RALEIGH — Can parents, outraged by failing schools, start an education revolution? In California, parent activists are doing just that.
Empowered by new legislation called the Parent Trigger, parents now have the legal muscle to impose reform on persistently dismal schools. Harnessing parent power to effect change isn’t a novel concept, but the scope and breadth of reforms permitted under the Parent Trigger surely is. Lawmakers across the nation are watching closely.
They should. Conditions are ripe for reform. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found almost 60 percent of Americans believe public education needs “major changes or a complete overhaul.” And California’s Parent Trigger, passed with bipartisan support in early 2010, heralds sweeping change. The law wrests away control from ineffective bureaucrats and hands it to parents, toppling the traditional educational power structure.
How is parent power playing out? In December, parents in Compton moved to “trigger” McKinley Elementary School — the first under the law. They utilized the Parent Trigger’s simple mechanism for change: If 51 percent of parents of students in a failing school sign a petition demanding reform, the local school district must act.
To qualify for triggering, schools must have missed key performance benchmarks for several years running. Parents then may opt for a moderate or drastic school shake-up.
Choices include school closure, conversion to a charter school, and turnaround or transformation plans that call for firing the principal, restructuring staff, or implementing other changes.
At McKinley, more than 60 percent of parents signed petitions, according to Parent Revolution, the nonprofit group that mobilized support for California’s law and now is helping parents organize. McKinley parents are seeking conversion to a charter school and have chosen charter operator Celerity Educational Group to step in. Celerity’s website indicates the organization runs four Los Angeles-area charter schools serving at-risk students.
These early developments are extremely promising. Yet, as with any law, the Parent Trigger is not without its drawbacks and loopholes. Some say the school closure option — shuttering a school and sending students to another same-district school — is problematic.
Terrible schools, especially those in high-poverty, urban districts, rarely exist in isolation, so students may end up getting shunted from one bad school to another. Policymakers at the Illinois-based Heartland Institute favor the Parent Trigger, but liken the closure option to “rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic” in areas of widespread school failure.
Additionally, California lawmakers have capped the number of schools that can be triggered at 75, a fraction of the 1,300 eligible schools identified by Parent Revolution. Legislative caps on education innovation and reform are all too common, thanks to the heavy-handed influence of teacher unions — groups for whom the mere mention of choice or parent-driven accountability induces an apoplectic fit.
Despite its limitations, the Parent Trigger represents an inspiring and unprecedented leveling of the educational playing field, giving power to families most in need of it. At McKinley, 80 percent of the all-minority student body is poor. Only one-third of the students are proficient in English, and less than half are proficient in math. They deserve better. And now they’ll get it.
What’s next for the Parent Trigger? Parent Revolution’s deputy director, Gabe Rose, says he expects a “wave of parent organizing across the state” once word gets out about positive changes at McKinley. Nationwide, momentum is building: The Wall Street Journal reports lawmakers in six states — Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Maryland — plan to introduce Parent Trigger legislation in the months ahead. Look for other states to follow.
Kristen Blair is a North Carolina Education Alliance Fellow.