Editor’s Note: Sam Chaltain is a Washington-based writer and education advocate. He can be found on Twitter at @samchaltain.

Should parents who are unhappy with their local school have the power to replace the entire staff, turn it into a charter school or shut it completely – even if just 51% of the school’s families agree?

It’s an enticing, polarizing proposal, the so-called “parent trigger.” It’s also now a law in four states and the subject of debate in scores of others. But is it a good idea? In the end, will parent trigger laws help parents more effectively ensure a high-quality public education for their children, or will they result in a reckless short-circuiting of the democratic process itself?

The answer, of course, is “it depends,” and what it depends on is the way parents and communities go about evaluating the quality of their neighborhood schools – and, when necessary, deciding on the most constructive path forward.

Here’s what we know: having more parents more directly engaged in the education of their children is a highly desirable goal. If teachers are the incremental x-factor to a student’s success in school, parents are the exponential p-factor to their child’s success both in school and in life.  So I’m for anything that has the chance to help parents better understand what great teaching and learning really looks like – and requires.

We also know that for far too long, a family’s ZIP code has determined their child’s access to the American dream, and too many neighborhood schools have failed to inspire and elevate the passions and possibilities of the students they serve. So I’m also for anything that gives poor families better choices when it comes to where their child goes to school.

But here’s the rub: If people want to be effective as a group, they must agree on exactly what it is they want to do and how they want to go about it. And from what I can tell, the organization at the center of the storm over these laws, a California-based group called Parent Revolution, hasn’t paid sufficient attention to how the parents they work with will make thoughtful, informed decisions. That’s troubling, because absent a clear, deliberative process, ideas like a parent trigger law will be little more than recipes for discord and dissent, not pathways to better schools for the kids who deserve them.

What should we do instead? Why not equip every American citizen with two books: Robert’s Rules of Order – the guide that has been used since 1867 to help groups of people make sound decisions; and How People Learn, the National Research Council’s helpful summary of the latest research about learning and the brain. (We could even get an entity like the Gates Foundation to pay for them.) Then we could urge people across the country to start wrestling more actively with a small set of “best questions”: How do people learn best? What are the characteristics of an optimal learning environment? And how can we create an environment like that at [your neighborhood school]?

The advantage of arming every citizen this way would be twofold: Our conversations about schooling would become grounded in the latest research about learning, and our efforts to deliberate in diverse groups would become more equitable and efficient. After all, one of the paradoxes of democracy is that in order to exercise freedom responsibly, we must impose a certain level of regulation – simple structures lead to complex thinking.

Will a national book club of this sort make all our problems and disagreements over school reform go away? Of course not. But imagine if all this local energy and activism was informed by a deeper shared consideration of the art and science of teaching, learning and decision-making. Creating a healthy school is difficult to do, and quick actions taken by desperate families will never yield lasting recipes for success. Only when we have a clearer sense of how to evaluate the current state of our schools can we explore what needs to be done to make them better.

Anything less is little more than a nation of parents with itchy trigger fingers – and that’s never good for democracy.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sam Chaltain.

‘Parent Trigger’ Law in California Spurs Education Reform Debate

With support from Los Angeles-based Parent Revolution, parents in Adelanto, California, a community of 30,000 on the edge of the Mojave Desert, have petitioned to turn the underperforming local public grade school, Desert Trails Elementary, into a charter school managed by a private company, Reuters reports.

The issue has come to a head thanks to a state law passed in 2010 that permits parents at the state’s worst performing public schools to organize, wrest control from their local school districts, and fire teachers and principals or convert their schools into charter institutions run by a for-profit company. According to Reuters, Desert Trails, where more than half the students are unable to pass state math or reading tests, has been struggling to meet state requirements for many years.

However, another group of parents in town, with support from both state and local teachers unions, is working to stop the so-called “trigger petition,” challenging the signatures as invalid and questioning the details of the proposed plan. “Where are their lesson plans?” asked former teacher Kimberly Smith, whose two children attend Desert Trails. “What is the curriculum?…How is it better?”

For years, education reforms such as parent triggers have been supported by some of the nation’s wealthiest philanthropists, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Los Angeles developer Eli Broad, and the heirs to the Walmart fortune. But union leaders and critics of the charter school movement say there is little evidence to support the contention that the reforms actually work.

For their part, those supporting changes in Adelanto believe the goal of laws like the one passed in California is to give parents more control over their children’s education. “When big decisions about schools are made, there typically are only two players at the table: the teachers union and the district,” said Parent Revolution executive director Ben Austin. “What we’re saying is, we need a third seat at the table for parents. Before, when they complained, they’d be told to go do a bake sale. Parent trigger utterly changes the game.”

For years, organizations like mine have worked on behalf of those who have been systematically disempowered by their schools. We work tirelessly to fashion more effective tools to help them move from the sidelines to the center of the battle for quality education. So, initially, the trigger seemed promising — especially as many states began abandoning the only other lever these parents had: the school choice provisions in federal education law.
But recent events in Michigan give me pause.

Michigan is one of many states considering a parent trigger law. The strongest proponents of Michigan’s legislation are not the community-based organizations that represent the families stuck in failing schools. Instead, they’re the businesses that run 84 percent of the charter schools in the state.

If these companies were providing kids with a strong, rigorous education, it would be hard to object. But indications are quite the opposite. Like their for-profit counterparts in career and online colleges, many of these companies target low-income communities, offering what sounds like a good alternative. Yet the results show these alternatives are no better — and sometimes even worse — than those of the neighborhood public schools that were underserving students to begin with. There is, therefore, good reason to be concerned that these companies will use the trigger to exploit desperate and frustrated families who have already been terribly mistreated by their local school systems, all the while enriching their shareholders with scarce public education dollars.

One possible fix would be to break the trigger process into two steps. In the first, parents could get the ability to reconstitute the school. In the second step, potential operators would present proposals to the parents and compete for the ability to operate the school. For this step to provide effective quality protection for students and parents, participation in this competition should be limited to operators with a proven track record of high academic performance in schools with student bodies similar to the school that is being reconstituted.

But without addressing the consequences in this way, don’t sign me up as a supporter.

The bill would allow parents with kids enrolled in a school with poor test scores to file a petition to restructure their children’s school. Rep. Michael Bileca, a Republican from Miami, was unable to win Democratic support; the vote fell along party lines. Florida Gov. Rick Scott has already expressed his support for the bill.

Parent trigger laws are relatively new, but are quickly being adopted by school reformers across the country. Since California passed its parent trigger in 2010, three other states—Mississippi, Texas and Connecticut passed their own versions of the law. New York, Pennsylvania and Indiana are also debating their own parent trigger laws this year.

Despite its rapid explosion onto the state policy scene, it remains an intensely heated topic of debate among parents, teachers, and school reformers.

In Adelanto, California, a group of parents is exercising the law for just the second time in its history. Read more about the controversy as its unfolding in the small desert town by clicking here.

Available Online: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/02/floridas_parent_trigger_bill_heads_to_the_floor.html

Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to give parents the authority to force changes in troubled public schools, based on a California law promoted by a longtime Democrat and veteran of the Clinton White House.

The plan, which is known as the “parent trigger” law, was touched on by Jindal in his Jan. 17 speech spelling out his 2012 public schools agenda.

Under current rules, failing public schools face state takeover after four years.

Jindal said he wants state lawmakers to enact a “parent trigger” measure to force quicker changes.

“Instead of waiting until the school has been failing for four years, parents can vote to have their school eligible to be a Recovery School District charter after three years,” Jindal said last month.

Charter schools are public schools run by non-government groups.

They are supposed to offer innovative classrooms without much of the red tape that often accompanies traditional public schools.

The Recovery School District, or RSD, oversees state-run schools in Baton Rouge, New Orleans and elsewhere.

Details of any Jindal-backed “parent trigger” law are unclear because no bill has been filed on the issue for the 2012 legislative session, which begins on March 12.

However, converting a troubled public school into a charter operation is one of the options under the 2010 California law.

The change was promoted by Ben Austin, a former member of the California Board of Education and now executive director of Parent Revolution, which calls itself a group formed to promote policies that put students first.

Austin also says “parent trigger” is not part of any GOP bid to topple public schools.

“My background is in Democratic politics,” he said, including various roles working for former President Bill Clinton and as an early supporter of President Barack Obama.

“Most of the organizers at Parent Revolution come out of either Democratic politics or union politics,” Austin said. “And we passed parent trigger with the support of the Obama Administration.”

Under the California measure, 51 percent of parents at a failing school can launch major changes by signing a petition.

The school district can be forced to replace the school’s staff, replace the principal or convert the school to a charter.

“It is a new right for every single parent in California to be able to transform their failing school through community organizations,” Austin said in a telephone interview earlier this week.

“They not only get to trigger radical change,” he said. “They get to pick what kind of change they want for their child and the school community.”

Austin added, “We don’t see this as a new law. It is a new paradigm.”

Jindal proposed the change as part of a sweeping agenda aimed at improving student achievement.

Last year 44 percent of public schools in Louisiana got a “D” or “F” from the state Department of Education.

Critics say the governor’s agenda threatens public education, and unfairly blames teachers for many of the shortcomings.

Joyce Haynes, president of the Louisiana Association of Educators, said she wants to reserve her opinion on any “parent trigger” proposal.

“I am saving judgment for the details,” she said.

Haynes questioned whether the plan is part of a national agenda aimed at destroying public education and turning classrooms over to third-party providers.

Caroline Roemer Shirley, president of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools, said she likes the idea.

“Anything we can do to empower parents or inform parents, give them a stronger say in what is happening in the schools, I like the concept,” Shirley said.

Austin said the petition itself gives low-income parents leverage over school officials used to brushing them off.

by Will Sentell
Capitol news bureau
February 15, 2012

Available Online: http://theadvocate.com/home/2057946-125/jindal-backingtrigger-lawfor-la.-schools

Things did get better at the Ocala middle school, but she always wished she had more leverage. Francis-Winston specifically wants a “parent-trigger” law that would force public school administrators to heed the wishes of moms and dads.

“Right now, there’s not that fear,” she said. “The fact that they know I could be pushing the parent trigger would make them move faster than they would have.”

She may get her wish this year.

The “Parent Empowerment Act” — legislation with its roots in California — is gaining traction in the Florida Legislature, despite concerns that it might open the door to privately run charter schools taking over traditional ones.

Opponents argue the bill, which has the backing of big business and former Gov. Jeb Bush, is really a way for charter school companies to persuade unsuspecting parents to turn on their public school.

“It’s just a method for uninformed, inactive parents to be used to shut schools down,” said Rita Solnet, a Palm Beach parent and cofounder of Parents Across America, which advocates against school privatization.

“This is very bad for our community.”

• • •

Here’s how the parent trigger bill would work:

• If at least half of the parents at a low-performing school sign a petition, they could impose a plan to turn around the school with measures that could include replacing much of the staff, converting the school to charter status or even closing it.

• Parents would be guaranteed that their children would not have teachers rated “unsatisfactory” or “needs improvement” in two consecutive years.

The concept has lately lost steam nationally, after having been proposed in several states. So supporters are looking to Florida to revive interest. The bill has passed one committee in the Senate and two in the House, most recently on Friday.

Lining up against the bill are groups such as the Florida PTA, Orlando-based Fund Education Now, Support Dade Schools, Save Duval Schools and Jacksonville-based 50th No More.

“They try to sell it as a piece of grass roots legislation,” said Colleen Wood of Save Duval Schools. “It’s more Astroturf.”

Solnet noted that when lawmakers rolled out the bill in late January, parents were invoked, but they weren’t there.

Instead, speakers included representatives of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida and Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Florida’s Future, all firm supporters of vouchers and charters.

Rep. Michael Bileca, a Republican from Miami, insists that his bill would give parents a “more meaningful voice” in school reform. Opponents, citing the measure’s supporters and history, say they don’t buy that.

• • •

In California, the first state to adopt a parent trigger law, the initiative was pushed by Parent Revolution, a group started by a charter firm with backing from conservative foundations. It has been invoked in only two schools, with no final resolution so far.

Just two other states — Texas and Mississippi — have adopted parent trigger laws. In Indiana, the idea nearly passed until some lawmakers tried to tie it to vouchers and ending teacher tenure.

Linda Serrato, a Parent Revolution organizer, said critics miss the point in arguing that the aim is to enrich private firms.

“It’s really about what the parents want,” she said.

Quite often, Serrato observed, parents don’t want drastic change, just for administrators to seriously consider their input. Using the law, they can band together to push for reforms.

• • •

Wendy Howard, a Pasco County mom who heads the Florida chapter of the National Coalition for Public School Options, sees the bill as a way to guarantee parents a seat at the table.

“Everyone agrees that parents should be as involved as possible in their child’s education,” Howard said. “This bill outlines specific ways that parents can not only be involved, it empowers them with information and tools to make a difference.”

She recently convened state leaders in online, charter and other forms of school choice to talk up the legislation. StudentsFirst, a national organization run by Gov. Rick Scott adviser Michelle Rhee, also is organizing Florida parents behind the bill.

“Why would anyone resist giving parents information about their child’s education, or giving them the power to say ‘Enough is enough?’ ” asked StudentsFirst vice president Tim Melton.

Fran Connerney, whose son is a Hillsborough County second-grader, said he likes the idea of notifying parents “if their teacher is not up to par.”

“If you know going in this teacher has had two bad reports … you might want to think about moving” your kids out, he said.

He is not keen on the petition provision, though.

“School board members are elected for a reason,” he said.

Sen. Bill Montford, a Democrat who also heads the state’s superintendents association, asked sponsors to work with him on a compromise.

“It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the more parental involvement you have, the better for children,” he said in a committee meeting, where he voted for the bill.

Still, he said, “there is potential for misuse of this. None of us can allow that to happen.”

Jeffrey S. Solochek can be reached at solochek@tampabay.com, (813) 909-4614 or on Twitter @jeffsolochek.

Available Online: http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1214144.ece