads out of the box that public education is a vocational training system. Both still support a two track system, one for college, one for trade routes. They don't seem to get the idea that you really need both skill sets and both interact with each other as compliments, not contrasts.
The propositions 23, 26, 27 are confusing trickery and seem written to obscure re-districting and passing budgets---two giant problems here.
Suggestions? Discussion?
CG