Parent Trigger in Adelanto, CA

How did the Parent Trigger law originate?  The Parent Trigger was first conceived by a LA-based organization called the Parent Revolution, founded by a charter school operator and funded by the Broad, Walton and Gates Foundations.  The legislation was introduced in California by then-State Senator Gloria Romero, who now heads the California branch of the pro-privatization organization, Democrats for Education Reform. ------ NYC Parents Blog (FAQ re the movie “Won’t Back Down” and the Parent Trigger)

With the publicity surrounding "Won't Back Down" parent trigger laws are in the news. This story from Adelanto Ca will prove to be a hot one. As Leonie points out above, these are not grassroots movements as depicted in the film, which turns it into science fiction. While I pointed out in my recent post that I at times have mixed feelings about local bureaucracies (Supporters of Parent Trigger Film "Won't Back Down" Come Under Attack), I found myself rooting for the Adelanto school board in this one.

UPDATE: Aug. 22, 10PM from Ravitch:

President of the Adelanto School Board Challenges “Parent Revolution”

A few facts about this one, again from Leonie:

operatives trained and paid by the Parent Revolution urged parents at the Desert Trails School in Adelanto CA to sign two different petitions: one calling for smaller classes and other positive reforms, the other demanding that the school be turned over to a charter operator.  After the organizers submitted only the charter petition to the authorities, nearly 100 parents asked to withdraw their signatures.  Yet a judge has ruled that parents could not rescind their signatures and the conversion to a charter school should go forward. Even Gloria Romero, the author of the Parent Trigger law, has criticized the organization’s tactics, and said that presenting Adelanto parents with two different petitions to sign was “needlessly confusing.” 

So when it turns out that enough parents were manipulated into signing a petition where they were asked if they wanted to lower class sizes but found out they were being used to trigger a charter and then wanted their names removed which would have untriggered the trigger, the judge ruled against them. But the school board may have done an end run around the push for the school to be replaced by a charter. From Charters and Choice blog

California 'Parent-Trigger' Effort Thrown Back Into Turmoil

A California school board has approved a plan to restructure a school at the center of a closely watched "parent-trigger" dispute, but it's not the plan that a group of parents wanted—and it's not the plan they say a judge ordered put in place.
The Adelanto, Calif., school board voted Friday to accept a petition circulated by a group of parents seeking to become the first in the country to use a parent-trigger law to overhaul an academically struggling school. But the panel rejected the parents' preferred option, which was to convert Desert Trails Elementary into a charter school, the board's president, Carlos Mendoza, told Education Week in an e-mail. The board instead decided to move forward with a form of "alternate governance," he said, which would result in a longer school day, improved technology and other changes to the school.
But whether that plan will ever take effect is anything but certain.
The Adelanto board's actions drew an immediate, angry reaction from the parents seeking to change the school, who said the panel has run afoul of the letter of an court decision issued by a judge last month, which in their view clearly calls for the creation of a charter.
"They've violated the plain language of the order of the court," said Ben Austin, the executive director of Parent Revolution, a group that has helped the parents with the trigger effort. "The district seems to want to hold onto power, no matter what. ... There is no ambiguity about the judge's order."

How nice to see Ben Austin vexed. He will go back to court to force the charter on parents who choose not to have a charter. Now note this big lie in the article to make it appear that parent triggers are a slam dunk without mentioning that Florida turned it down.

A growing number of states have either approved or considered parent-trigger laws, policies that typically allow parents to revamp the operations, leadership, and personnel at academically struggling schools, if a majority of parents agree to those changes. Lawmakers aren't the only ones drawn to the idea. A movie titled "Won't Back Down," which tells the story of a fictionalized attempt at a school takeover, will be released next month.

[Superintendent] Mendoza pointed to the language of the judge's order, saying that school board has done nothing to interfere with allowing the parents to begin sorting through charter school proposals. "We have never stopped them from soliciting applications," he wrote to Education Week. The board simply voted to pursue another option, he said.
"I believe that the alternative governance is closer to what the Desert Trails Parent Union [has] been claiming to want than a charter school," Mendoza argued. The parents "now have a choice," he said. "They can partner with the district through the alternate governance plan and transform the school or they can continue to partner with Parent Revolution to further rob our kids with lawsuits."
Austin, however, scoffed at the board's reasoning, saying the judge had been clear that the school is to be converted to a charter.

Ben Austin wants parent choice, as long as it's limited to charters.

The school board took an option that Leonie point to:

But are there other ways to provide better “choices” for parents?  There are many ways that districts can provide more and better choices within the public school system, by creating magnet schools and specialized schools that unlike charters, do not drain resources from public schools, privatize public buildings or take decisions out of voters’ hands. Why should a public school built with taxpayer funds be given to a private corporation just because 51% of current users signed a petition?  If a local firehouse was ineffective in putting out fires, or a police station in fighting crime, would we choose to hand these public services over to a private company, or would we demand that our elected leaders improve them?

Leonie gives us some more history:

The first time the “parent trigger” was tried, Parent Revolution sent operatives into Compton CA, to ask parents to sign a petition saying that their local elementary school should be turned into a charter school. Some parents who signed the petition later said they been misled,  the effort was mired in lawsuits and ultimately fizzled. 

What does the Parent Trigger law call for?  If 51% of parents at a school can be persuaded to sign a petition calling for any of a narrow set of options – either firing all the teaching staff, closing the school, or privatizing the school by turning it over to a charter operator, this must occur.  None of these options has any track record of success.

How did the Parent Trigger law originate?  The Parent Trigger was first conceived by a LA-based organization called the Parent Revolution, founded by a charter school operator and funded by the Broad, Walton and Gates Foundations.  The legislation was introduced in California by then-State Senator Gloria Romero, who now heads the California branch of the pro-privatization organization, Democrats for Education Reform.  

How can we fight back?  Last spring, Florida parent groups, including Parents Across America, banded together to fight Parent Trigger legislation that had been introduced in the state legislature. By holding rallies and press conferences, calling their elected representatives, and speaking out about how the Parent Trigger is a ruse devised by corporate reformers to benefit charter operators rather than children, Florida parents prevented the legislation from being passed. 

Parents Union support the movie

A website, developed by The Protea Group Inc. called Parents for "Won't Back Down" supports the movie. Website is sponsored by:

Connecticut Parents Union, New York City Parents Union, Ohio Parents Union & the Texas Parents Union

Website Developed & Administered by The Protea Group Inc.

If you follow the links you will find direct and indirect attack on Leonie Haimson and Parents Across America.

Gwen Samuel, President of the Connecticut Parents Union closes her press release with this statement where she accuses people opposing the movie with trying to bully parents.

So, again, I ask, what is the big fuss and why would anyone bully parents to not watch a movie that will inspire parents to be more active in their child’s educational journey?

Oh, la di da, it's only a movie - and I neglected to mention that the movie is backed by the very people attacking teachers, unions and public education. 

Really, who is doing the bullying here? 

Supporters of Parent Trigger Film "Won't Back Down" Come Under Attack

Over the years, the teachers’ unions have indeed guarded tenure protections and last-in-first-out layoff practices to a zealous degree that could at times seem indifferent to the welfare of schoolchildren. “We bear a lot of responsibility for this,” Weingarten told me in a phone interview on Friday. “We were focused — as unions are — on fairness and not as much on quality.”  -- Frank Bruni on "Won't Back Down" in NY Times

There she goes again. Randi straddling the line instead of using an opportunity to educate the press and the public about what is really going on.

Given my history of frustration with the union and my own maverick tendencies, the idea of teachers and parents voting to overturn the bureaucracy is appealing. In fact, in the late 90s I went to Randi Weingarten and proposed the UFT set up a charter school support system for teachers to work with parents to take over NYC schools one school at a time saying, "The people running the schools are just awful and we will never make progress until we have some control of the system." She responded, "You're probably right, but how can we trust....." and she stopped there. I know she was thinking, "How can we trust just any teachers?"

I had been so frustrated at the joint union and district oppression in my district and if there were a genuine trigger movement I might have gone that way too. I want to stress right here that the film does show a teacher fighting back and I will see the film before saying it out and out sucks.

But we always have to put films like "Won't Back Down" in context. Who is backing it? The same "Waiting for Superman" gang. The parent trigger concept in the hands of the people pushing it is extremely dangerous. And of course the union is evil in the film. But then again how often to I feel that way from the other side of the fence about our own union after fighting the Unity machine for over 40 years?

I will give the film credit for waking up some of our colleagues to the dangers while our union leadership seems to be asleep at the wheel. Or worse, collaborating on the other side, but not collaborating enough according to DFER and right wingers. Which makes my point -- why collaborate at all and not go all out?

The Frank Bruni article in today's New York Time about "Won't Back Down" made some interesting points about  unions and how they are vilified for not being willing to give when in fact Randi has been the gift that keeps giving. My response to Bruni would be how tenure protects kids and how the alternative is so much worse --- why doesn't he touch on the states where there is no tenure or effective union? Why doesn't Randi hammer this home in every interview and every tweet? Because you know my feelings: she is a neo-liberal lawyer with serious ed deform tendencies, not a teacher.

Here is a comment on the Bruni piece from Leonie Haimson:

As usual, treats this as solely a battle between union and “reformers”, and interviews Micah Lasher and Joe Williams. Dreadful piece. Micah Lasher claims “Democratic executives say “‘I’ve devoted all the resources I can, why can’t I get better results with the resources I have?’” With the largest class sizes in 13 years? Go leave a comment and tweet him at @frankbruni; he also has a Facebook page. He writes: I invite you to visit my blog, follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/frankbruni and join me on Facebook. Please DO!
Teachers on the Defensive - NYTimes.com - http://goo.gl/LNo7l

Diane Ravitch on the Bruni column. Here's an excerpt:

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.

Diane links to another critique by Larry Ferlazzo, a prolific blogger and Sacramento teacher, calls Williams on his line about finding and rewarding the best teachers.

More from Diane: A Parent’s Letter to Frank Bruni of the New York Times
--------

Save Our Schools Takes a Stand

Here is the 6 page document they produced regarding the film and the Teachers Rock concert. You can download it here.

Press Release Teachers Rock Documents

--------

Mona Davids jumps on the movie bandwagon

In this war we are in those who try to straddle the line don't make friends on either side. See one Randi Weingarten. Thus, some activists in NYC were disappointed to learn that Mona Davids of the NYC Parents Union has jumped on the bandwagon with her support of the film. The press release from Parents Unions in 4 states used the ed deform buzz words (adults and children to define which side you are on:

 putting aside politics and adult self-interests by putting children first

Words that could come right from the pages of Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee.

Tne NYC Parent Union press release with links to the movie FB and Twitter feeds. (Note the WBD FB page is censoring comments.)

Now, Mona has been an ally over the past few years and had a role in our film criticizing charters despite her being a charter supporter. I can't even tell you how much help she was and she has taken flack for her support of the film.

She had gotten off to a pretty bad start when I first met her in the summer and fall of 2009 when she supported Joel Klein and then showed up from her Bronx home at a hearing at PS 15 over PAVE charter school in Red Hook Brooklyn to charge the teachers at the school with being interlopers from outside the neighborhood. I dubbed her "Moaning Mona." Some of the videos I shot were pretty funny.

But Mona began reaching out early in 2010 and over the years everyone made nice despite differences and I began to refer to her as "Magnificent Mona." And she has been a stalwart lining up with anti-corporate ed deformers on many issues, including helping lead the assault on the Cathie Black chancellor case.

Now I should point out that Mona has been pushing her own version of a parent trigger law here in NY State, which has caused some people to take issue with. But as I say, in the overall context of her work, many of us didn't get our underwear in a knot over it.

But her signing onto the film did bother me and some others. I feel that by supporting this film at this time of a general assault on unions and public education by the right, Mona's support for the film puts her in the public perception on the wrong side of the line. Here is a comment from someone associated with the national Save Our Schools Movement -- a person who doesn't know Mona or her work:

We MUST do all we can to fight this. Note the name of the group, "Parent's Union." Someone said at at our meeting that the right wing is taking over our terminology, so no one knows who is on what side.

Mona's hard work being branded by someone in SOS as a right wing front group which is not true. Another parent wrote:

Has she suddenly flipped sides? She quite publicly tweeted her thanks to Campbell Brown as well.

That is the danger Mona faces in linking the NYC Parents Union with a film being pushed by the right wing, DFER and all the other ed deformers. Emails have been flying around about this behind the scenes and there is a renewed wariness about Mona and her motives. I'll wait and see and give her the benefit of the doubt, for now. It might be fun to see her at the premiere of the film on Sept. 28 if we manage to hold some protest rally over the message of the film.

Mona and I had a bit of a testy interchange yesterday over her support for the film after I asked her if "Moaning Mona" was returning. She said she wanted people to see the film and make up their own minds. Hey, Diane Ravitch is also saying she won't comment on the film until she sees it. But I pointed out this point from her press release:

The “Won’t Back Down” movie displays a beautiful partnership between parents, teachers and the community to improve a low performing school.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

FAQ re the movie “Won’t Back Down” and the Parent Trigger 

 

Day 3: Add Your Comments at Ed Notes on Parent Trigger Online Debate at Manhattan Institute - Weds, Aug. 17

The debate continues between Julie Cavanagh and Ben Boychik. Follow this to see exactly the kind of manipulative game parent trigger plays in the hands of the ed deformers.

NO COMMENTS ALLOWED AT PUBLIC SECTOR WEB SITE.

JUST CLICK ON THE COMMENT LINK BELOW THIS POST

Since there is no room for comments we are using Ed Notes as the vehicle for public comment every day.

Here is the link to the debate so far:
http://www.publicsectorinc.com/online_debates/2011/08/the-parent-trigger-a-positive-step-or-a-distraction-for-improving-our-public-schools.html

Tomorrow at 12 noon you can see the responses to each other and so on through Thursday.

Check Ed Notes' previous coverage:

Gem's Julie Cavanagh Debates Parent Trigger online this week in Manhattan institute Sponsored Event starting Monday at 12 noon

Day 1 Add Your Comments at Ed Notes on Parent Trigger Online Debate at Manhattan Institute - Monday Aug. 15

Day 2: Add Your Comments at Ed Notes on Parent Trigger Online Debate at Manhattan Institute - Tuesday, Aug. 16

Day 2: Add Your Comments at Ed Notes on Parent Trigger Online Debate at Manhattan Institute - Tuesday, Aug. 16

NO COMMENTS ALLOWED AT PUBLIC SECTOR WEB SITE.

JUST CLICK ON THE COMMENT LINK BELOW THIS POST

Since there is no room for comments we are using Ed Notes as the vehicle for public comment every day.

Here is the link to the debate so far:
http://www.publicsectorinc.com/online_debates/2011/08/the-parent-trigger-a-positive-step-or-a-distraction-for-improving-our-public-schools.html

Tomorrow at 12 noon you can see the responses to each other and so on through Thursday.


See Julie nail Ben again and Caroline Grannan hit him again as he tries to get off the floor.
Boychuk says:

where parents are routinely dismissed or where their involvement is answered with condescension and suspicion—then the “parent trigger” is indeed “real parent choice” and genuinely empowering.

Now we know ed deformers don't really want to empower parents and Julie exposes them:

Stating that parent choice increases involvement, let alone empowerment, is not entirely accurate.  What is parent choice? Are we ensuring choices that are authentic and meaningful or are we giving the illusion of choice? What is involvement? Are we ensuring parents are given the power to demand the programs and services they want for their children or are we giving them a voice, but ignoring their choices? Parent activist Karen Harper-Royal often points out, in the world of school choice, “schools choose and parents and kids lose.”
The “parent trigger” is an illusion of choice and an impediment to empowerment. True choice and empowerment would include parents having a genuine seat at the table; preparing the menu, gathering the ingredients with administrators and educators, and together cooking the meal, setting the table, and enjoying their collaborative educational feast. Policy such as the “parent trigger” leaves parents with one option: clean up after all of the wrong ingredients have been purchased and the meal is burnt. If the goal is to cultivate parent choice and empowerment there is a simple solution: give parents what they want.  In parent surveys across the country, and every year here in New York City, parents demand one reform consistently: small class size. 

You go girl.

By the way, for those of you educators out there who pay lip service to parent involvement and in fact believe parents should have as little say in schools as possible (and at time in my career some thoughts have run through my head along these lines) let me say that Julie is not just blowing smoke. When she says she is passionate about empowering parents she means it - one of the most articulate spokes persons on this issue I've met - and she has influenced me. Now if you don't think Julie's position is not diametrically different from where the UFT has always come from (explaining why they are for mayoral control) you are smoking something.

Below is Caroline Grannan, an expert on the Parent Trigger responding to Boychuk's lauding McKinley as a model.

Add Your Comments at Ed Notes on Parent Trigger Online Debate at Manhattan Institute - Monday Aug. 15

NO COMMENTS ALLOWED AT PUBLIC SECTOR WEB SITE.

JUST CLICK ON THE COMMENT LINK BELOW THIS POST

If you saw this post this morning:

Gem's Julie Cavanagh Debates Parent Trigger online this week in Manhattan Institute Sponsored Event starting Monday at 12 noon...and lasting through Thursday

Starting today, Julie will be debating Ben Boychuk on the Parent Trigger, an ed deform wolf in sheep's clothing at the Manhattan Institute's Public Sector.

Since there is no room for comments we are using Ed Notes as the vehicle for public comment every day.

Here is the link to today's debate:
http://www.publicsectorinc.com/online_debates/2011/08/the-parent-trigger-a-positive-step-or-a-distraction-for-improving-our-public-schools.html

Tomorrow at 12 noon you can see the responses to each other and so on through Thursday.

------------
Parent Trigger supposedly allows parents at a school perceived as not functioning effectively to vote on a number of options, most of which could lead to some level of privatization. On the surface Boychuk's arguments may look attractive to some parents. But the reality in a time of of big money charter/voucher supporters what we will see is they will hire some front group to find a few parents (maybe even pay them) to organize other parents - you know the drill - innundate  the community with flyers, ads, glossy posters, etc while the public school is left defenseless to fight back. And Voila - you have another  public intitution disappear into the mitt of privatization. Why are the investing so much money in this endeavor? I don't think you need me to answer. Despite Boychuk's list of options we know this is the more likely outcome.

I should point out that Manhattan Institute is generally a pro-business right wing think tank. But this debate is possibly a sign that the weaknesses of ed deform are leaking through the cracks.

---------
Leonie Haimson asks Why No Parent in the debate?
I posted Leonie's question to MI in the posting of the press release from MI this morning. Of course MI could just as well have gotten a parent to debate each side of the issue. But given they are using Boychuk who is associated with MI, Julie as an educator works out fine.

Julie responded to Leonie's question:

For the record, so folks on the Ed News list and PAA are aware, I raised this issue with he Manhattan Institute when I was first asked to participate. I felt uncomfortable as an educator being the voice, which I figured would be the 'opposition' voice, on the parent trigger. I was well aware of the strong opposition from many individual parents and groups across the country. I was told that they asked me because I could speak to the issue from the school level.

Now, we/I can hypothesize as to why a teacher, rather than a parent was asked (in the middle of the project is probably not the best time for me to do this), but I figured accepting the invitation was better than allowing it to go to someone else, who clearly would not have been a parent either.

I want all of you to know that I have heavily sought the input and advice of several parents including Leonie (and members of paa) and Mona and will be linking almost exclusively (if not in full) to parents'  work and writing in my posts  including paa, class size matters and ny charter parents.

Parent empowerment, true empowerment, has always been of paramount importance to me, which is precisely why I do oppose the parent trigger (in its current forms), and why I agreed to this forum/debate.

Best,
Julie Cavanagh

Gem's Julie Cavanagh Debates Parent Trigger online this week in Manhattan institute Sponsored Event starting Monday at 12 noon

Follow daily coverage on Ed Notes

TUNE IN! PublicSectorInc.org Online Debate Begins Monday August 15, 2011 at 12 p.m. ET

THE PARENT TRIGGER:

A POSITIVE STEP OR A DISTRACTION FOR IMPROVING OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

In 2010, California enacted education legislation known as the “parent trigger.” The legislation empowers parents of children at schools that have failed to meet annual yearly progress for at least four years to change the administration, convert the school to a charter, or shut it down completely if they gather signatures from at least 51% of parents at the school. Similar legislation exists in Mississippi and Connecticut, but has failed to become law in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, and Maryland.

In the first PublicSectorInc.org online debate, Ben Boychuk and Julie Cavanagh will examine the arguments in favor and in opposition to this reform, focusing on the experience to date in California and developments in other parts of the country where similar legislation is being considered.

Many school reformers believe that this law puts the interests of children ahead of teachers and helps to save children in failing schools before the clock runs out. Many education professionals, among them the president of the California Federation of Teachers, view the law as a “lynch mob provision,” intended to dismantle the public school system. The politics of the “parent trigger” are confusing, with the lines between conservatives and liberals often blurred.

The debate will go live on August 15^th at 12 p.m. ET at http://www.publicsectorinc.org/online_debates. Over the next four days Ben Boychuk and Julie Cavanagh will have an opportunity to respond to the opposing view, with final remarks posted at 12 p.m. ET on August 18^th.

If you would like to schedule an interview with Ben Boychuk or Julie Cavanagh, please contact Kasia Zabawa at (646) 839-3342 or by email at kzabawa@manhattan-institute.org.

Ben Boychuk is associate editor of City Journal, where he writes on education and California politics. Previously, he served as managing editor of the Heartland Institute's School Reform News and the Claremont Review of Books. He is also a former editorial writer for Investor's Business Daily and the Press-Enterprise in Riverside, California. Boychuk writes a weekly column for the Sacramento Bee and Scripps-Howard News Service. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the New York Post, National Review Online, the Korea Times and newspapers across the United States.

Julie Cavanagh has been a special education teacher for more than ten years in Red Hook, Brooklyn.  She currently serves children with intellectual disabilities in grades first through third and previously served children with learning differences in grades four and five. Julie received her BS in special education from Indiana University, her MS in curriculum and teaching from Fordham University, where she was an Ennis Cosby Scholar, and her advanced degree in administration and supervision from Brooklyn College. She is a member of Grassroots Education Movement; advocating for equity and real reform in our public education system. Julie is also the co-producer of the documentary The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman.

PublicSectorInc.org is a one-stop-shop for the latest news, analysis and research about the issues facing the public sector and the American taxpayer. It provides a national forum to probe problems and develop solutions at the state and local level. With a critical focus on the urgent topics of pension reform, employee compensation, bargaining and retirement health benefits for public employees, PublicSectorInc.org is shaping the national debate unfolding in state capitals and city halls across America. PublicSectorInc.org is published by the Center for State and Local Leadership at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
 that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

www.manhattan-institute.org

Leonie Haimson to MI

question to Manhattan Institute; why no parents involved in debate re parent empowerment?

Dear Kasia: re http://www.publicsectorinc.org/online_debates

Julie’s a great advocate, but Kasia,  do  you have a comment for our NYC education list or our NYC Public School Parent blog about why the Manhattan Institute didn’t ask public school parents to discuss the issue of parent empowerment? 

Is it that the Manhattan Institute doesn’t know any public school parents, or is it that you don’t trust or respect them to be able to intelligently debate this issue?

Don’t you think it would have been appropriate to include one of us in the discussion?

There are many parents throughout the country who have analyzed and have views on the Parent Trigger. 

See for example Parents Across America’s position paper here:

http://parentsacrossamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/PAA_Parent_Trigger-position-fin