EDITORIAL
The pilot program enabling parents to petition for changes at low-performing schools was a worthy idea but poorly designed. It's worth getting right.
 Maria Guerrero fills out paperwork as her son Diego Chavarin, 18 months old, looks on at McKinley Elementary School in Compton. The closely-watched process is to verify parent signatures on a petition to turn a low-performing Compton school into a charter. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times) |
Right now California's so-called parent trigger law, which allows parents at low-performing schools to force a change in their school's institutional structure via petition, is stuck in a sort of limbo. The one petition that has been delivered, at McKinley Elementary School in Compton, is delayed by legal wrangling. Meanwhile, the state Board of Education is going back and forth on how to implement the law and a legislator has introduced a bill that could render the trigger toothless.
Blame the legislation that created the trigger. A rush job, it was tossed together in the hopes of winning a federal grant rather than being carefully crafted to improve California education. The innovative idea deserves better; it's up to the state Board of Education and new legislation to address the troubling weaknesses that seem likely to foster educational turmoil and pit parents against teachers and one another.
Under the existing law, if a majority of parents at a low-performing school sign a petition, they can force the school district to make one of several changes at the school, including replacing much of the faculty or bringing in an outside charter operator. The parents also get to choose which option goes forward, including which charter organization should take over.
Parents should be able to demand serious reform at bad schools, but they are not experts on educational solutions. Most of the options are relatively new, and there's little definitive evidence about which of them work best, if any. It can be especially confusing for parents to analyze the record of a specific charter organization, or to weigh it against others. Studies show that significant numbers of charters talk a good game but don't deliver.
It makes more sense for the parent petition to have the power to force major transformation, but for the local school board to make the actual decision on which option should prevail, taking into account the parents' preferences. Or at least, that would make sense if we could count on school boards to put students first rather than to defend the status quo. The Compton Unified School District, which has absurdly claimed it cannot verify any of the signatures on the McKinley petition, shows just how far some school officials are willing to go to avoid change.
But that's easily overcome with an appeals process. If the school district ignores the parents' preference, they should be able to appeal to another agency that doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome, such as the county Department of Education. A similar system already exists for traditional charter applicants that are turned down by hostile school boards. An appeals process offers the additional advantage of avoiding lawsuits. We hope that the state board considers these options as it draws up a complicated slate of parent trigger regulations. Also needed are rules that require a transparent petition-signing process so that parents know about all of their options; the McKinley petition was carried out in secret.
Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) has introduced legislation to "clean up" what she sees as flaws in the parent trigger law, but at least one of her solutions is far more troubling than the trigger itself. AB 203, which will be considered Wednesday by the Assembly Education Committee, would require school boards, when considering a petition, to give weight to the objections of parents who oppose the petition, even when a majority of parents have signed it. On the surface, this is a reasonable concession, but it could easily be used as a back door for school boards to reject valid petitions. There will seldom if ever be unanimous agreement among parents; allowing the complaints of a few to rule the day could mean that no schools would ever change.
Not all of the fixes to the parent trigger law can be made through regulation. Under the original legislation, schools can become targets of a petition if their Academic Performance Index score is lower than 800 and if they have been considered "program improvement" schools for at least three years, for having failed to raise test scores enough under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The bill mixes state goals — the API — and federal ones, and as a result covers many schools that are making good improvements but not enough to meet the definitions under the parent trigger law.
For now, parent trigger is only a pilot program; it is limited to 75 schools. Its supporters call for leaving it as it is and seeing how it works out over the years. But 75 is not a trivial number of schools; they need a process that's as well thought out as possible. And parent trigger is an idea with real merit that deserves to go beyond a pilot program; parents do need some clout in dismal public schools, where they are too often ignored. A parent trigger law that is fairer and more transparent will also be more effective — and have a better chance of becoming a permanent part of school reform.
Blame the legislation that created the trigger. A rush job, it was tossed together in the hopes of winning a federal grant rather than being carefully crafted to improve California education. The innovative idea deserves better; it's up to the state Board of Education and new legislation to address the troubling weaknesses that seem likely to foster educational turmoil and pit parents against teachers and one another.
Under the existing law, if a majority of parents at a low-performing school sign a petition, they can force the school district to make one of several changes at the school, including replacing much of the faculty or bringing in an outside charter operator. The parents also get to choose which option goes forward, including which charter organization should take over.
Parents should be able to demand serious reform at bad schools, but they are not experts on educational solutions. Most of the options are relatively new, and there's little definitive evidence about which of them work best, if any. It can be especially confusing for parents to analyze the record of a specific charter organization, or to weigh it against others. Studies show that significant numbers of charters talk a good game but don't deliver.
It makes more sense for the parent petition to have the power to force major transformation, but for the local school board to make the actual decision on which option should prevail, taking into account the parents' preferences. Or at least, that would make sense if we could count on school boards to put students first rather than to defend the status quo. The Compton Unified School District, which has absurdly claimed it cannot verify any of the signatures on the McKinley petition, shows just how far some school officials are willing to go to avoid change.
But that's easily overcome with an appeals process. If the school district ignores the parents' preference, they should be able to appeal to another agency that doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome, such as the county Department of Education. A similar system already exists for traditional charter applicants that are turned down by hostile school boards. An appeals process offers the additional advantage of avoiding lawsuits. We hope that the state board considers these options as it draws up a complicated slate of parent trigger regulations. Also needed are rules that require a transparent petition-signing process so that parents know about all of their options; the McKinley petition was carried out in secret.
Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) has introduced legislation to "clean up" what she sees as flaws in the parent trigger law, but at least one of her solutions is far more troubling than the trigger itself. AB 203, which will be considered Wednesday by the Assembly Education Committee, would require school boards, when considering a petition, to give weight to the objections of parents who oppose the petition, even when a majority of parents have signed it. On the surface, this is a reasonable concession, but it could easily be used as a back door for school boards to reject valid petitions. There will seldom if ever be unanimous agreement among parents; allowing the complaints of a few to rule the day could mean that no schools would ever change.
Not all of the fixes to the parent trigger law can be made through regulation. Under the original legislation, schools can become targets of a petition if their Academic Performance Index score is lower than 800 and if they have been considered "program improvement" schools for at least three years, for having failed to raise test scores enough under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The bill mixes state goals — the API — and federal ones, and as a result covers many schools that are making good improvements but not enough to meet the definitions under the parent trigger law.
For now, parent trigger is only a pilot program; it is limited to 75 schools. Its supporters call for leaving it as it is and seeing how it works out over the years. But 75 is not a trivial number of schools; they need a process that's as well thought out as possible. And parent trigger is an idea with real merit that deserves to go beyond a pilot program; parents do need some clout in dismal public schools, where they are too often ignored. A parent trigger law that is fairer and more transparent will also be more effective — and have a better chance of becoming a permanent part of school reform.
From the L.A. Times
From KTLA
Around the Web
GordonSantamonica at 4:56 PM May 03, 2011
Parent “TRIGGER” limbo
Interesting ... yesterday you had an Editorial regarding donations to the district and the influence the contributors…Broad, Wasserman, and the Gates Foundation … have over programs expanding or contracting or created.
Today you write about the difficulties the common Stake holder electorate has to make change to schools that we know have programs that are not working for one reason or another.
This is absolutely outrageous that the Stake holders have such difficulties to bring about change.
There could be many reasons for the shortcomings at the school ... some may include but are not limited to ...
1. What is going on in the school environment that is restricting the learning of the student ..
2. What is going on outside of the classroom and outside of the school that is restricting the learning of the student ....
3. What are the subjects and tasks that a student must learn in the classroom .....
4. What are the tasks that a student is learning outside the classroom ....
5. What is the students attendance record ....
6. How is the student acting in the overall school environment and the classroom environment ....
7. Has any neutral person or trained person talked to the student to find out if there are any personal issues that are influencing the learning of the student .....
GordonSantamonica at 4:55 PM May 03, 2011
Other negative influences that effect positive educational results ....
1. Divorce involving 50% or more of our student population.
2. Homelessness.
3. Poverty.
4. Peer pressures involving sex, drugs, alcohol.
5. Job uncertainty.
6. Mandated programs.
7. Immigration.
8. Drive by shootings along with other gang related influences.
9. The student’s home attitude about the school.
10. The requirements to fulfill the ever changing needs of the community.
11. The security of the student outside of the school’s environment..
Why can’t there be funding established to circumvent these problems and enable successful educational results?
TimBowman at 12:35 PM May 03, 2011
The entire "parent trigger" was but smoke and mirrors. The teacher unions, school district administrators, the state and federal Departments of Education, and their allies in the Assembly and Congress are never going to allow parents to take control away from them.
kp3511 at 12:16 PM May 3, 2011
The parent trigger sounds like a great idea: Give parents more say in their children's education, force changes in low performing schools, ect. However, it is not a good idea to have the majority of parents making decisions about school policy. Some parents may be uneducated themselves or have littlt to no experience educating anyone. It is bad enough that Eli Broad and Bill Gates get to throw their billions of dollars around on educational "fixes" that don't work, let's not give another say to another unqualified group of people.
g7caligirl at 7:34 AM May 3, 2011
The Board of Education is in the unions pocket. The Governor is in the unions pocket. The Legislature is in the unions pocket. Parents are stuck at the end of the line and the state's education, once the model of excellence, is drowning in garbage - run by incompetent union backed administrators.
If you want an excellent education for your children - private school is the only answer. Don't like it, then quite electing the idiots that have made this mess.
educator at 6:35 AM May 3, 2011
Education research has clearly pointed to the major cause of school failure, and that is dire poverty. Those pushing privatization are thrilled that the public has bought into the false accusations that teachers and their unions are at fault. In ALL other industrialized countries, you will find that only the best go into teaching and that is because they are respected, well supported and compensated fairly thanks to strong union backing. Oh, none of them rely on bubble tests to measure student learning and teacher effectiveness. And there is no such thing as merit pay.
Charter schools have historically filtered out students with behavior problems, special ed and English Language Learners. Then, with those students who are left, the schools concentrate on skill and drill or just cheat to bring up test scores. So far, high test scores have not proven to prevent students from needing remedial help when they get to college. Also, the elimination of science, history, PE and the arts is turning out a generation of robots, not a generation of young people ready,willing and able to enter and participate fully in our democratic way of life. Just read today's article in the Times on the Beverly Hills funding crisis. Ask yourself this..in such a high performing school system, why do they put so much value on subjects not considered academic?
kshoe10 at 8:08 PM May 2, 2011
I wonder if Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica)would give weight to the employees who object to unionize during a union vote....hmmmm, I doubt it. Guess the liberals believe majority rules should only apply when it benefits them.
Len Randel at 8:04 PM May 2, 2011
Teachers union 1, Parents 0.
Fire them all, then hire them back without unions. We cannot afford their incompetence any longer.
