Archives for category: Parent trigger

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?

I just received this comment. This parent should be invited to appear on NBC’s “Education Nation,” on Morning Joe, on Rachel Maddow, on CNN’s “Newsroom,” and on any other talk show, most of which put people on camera who have never been public school parents or teachers or principals. She is more knowledgeable than Michelle Rhee or Bill Gates or any of the other “reformers”:

Dear Dr. Ravitch,I was composing my own letter to Frank Bruni early this morning, and didn’t see your post until later. Thanks, as always, for your advocacy. Below is a copy of the letter I emailed to Mr. Bruni this morning.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Poyourow

Dear Mr. Bruni,

While I usually enjoy your opinion articles, I was dismayed by yesterday’s article on parent trigger laws. It seems to me that you do not know much about the issue and are relying for your talking points on the PR campaigns of the groups that support them, ironically not grass-roots parents’ groups but primarily astroturf groups with financial, policy, and personnel links reaching back to groups like ALEC (groups which you are certainly no fan of when it comes to their impact on other policy areas).

You seem to take for granted several ideas I would challenge you on: (1) that American public schools and teachers are failing, (2) that middle-class families should desert urban, public schools, (3) that charter schools are the answer to any problems in the current public educational system, and (4) that parent trigger laws would a helpful tool for remedying problems.

For the record, I am a parent with two children in my neighborhood public school in Philadelphia. Our school manages to hold together and serve well a coalition of low-income, blue-collar, and middle-class families with striking racial as well as socioeconomic diversity in a Philadelphia neighborhood–61% of our students are economically disadvantaged, 45% white, 45% black, 5% Latino, and 5% multiracial and other designations. We are not a rich school and cannot stage fundraisers such as the ones held by the Upper West Side public schools in NYC profiled in the NYT earlier this summer. In fact, we (and all public schools in PA) were hit hard by the education budget cuts enacted when a wave of extremist state legislators came into our state government in 2010. $1 billion has been cut from public education statewide in PA, and it has impacted our school heavily, raising class sizes while stripping the school of necessary teaching and support personnel, contracting the curriculum (music and language teachers were cut last year, and the school had no money previously for an art teacher), and leaving kids behind academically without the tutoring previously provided.

Yet our school remains strong, continuing to make AYP and to attract neighborhood parents, primarily because of the cross-class coalition using the school. Even if we haven’t raised $1 million for our school, many parents volunteer, run after-school clubs, and try to solicit community resources to help the school provide what has been eliminated because of cuts at the state level. The reward is that our children get to attend an integrated, academically sound public school in our city neighborhood that is open to all. We are part of a growing movement in several cities (including NYC) that has parents choosing to invest their time and energy in public schools, not only for their own families’ good but to strengthen the fabric of their neighborhoods and cities.

Which brings me back to your op-ed. I am a public school parent–not a teacher and not a union employee. I find the representations of the state of public education in the U.S. promulgated by films such as “Won’t Back Down” and “Waiting for Superman” to be harmful and inaccurate depictions of the current dilemmas faced by public school students, parents, and teachers.

Private schools have done a good sales job over the last decade or so, feeding the cultural panic among middle-class parents, creating anxieties in them that they cannot use the public schools and must purchase high-priced private schooling, tutoring, etc. at any price if their children are to succeed in life academically and economically. However, it is the class and educational background of parents that is the most critical variable in children’s success. While many currently make the claim (which you echo) that U.S. public schools are way behind other countries, when socioeconomic class is taken into account, American students do as well or better than the countries we say we wish to emulate. It is poverty that is our greatest problem. Middle-class children who attend urban public schools, even those in schools with very low average scores, do fine. If we want to solve the educational crisis that does exist for kids from low-income families, then creating jobs, stable health care, and an economic security net for their families is one key–and finding ways to create schools integrated by race and socioeconomic background is another–and providing appropriate funding, early childhood education, and smaller classes is a third.

The voucher, charter school, and parent trigger movements aim in precisely the opposite direction by draining public schools of funds desperately needed in this climate of scarcity and creating a two-tier system of schools, segregating kids even further by race, class, English language learner status, and disability. Indeed as the CREDO study by Stanford University shows, charter schools do not provide better educational opportunities; many provide worse. The people behind the push for parent trigger laws are not idealistic parents but chain charter operators hoping to expand their profits at the public expense–and their right-wing backers hoping to undermine our understanding of education as a public good. I hope you do some research on this topic and reconsider your opinion.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Poyourow (a usually appreciative reader)

I am not going to write anything substantive about the movie celebrating the so-called “parent trigger” until I have seen it.

But the stories about it continue to miss the point about  why parents and teachers think it is a corporate-conceived and corporate-driven idea, for the benefit of corporate charter chains. Why not mention the Florida parents’ fight to stop this so-called “parent empowerment”? If it really empowered parents, why did parents oppose it?

Here is the latest example. Frank Bruni, usually a thoughtful writer, has an article in today’s New York Times. He sees the movie as part of the ongoing (and at least partially justified) critique of teachers unions. He never mentions that the two states that enthusiastically endorsed parent trigger laws (after California did it first, during the Schwarzenegger years), are right-to-work states, Texas and Mississippi. Nor did he mention the role of the rightwing group ALEC in promoting the trigger idea as a way to hasten the privatization of public education.

Instead he sees it as a righteous plea for better schools (the cloak that reformers always wear as they set out to privatize your schools). That’s exactly what the producers are hoping for, to pull the wool over people’s eyes to their privatization agenda with a soap opera set in a public school.

The tipoff is the ending quote, which is from Joe Williams, the executive director of the falsely named Democrats for Education Reform. DFER is the organization of the Wall Street hedge fund managers. Joe, a nice guy, was formerly a beat reporter for the New York Daily News.

Larry Ferlazzo, a prolific blogger and Sacramento teacher, calls Williams on his line about finding and rewarding the best teachers.

Why did Bruni end up parroting DFER? The hedge fund mangers are not education experts; they are not teachers or principals. They send their children to Andover, Exeter, Lakeside Academy, Trinity, St. Bernard’s, Deerfield Academy and Sidwell Friends. These schools don’t evaluate their teachers by standardized test scores. Why does the parent trigger lead us right back to all the other bad ideas propounded by these out of touch reformers?

 

A reader in Washington State writes:

In Washington State, where we don’t have charters, we are fighting a charter initiative. It includes the MOST aggressive trigger in the U.S. It would allow an approved charter to circulate a petition to parents OR teachers at a school and, if a majority sign, the charter takes over, building and all. This applies to ANY existing school, failing or NOT. They could take over ANY school. Say you have an elementary school with 30 teachers and 16 sign the petition. An ENTIRE school community is flipped because of 16 people. It is jaw-droppingly crazy and we are not going to stand for it here. The line in the sand against charters and trigger petitions starts here.

What other public services might be subject to a “trigger” law?

Should 51% of the tenants of a public housing project have the authority to seize control and hand the property over to a private management company?

Should 51% of the patrons of a public library have the authority to seize control and privatize it if they don’t like the staff’s efficiency?

Should 51% of the riders on a public bus have the power to seize control of the bus and privatize it?

Should 51% of those using a public park have the power to seize control and give the real estate to a developer if they don’t like the way it is maintained?

This reader asks:

Can 51% of a community take over the local police force if there are too many burglaries? Can it take over the local hospital if too many patients are dying? Can it take over the local fire department if it couldn’t save a home from burning down? Can it take control of a local road and start charging a toll on it?

Do you have other ideas about how to improve public services by allowing 51% of its users today to seize control and privatize it?

The question of ownership arises because the “parent trigger” idea enables 51% of parents to “seize control” of their public school and turn it over to a private corporation to manage.

But do the parents “own” the school? Is it theirs to give away?

My view is that it belongs to the public. The public created it. The public paid for it. It belongs to the public. It belongs to those who attended it in the past and to those who will attend it in the future. Next year’s parents and students have the same interest as this year’s. And so do those who will be parents and students in the school five years from now.

If the school is unsatisfactory, if the principal is incompetent, take your concerns to the superintendent and the school board. If most parents speak up, they will not be ignored (unless you happen to live in a city with mayoral control, like New York City or Chicago, where the mayor doesn’t care about parent opinion).

This reader has similar concerns.

What exactly does “taking back a school” mean? Are you suggesting that we allow a group of people (whether it’s 51% of parents or some other group) to take over a public school and “give” it to a private corporation or organization? If so, then I disagree completely.

On the other hand, if you mean, changing the publicly elected school board then I would agree completely. If you mean working with the teachers and parents to improve the educational program, then I agree. If you mean changing the legislature, governor, or other elected officials who are killing public education then I agree — completely.

As Diane has said many times, public schools belong to the public, not 51% of the current parents. You can prove that for yourself by going to a high school basketball or football game. The “alumni” are often there in great numbers. Public schools belong to the community. They are centers for community pride and memories. They are (and should be) a stable influence in a community. 

If 51% of parents decide that a school is no longer meeting the needs of their children and give it away to a private company, what happens next year if 51% of the parents decide that they want to convert it back to a traditional public school? The parent trigger laws do not allow that. Once the public school is gone…it’s gone.

I’m a retired teacher…and I would LOVE to “take back” public schools from the “reformers.” That’s why I write to my legislators. That’s why I belong to a community group which works for public education (neifpe@blogspot.com). That’s why I blog. That’s why I try to inform as many people as I can about what’s happening to public education.

The new film “Won’t Back Down” apparently celebrates the “parent trigger.” Since this film is fictional, it is likely to provide misinformation about this concept.

Parents Across America invited member Caroline Grannan, who lives in California and often writes about education, to prepare a fact sheet about the real “parent trigger,” which was passed as a law in that state in early 2010.

Here is her summary.

A few months ago, the Florida legislature debated a “parent trigger” law.

It would have allowed parents to sign a petition and take control of their public school.

The proposal was strongly supported by Jeb Bush and Michelle Rhee.

Florida parent groups rallied against the law, saying it was a ploy by the for-profit charter companies to trick parents and take over more schools.

In this post, one of Florida’s leading parent groups–Fund Education Now–explains why it opposes the “parent trigger.”

 

Coach Sikes, our reliable Florida informant, describes how that state’s for-profit charter chains are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into four key races for the state senate.

This past spring, the state senate deadlocked on a 20-20 vote and did not pass a parent trigger law supported by right-wingers Jeb Bush and Michelle Rhee.

Even some Republican senators turned against the proposal when not a single Florida parent group supported it.

Every Florida parent group opposed it. They warned that the parent trigger was a transparent attempt by the charter operators to trick parents into handing their public school over to the charter chains.

By funding opposition to the senators who oppose the parent trigger, the for-profit charter chains are demonstrating that the parent groups were right.

We’ll be watching these elections this November and hoping for the victory of the state senators who listen to their constituents, not to the big money and profiteers.

On August 14, there will be a benefit concert in Los Angeles to “honor” teachers.

The concert is a promotion for a new “Superman”-style film that vilifies public schools and promotes privatization.

The film celebrates the “parent trigger” law, which gives parents the power to seize control of their school, fire the staff, and turn it over to a charter chain. The parent trigger was promoted by charter advocates and billionaire foundations Broad, Gates, and Walton.

Strange way to “honor” teachers–by firing them and giving the school to a non-union private entity to manage, which may hire only young teachers willing to work a 50-60 hour week at low wages. More “honors” like this and there won’t be a teaching profession in America, just teaching temps.

The concert is sponsored by Walmart (the Walton family) and Walden Media. The Walton Family Foundation gave out $159 million last year for charters and vouchers.

Walden Media was one of the producers of “Waiting for ‘Superman.'” Billionaire Philip Anschutz, who owns Walden Media, funds rightwing groups, is anti-environment and bankrolled anti-gay referenda.

It’s sad to see Viola Davis involved in this sneaky push for privatization. I remember when she won the Academy Award in 2010 and announced that she was proud to be a graduate of Central Falls High School, right at the time that all the corporate reformers were gloating about the threat to shut it down.