The only school in the nation ever to vote to invoke the state “parent trigger” law is in Adelanto, California. [CORRECTION: As a commenter noted, no vote was ever taken; there was no public discussion or public hearings.]
Parent Revolution, the organization funded by Gates, Walton and Broad to promote the trigger has been funding the fight in Adelanto.
It helped dissident parents form a union, organize a petition drive, collect signatures, and push for a charter school. [CORRECTION: Two petitions were circulated, one for improvement, the other for a charter; only the latter was presented to the board.]
When the school board resisted the idea of turning the school into a charter, some of those who signed the petition tried to remove their names.
It turned out that they wanted the school to be improved, not turned over to a charter.
Parent Revolution went to court and the judge declared that parents were not allowed to take their name off the petition, so it seemed that a charter was in the offing.
But the school board just decided that it was too late to turn the school into a charter–it is late August–and the board has come up with a plan to overhaul the school.
Parent Revolution is outraged, and will probably take the board to court again.
What happens next?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Parent Trigger Act as originally presented in California was completely based on assumptions. The definition of assumptions is: something taken for granted.
So what kinds of assumptions did former Senator Gloria Romero, members(including herself) of DFER(Democrats for Education Reform), charter offshoot Parent Revolution, and the then charter-friendly CA Board of Education make?
1. They assumed that parents in supposedly failing schools would easily fall prey to promises made by an outside astroturf group peddling the Parent Trigger mantra of instant school success.
2. They assumed that parents would be so enamored of these promises that they wouldn’t demand an open meeting that would also include teachers and administrators to discuss the pros and cons of parent takeover.
3. They assumed that once a majority of parents signed on, that the rest would happily sign on.
4. They assumed that a slew of top charters would magically appear to sweep the “failing” school off its feet.
5. They assumed that the parents would not question whether or not there is any evidence that turning a school over to a charter would produce the desired results.
6. Worst of all, the assumption was made that a Parent Trigger would create unity, not serious divisiveness amongst all involved in the school community, a consequence that would certainly seriously hamper any school improvement plan.
Is there any part of the present school reform agenda that is based on hard evidence rather than assumptions?????
LikeLike
Your post is inaccurate. They didn’t vote. No one ever voted.
A handful of parents worked with Parent Revolution, an organization with no ties to Adelanto.
There were no public hearings or news stories before the petitions were circulated. There was no public discussion about what was in the petitions nor were requests/demands made of the school board for changes before the petition drive began.
Two petitions were created and circulated. One asked for changes, one asked for Parent Trigger. Multiple people have stated they only signed the Parent Trigger petition because they were told it was a backup, a lever, for the other petition, which would be presented first. That’s not how it happened, and that is the reason for people withdrawing their signatures.
Ironically, it’s possible that many of the signatures are from people whose children are no longer enrolled in the school. What if the new parents want something different? What if the community wants something different? What if the community was happy with their elected school board and would have liked to work through that?
Oh no. Far better to take the school governance out of the hands of the community altogether, and indefinitely if not forever.
I don’t think that’s really parent empowerment, not in any way.
LikeLike
Parent Revolution and Desert Trails Parent Union had parents sign two different petitions. They claimed that they wanted reforms – not a charter. The 2nd petition calling for a charter was just for strategy to force the district to negotiate. They, however, submitted the charter petition. Many parents felt misled or confused by this process and asked that their names to be removed from the petition. There were almost 100 requests. It dropped the number of signatures below the required amount to make the petition valid. Judge Malone’s ruling states that the District is prohibited from allowing parents to revoke their signatures. EVERY parent who spoke to the Board from either side of the issue stated they did not want a charter. So much for parent empowerment.
I would like to issue a challenge. If the issue is about Parent Empowerment, then I challenge Parent Revolution and the Desert Trails Parent Union to put it up to the parents in a secret ballot vote. Why waste district funds on a lawsuit? I contend that the district has complied with the reforms asked for by parents. I accuse Parent Revolution of making this about what that organization wants and not what the majority of parents want. Let the parents of Desert Trails Elementary School vote up or down in a secret ballot monitored by neutral parties the issue of a charter school. I’m not afraid of the results – no matter what it may be. Can Parent Revolution and the Desert Trails Parent Union say the same? Or are they too invested in a win that true Parent Empowerment has been dropped from their vocabulary?
LikeLike