L.A. Times Editorial | http://lat.ms/klDgxo
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)
May 3, 2011 - 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.
smf: The Times editorialist has it right here.
The First Amendment gives The People the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Boards of Education are government, Parents are The People - and are certainly, properly and correctly aggrieved.
Missing is the description of how the Parent Trigger Law came into being : shoved through the legislature by a (now gone) pro-charter-school dominated state board of education and signed by a charter-friendly lame duck governor – rushed through in pursuit of a federal competititve grant the state didn’t (and probably wasn’t going to) get.
The antics of triple-dipping Ben Austin (Revolutionary-in-chief of Parent Revolution, State School Boardmember and Assistant LA City Attorney) in lobbying the State Board with a "Nudge, Nudge, Wink Wink, Say no more" after recusing himself from the vote because of his conflict of interest is worthy of mention and investigation by the State Bar.
recusal - (noun / law) the disqualification of a judge or juror or public official by reason of prejudice or conflict of interest; a judge can be recused by objections of either party or judges can disqualify themselves.
Note that recused parties are not ‘excused’ – they are disqualified. Recused public officials should not engage in debate or the vote/decision making process. By tradition recused parties stop talking and leave the room.until after the vote is taken. If the reason for their recusal persists after the vote they remain disqualified and silent on the issue thereafter.
Once the law was enacted, Austin and Parent Revolution then became trigger-pullers in Compton – writing, circulating, organizing and funding the “spontaneous” stealth petition campaign at McKinley Elementary. The fact Parent Revolution began as a wholly owned subsidiary of Green Dot Public Schools – and Austin’s ‘day job’ employment at city hall – should not escape notice …if only as an curious anecdote.
No comments:
Post a Comment