Archives for category: California

At Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, the “parent trigger” law is taking effect after court battles.

Parents who asked to take their name off the petition to hand their school off to a charter chain were told by a judge that they were not allowed to remove their names.

Now, it turns out, only parents who signed the petition in favor of a charter will be allowed to participate in choosing the charter operator. The others have no voice.

And, hmm, the parent who has been most vocal, will not be a parent in the school when the charter takes over.

Desert Trails is overwhelmingly populated by children who are low-income and English-language learners.

Below are charters that want to run Desert Trails.

This will be interesting to watch over the next few years.

Desert Trails API

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2012/2012GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=36675876111918

LaVerne API

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2012/2012GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=36750440118059

Norton Space(run by the Lewis Center)

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2012/2012GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=12629016007983

The California Legislature passed a bill to reduce the importance of test scores in calculating school quality, and Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law. Until now, the Academic Performance Index was based 100% on test scores. Now it will count for 60%.

Hope, hope, hope that future legislation will reduce it to 25%.

TO:     Interested Parties

From:  AFT President Randi Weingarten

Date:   August 28, 2012

RE:      “Won’t Back Down”

 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One can’t help but be moved by the characters and story portrayed in Walden Media’s film “Won’t Back Down.” The film is successful in driving home the sense of urgency parents and educators feel to do everything they can to provide the best possible education for their children. That is abundantly evident in this film—it’s what I hear as I visit schools across the country, and it’s what I heard when I sat down with parent and community groups from across the country last week.

We share that pain and frustration. And we firmly believe that every public school should be a school where every parent would want to send his or her child and where every teacher would want to teach. Unfortunately, using the most blatant stereotypes and caricatures I have ever seen—even worse than those in “Waiting for ‘Superman’”—the film affixes blame on the wrong culprit: America’s teachers unions.

As a former public school teacher and president of the American Federation of Teachers, I have spent my entire adult life working on behalf of children and teachers. After viewing this film, I can tell you that if I had taught at that school, and if I were a member of that union, I would have joined the characters played by Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis. I would have led the effort to mobilize parents and teachers to turn around that school myself.

I don’t recognize the teachers portrayed in this movie, and I don’t recognize that union. The teachers I know are women and men who have devoted their lives to helping children learn and grow and reach their full potential. These women and men come in early, stay late to mentor and tutor students, coach sports teams, advise the student council, work through lunch breaks, purchase school supplies using money from their own pockets, and spend their evenings planning lessons, grading papers and talking to parents. Yet their efforts, and the care with which they approach their work, are nowhere to be seen in this film.

This movie could have been a great opportunity to bring parents and teachers together to launch a national movement focused on real teacher and parent collaboration to help all children. Instead, this fictional portrayal, which makes the unions the culprit for all of the problems facing our schools, is divisive and demoralizes millions of great teachers. America’s teachers are already being asked to do more with less—budgets have been slashed, 300,000 teachers have been laid off since the start of the recession, class sizes have spiked, and more and more children are falling into poverty. And teachers are being demonized, marginalized and shamed by politicians and elites who want to undermine and dismiss their reform efforts.

Parent engagement is essential to ensuring children thrive in the classroom. The power of partnerships between parents, teachers and the community is at the heart of school change.

But instead of focusing on real parent empowerment and how communities can come together to help all children succeed, “Won’t Back Down” offers parents a false choice—you’re either for students or for teachers, you can either live with a low-performing school or take dramatic, disruptive action to shut a school down.

Real parent engagement means establishing meaningful ways for parents to be real partners in their children’s public education from the beginning—not just when a school is failing. The goal should be to never let a school get to that point. Parents are actually calling for real investments in their neighborhood public schools and that should be our collective focus. 

Across the country, AFT teachers and leaders are partnering with parents and community groups to create real parent engagement that strengthens schools and neighborhoods:

  • In the South Bronx, the Community Collaborative to Improve District 9 Schools (CC9) partnered with the United Federation of Teachers on a school reform agenda focused on teacher quality, school leadership and family-school partnerships. Through the partnership, teachers participated in neighborhood walks to visit with the families of their students. And they established the lead teacher program, which allowed experienced teachers to provide mentoring and guidance to newer and struggling teachers. CC9 members were involved in hiring the lead teachers.
     
  • In Minnesota, AFT affiliates negotiated the Parent-Teacher Home Visit Project into their contract, training teachers to visit their students’ families to establish bonds with parents outside of the school environment and help parents support their children’s learning. And the AFT’s affiliate in St. Paul surveyed parents to get their concerns and thoughts about their schools, and then incorporated the results into their contract negotiations. 
     
  • In Connecticut, the AFT helped create a law that provided an avenue for parents to become involved in their children’s schools. The 2011 law requires that certain low-performing schools create School Governance Councils to develop parental involvement policies and make recommendations on administrator hiring and, ultimately, on the school improvement plan. School councils are composed of parents, teachers and community members, with parents having a majority. This year, Connecticut’s new education reform law requires the creation of such councils in every low-performing school in the state.
     
  • In Cincinnati and elsewhere, AFT locals are working to mitigate the impact that poverty and other out-of-school factors have on students by offering wraparound services, including health and mental health services, meal programs, tutoring, counseling and after-school programs. Many of the services offered in Cincinnati schools were based on survey responses from neighborhood parents on what was needed for children and the neighborhood.
     
  • The AFT is leading a coalition of businesses, community groups, parents and educators to completely transform the educational and economic opportunities available to children and families in McDowell County, W.Va.
     
  • The AFT worked with a British corporation to develop a digital filing cabinet of lesson plans and resources for teachers called Share My Lesson. It’s an online community for teachers to share their best ideas and collaborate with one another.  

Sadly, this film chooses to ignore these success stories and the many others happening across the county. Instead, it promotes the deceptively named “parent trigger” laws, which are marketed as parent-empowerment laws. Actually, these laws deny both parents and teachers a voice in improving schools and helping children, by using parents to give control of our schools over to for-profit corporations. Parent trigger laws are being pushed by organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which Walden Media owner and oil billionaire Philip Anschutz helps fund.

The film advances a policy that in reality limits teacher and parent voices, the very voices that are celebrated and empowered in the movie.
 
In real life, there have been only two attempts to pull the parent trigger. One never made it to the approval process. In Adelanto, Calif., where the trigger petition is still in progress, many parents report feeling deceived by the for-profit charter-backed organizers who came in to gather petitions. They actually sued to take their signatures back when they found out they were being used to give their school away to a charter company.

Confusing the matter even further, those supporting the parent trigger asked the court to rule that once a signature was on a petition, it could not be rescinded. The court ruled in their favor, stating that the parent trigger law did not allow for rescinded signatures. But just this month, the Adelanto school board rejected the parent trigger proponents’ call for a charter operator and instead instituted numerous reforms including the formation of a community advisory council, an extended school day and improved technology, among other reforms. In both situations, the use of the parent trigger law has been disruptive and divided the school community. 
 
That’s one reason why a Florida parent coalition representing half a million parents joined with the Florida PTA and others to oppose parent trigger legislation when the bill was proposed there last year. They knew from the California parents’ experience that it would put all the power in the hands of for-profit companies, not public school parents.

It must be pointed out that the film contains several egregiously misleading scenes with the sole purpose of undermining people’s confidence in public education, public school teachers and teachers unions.
 
The film advances the “bad teacher” narrative through the character of Deborah. This teacher barks at students from her desk, uses her cell phone in class, refuses to let students use the restroom, puts children in a closet as a disciplinary measure and resists all reform efforts, yet miraculously remains employed at the school. She tells parents that she refuses to stay after school hours to help her students, and Davis’ character in the film asserts that union rules prohibit teachers from working past 3 p.m., an egregious lie. I know of no contract or local union that would ever prevent a teacher from remaining after school to help a student or do the work necessary to help children.

Let’s be clear—this teacher, or any teacher who engages in such deplorable actions against children, should be fired for this outrageous behavior.
 
The film features the union leader sharing a quote that anti-public education ideologues and right-wing politicians often attribute to former AFT president Albert Shanker: “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.” Despite the frequency with which corporate interests claim Shanker said this, a review of news reports, speeches, and interviews with Shanker’s aides and biographers, and even an analysis by the Washington Post, failed to find any person or report that could corroborate the statement. 

This is not the only time the movie resorts to falsehoods and anti-union stereotypes. Viola Davis’ character tells other teachers that the new school they create cannot be unionized because the union would restrict their ability to implement reforms that help kids. This is a false—unions are democratic organizations made up of individual educators, and collective bargaining is the process by which individuals come together to make things better. Many examples demonstrate that far from blocking reform efforts, unions fight for the things children need to thrive in school, like safe classrooms and smaller class sizes. And unions empower educators to win the tools and voice they need to help children.

Half of all teachers in the United States do not have collective bargaining contracts. The reality is that the states with the highest union density—states such as Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota—are the states that lead the nation in student achievement. And a recent Education Sector survey of teachers made clear that America’s teachers—both union and nonunion—recognize the importance of unions in strengthening the teaching profession and our public schools.
 
Though deeply unfortunate, it is also unsurprising that “Won’t Back Down” is such a false and misleading depiction of teachers and unions. Anschutz’s business partner is on record saying that he intends to use Walden Media (which also produced the equally misleading “Waiting for ‘Superman’”), as way for him to promote their values.
 
A look at the organizations in which Anschutz invests makes those values crystal clear. He has funded 20 organizations, including ALEC, Americans for Prosperity and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. All of these groups operate against the public interest in favor of corporate interests, and all of them actively oppose collective bargaining rights and other benefits for workers. Anschutz has also invested millions in anti-gay and extreme religious-right organizations such as the Promise Keepers, whose founder declared that “homosexuality is an abomination against almighty God,” and organizations affiliated with Focus on the Family. 
 
The last thing that the country and the debate over public education reform needs is another movie that maligns teachers, caricatures teachers unions and misleads the American public about what is happening in public education today. Children deserve great schools. That’s how we build great communities. And real public education reform comes from teachers, parents and communities working together to help all kids thrive.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further. To learn more about what AFT members are doing to help all children succeed, contact Marcus Mrowka at 202-531-0689 or mmrowka@aft.org.

 

That’s the title of an excellent new article by Kristina Rizga in Mother Jones.

Rizga spent a year embedded at Mission High School in San Francisco and got to know some of the students and teachers well.

According to the federal government, Mission High School is a “failing” school.

Rizga got there expecting to see “noisy classrooms, hallway fights, and disgruntled staff. Instead I found a welcoming place that many students and staff called “family.” After a few weeks of talking to students, I failed to find a single one who didn’t like the school, and most of the parents I met were happy too. Mission’s student and parent satisfaction surveys rank among the highest in San Francisco.”

She found a “failing” school where the majority of the 925 students are Latino or African-American or Asian-American, a school where 72% of the students are poor. She also discovered that 84% of the graduating class went on to college, higher than the district average.

But it is a failing school!

Of course, the feds would love to close the school and do a “turnaround.” But the principal, relatively new to his job, the teachers, and the students don’t want to lose their job.

If you need convincing that NCLB is a disaster for our schools, and that the “turnaround” demands of Race to the Top are equally harmful, you will enjoy this article.

It is the wisest in-depth journalism that I have seen on education issues in recent memory.

Caroline Grannan wrote the fact sheet about the parent trigger for Parents Across America. Here she explains more about what is happening now in the Adelanto School District, where Parent Revolution is leading the effort to convert Desert Trails Elementary School into a charter school.

The ultimate question is whether the way to repair a struggling school is to attack its teachers and attempt to turn it over to corporate privatizers. (I don’t use the term “failing school,” which heartlessly brands the students and the rest of the school community as failing.) The concept is that we must destroy the school in order to save it.

In fact, as anyone informed knows, the Adelanto school district had just put a new principal in place at Desert Trails, and parents have been pleased with him.

Charter schools overall have a worse record than comparable public schools, and “takeover” charters, in which an operator steps into an existing struggling school, have an exceptionally dismal record. There have been no successful parent triggers anywhere. Why would someone want to inflict a “solution” that has no track record of success on an already challenged school community?

For those who are sincere about believing this is a good idea (I don’t harbor any illusion that anyone within Parent Revolution is sincere about that; they are simply trying to keep the funding coming in), the concept behind that is that the school is such a disaster that something, anything, must be done, no matter what. Would you apply that thinking to a medical crisis — randomly start removing organs, even with a record of failure in past organ removals?

Many parents at Desert Trails are pleased with and hopeful about their school, though the press is so bought into the parent trigger that only the small number of Parent Revolution loyalists get attention.

Parent Revolution’s hostility to teachers also demonstrates how doomed their approach is, should anyone be gullible enough to believe their efforts are sincere. Waging war on teachers is not the way to repair a broken school; teachers must be partners. “You can’t win a war by firing on your own troops,” as Diane Ravitch has said.

Here’s a great article on the heart and soul of a school that would appear to be “failing” based strictly on flinty-eyed data:
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/08/mission-high-false-low-performing-school

And here’s what education scholar Richard Rothstein has said about the concept that we must destroy America’s schools in order to save them:

“A belief in decline has led to irresponsibility in school reform. Policymakers who believed they could do no harm because American schools were already in a state of collapse have imposed radical reforms without careful consideration of possible unintended adverse consequences. …
“I do not suggest that American schools are adequate, that American students’ level of achievement in math and reading is where it should be, that American schools have been improving as rapidly as they should, or that the achievement gap is narrowing to the extent needed to give us any satisfaction. I only suggest that we should approach fixing a system differently if we believe its outcomes are slowly improving than if we believe it is collapsing.”

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/04/07/richard-rothstein/a-nation-at-risk-twenty-five-years-later/

As you may recall, there is a bitter battle under way in Adelanto, California.

Parent Revolution, an organization funded by Gates, Walton, and Broad, has been in search of a school that could be used to fire the “parent trigger.” The parent trigger law was passed in January 2010, and in the past 2 and 1/2 years, no school has been converted to a charter.

Parent Revolution was behind the petition drive at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, where they helped to organize a parent union.

The school board has resisted Parent Revolution’s demand to turn the school into a charter school.

This letter was written to the blog by the president of the Adelanto School Board:

Carlos Mendoza commented on Parent Trigger District Heading Back to Court: UPDATEParent 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?

A reader in California writes about the “parent trigger” law. It was enacted when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor and the state board of education had a majority that were charter school advocates. Its lead sponsor in the legislature ran for state superintendent, lost and is now employed by the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ group Democrats for Education Reform. The organization behind the parent trigger, Parent Revolution, is funded by Gates, Walton, and Broad Foundations. The law was enacted in California in January 2010. Since then, Parent Revolution has attempted in two districts to use the law to convert a low-performing school into a charter school. The school in Adelanto is thus far the only one to date that has gained momentum. [For a factual explanation of the parent trigger, read this summary by Parents Across America]:

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?????

Yesterday I wrote a brief summary of the situation in the Adelanto school district in California, the only district where the so-called “parent trigger” has made any headway. The reader is correct: no vote was ever taken. It was a bad choice of words on my part.

This reader comments.

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.

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?

A group called  EdVoice filed a lawsuit to compel the teachers of Los Angeles to comply with 40-year-old legislation (the Stull Act), requiring that student performance be part of teacher evaluation. The Los Angeles teachers’ union has opposed the suit, and they are currently in litigation.

The issues are supposed to be resolved in December. There are many ways to demonstrate pupil performance, not just standardized test scores.

There are so many of these “reform” groups that it is hard to keep track of them.

What and who is EdVoice?

Here is an answer from Sharon Higgins, an Oakland parent activist who is a relentless researcher, and who maintains two websites, one called “charterschoolscandals,” the other called “The Broad Report.” Higgins is an example of the power of one voice, devoted to facts:

Here are a few more specifics about EdVoice, the education lobbying group.

EdVoice was founded in 2001 by Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix, Microsoft board member, Green Dot founding funder) and John Doerr (venture capitalist, investment banker), along with and former CA state Assembly members Ted Lempert and Steve Poizner. Eli Broad and Don Fisher (deceased CEO of The Gap and major KIPP supporter) once served on EdVoice’s board.

EdVoice has received a ton of money from all of the above as well as from Carrie Walton Penner and Fisher’s widow, Doris. Penner lives in the Bay Area and is a Walton Family Foundation trustee. She also sits on KIPP’s board, as does Reed Hastings, and the Fishers’ son, John.

Back in 1998, Hastings also co-founded Californians for Public School Excellence with Don Shalvey. This is the organization that pushed for the Charter Schools Act of 1998, the law that lifted the cap on the number of charter schools in the state.

Don Shalvey was involved with starting the first charter school in California, just after the passage of the California Charter School Act of 1992 (CA was the second state to pass a law). He is also founder and former CEO of Aspire Public Schools. Reed Hastings has been a major source of Aspire’s financial backing, including its launch. In 2009, Shalvey stepped down from his post at Aspire and went to work for the Gates Foundation, but for a while he stayed on Aspire’s board. The Gates Foundation has given generously to Aspire.

In 2011, Hastings and Doerr pumped $11M into DreamBox Learning, an online education company started by a former Microsoft executive and the CEO of a software company. It was acquired by Hastings with help from the Charter School Growth Fund.

BTW, EdVoice co-founder Lempert is currently president of an Oakland-based org called Children Now; he occasionally teaches at Cal. Poizner, a conservative Republican and wealthy Silicon Valley high tech entrepreneur, was defeated by Meg Whitman in the June 2010 gubernatorial primary, and is now the State Insurance Commissioner. For several years he worked for Boston Consulting Group as a management consultant.

More conniving fun and games.