‘Parent trigger’ organizers need protection from harassment, intimidation
John Fensterwald’s post last week on the “parent trigger” and its implementing regulations missed the mark in one or two spots. First and foremost, we completely agree with John and others who argue that more open dialogue and debate as part of the parent trigger organizing process is a desirable goal. It is crucial, however, to understand why parents would want to organize under the radar; to do so, one need look no further than the response from Compton Unified employees since the parents of McKinley submitted their signatures last month and became completely “public.”
The district responded with a torrent of lies, harassment, and intimidation of parents as part of a concerted “rescission” campaign. They used school resources for this purpose, sending robo-calls out to all parents, and calling them in to school ostensibly for reasons relating to their children, only to browbeat them into “rescinding” their parent trigger signatures. Parents have even been lied to by school staff that their children will be kicked out of the school if it is transformed with the parent trigger (and you don’t have to believe us. One of the teachers even wrote that online!).
And just this week, two days after McKinley parents filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Compton Unified announced that even after all the lies, the intimidation and the harassment, the district has made up a signature verification process out of thin air that both explicitly violates the emergency regulations promulgated and passed by the State Board of Education, and disenfranchises hundreds of parents who have stood up for change at one of the worst schools in California. Compton Unified will require all parents to come to the McKinley campus – the epicenter of the district’s illegal rescission campaign – to verify their signatures. If the parents can’t come during this narrow window – regardless of whether they are sick, working, or being foreclosed on (a problem multiple parents are grappling with) – their signature will be thrown out.
So while we are strong supporters of open, public debates, and would even be supportive of requiring them as part of the parent trigger implementing regulations, it is critical that such provisions are coupled with a much stronger prohibition of and accountability for public employees lying to and intimidating parents who are fighting for their kids. Also needed are basic protections from the use of school resources to campaign for or against a parent trigger action. It is unfair and wrong to force parents into organizing in public without giving them basic protections from taxpayer-funded harassment and intimidation.
Additionally, it is important to remember that, as John noted, the parents who are organizing in Compton have no access to the list of parents at the school or their contact info, which makes organizing incredibly difficult. This is particularly true in low-income communities where social networks and ties amongst parents are much weaker than in middle class communities, and many parents are busy working two jobs or more just to make ends meet. As a result of these challenges, over 25 percent of parents at McKinley have still never even been contacted about the parent trigger or been given an opportunity to participate in the discussion (which makes it that all the more remarkable that 63 percent of the school has stood up in support). Any attempt to make the organizing process more fair and transparent must allow parents fighting for change to be able to communicate with their fellow parents, particularly in communities with large pre-existing barriers to this occurring. Any attempts to erect additional requirements for parents trying to organize without simultaneously empowering them with the necessary contact information are clearly not serious attempts at the “transparency” or “openness” that all sides claim to want.
Potential leverage and bargaining power
It is primarily on the overall potential of the parent trigger law as a paradigm-shifting new right for all parents where we think John’s post misses the mark. We certainly acknowledge that the parent trigger law is somewhat limited in the school transformation options it explicitly allows for. But exploring the law through such a narrow lens misses the forest for the trees, and leaves totally unsaid what we believe to be the law’s greatest potential: giving parents real bargaining power. In many instances, to be sure, parents will simply want to break with their school district and transform their school through charter conversion, or keep it in the district but force the school to make radical changes, such as bring in a new staff. But ultimately, the most transformative use of this law lies in its simple, original purpose: It gives parents power.
For too long, districts and others have merely ignored parents and pushed them towards bake sales or meaningless committees while their children were stuck in failing schools that no parent should be forced to accept. Districts could do this with confidence, knowing that parents didn’t actually have much power to effectuate change. With the parent trigger, those days are over. Giving parents the power to organize and force radical changes at their school completely changes the conversation between districts and parents. We believe that negotiated in–district reforms and transformations, forged with the looming and very real threat of organized parents submitting parent trigger petitions, will ultimately be both the most common usage and most transformative legacy of this law.
Despite the shake-up of the State Board of Education last week, we remain hopeful that the new Board will act with a sense of urgency and promulgate reasonable and fair implementing regulations for the parent trigger. These regulations have already gone through more than four months of debate, three separate votes, and two full public comment periods. Parents are organizing at schools throughout California, and are in desperate need of fair and reasonable rules and regulations to guide their efforts and protect their interests.
New Board members like President Michael Kirst have spent decades tirelessly advocating for the interests of students and the need to improve public education. We still believe Gov. Brown and his new Board members will ultimately choose to stand on the right side of history and public policy and work to empower parents who are desperate for change, rather than use regulations to erect more roadblocks to change.
Ben Austin serves as Executive Director of the non-profit Parent Revolution. He served as Deputy Mayor under Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and held a variety of roles in the Clinton White House. A former member of the California State Board of Education, he has helped craft education reforms based on parental choice.
19 Comments
Trackbacks
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
My post here is going to be somewhat repetitive with previous comments I’ve made on this issue. John and readers, please bear with me and tolerate that. It’s necessary to refute some of the inaccurate statements Ben Austin makes here.
Austin says: “It is crucial … to understand why parents would want to organize under the radar.”
This is misleading. Parents did not organize in Compton. Parent Revolution, an astroturf (fake grassroots) group founded by charter operators and funded by billionaires and corporate titans, looked around the state for a vulnerable school to target and picked McKinley Elementary. Parent Revolution sent paid operatives out into Compton door to door in search of parents at the school. A grassroots effort from within the school community would not require paid staff to cold-call in search of parents.
Austin tries to head off that criticism by indicating that parents in a low-income community would be too dysfunctional to have formed connections and relationships. Anyone familiar with diverse communities knows that’s not an accurate characterization, and it’s patronizing and disrespectful.
And, to be clear, this move was not waged on behalf of parent empowerment. It was waged on behalf of a specific charter operator, the Celerity Educational Group, that was pre-selected to take over McKinley — and it was not the McKinley parents who selected Celerity.
Obviously, no one supports harassment of parents or of anyone, though it is impossible to know what’s really going on. (Parent Revolution’s word is not credible, as the organization and its PR firm, the Rose Group of Culver City, have released a considerable amount of inaccurate and misleading information.)
However, anyone familiar with any school community anywhere can see that it’s inevitable that the Parent Trigger process in any school would result in controversy, divisiveness and – yes – likely intimidation and harassment as a byproduct of the controversy and divisiveness.
The Los Angeles Weekly, a fiery libertarian-oriented advocacy newspaper that fervently supports the assault on McKinley Elementary and has covered it in detail, live-blogged a Compton school board meeting attended by 200 parents who opposed the charterization move after the petitions were delivered. The Weekly described the situation as “civil war” among the parents.
When outsiders come in and ignite “civil war” in a vulnerable, disadvantaged school community, it’s harmful to the children and the entire community.
The chaos in regard to the process post-petition-delivery is similarly predictable and inevitable.
When the Parent Trigger law was in front of the state Legislature last year, the state PTA advocated for including transparency requirements, which Parent Revolution fought. Parent Revolution then waged the Compton campaign in what California Watch referred to as “stealth.” So it does not appear to be quite accurate for Parent Revolution to then reverse course and claim to be “strong supporters of open, public debates.”
The notion that it would be possible to legislate what individuals say to each other during the course of a heated controversy is – well, unrealistic and anti-democracy, let’s just say. The notion that an organization backed by billionaires and powerful political leaders would be promoting that idea is a more than a little scary.
It’s unclear on the concept for Austin to complain that “over 25 percent of parents at McKinley have still never even been contacted about the parent trigger or been given an opportunity to participate in the discussion,” given that he has readily acknowledged waging the campaign against McKinley in stealth. It’s evident that the stealth meant that the parents at McKinley were not given a chance to examine the issues or the options, or to hear a range of views on the Parent Trigger.
It’s transparently inaccurate to tout the Parent Trigger as giving parents power. The Parent Trigger is designed to give charter school operators power. Recently, there was a discussion on this very forum about the already-occuring use of the Parent Trigger at Mount Gleason Middle School in Sunland, near L.A. In that situation, the former parent waging the campaign (who was posting here herself) does not want to charterize the school; she said she just wants to get the principal replaced.
Parent Revolution has stopped discussing that campaign at all and is even touting the McKinley Parent Trigger as a “first,” apparently having abandoned the Mount Gleason move. Why is that? It raises the appearance that Parent Revolution is not interested in a Parent Trigger campaign that isn’t being waged on behalf of charter operators.
The charges filed supposedly “by McKinley parents” with the USDOE Office of Civil Rights raise several questions. Are these charges filed against the accused teachers or the school? What is the investigation and prosecution process; what are the possible penalties? If the charges are against the teachers, what is the situation regarding their due-process and free-speech rights? Do they need legal representation; are they required to pay for it themselves?
It would be appreciated if the press would address these questions in covering the Parent Trigger. If teachers are threatened with actual legal prosecution over their reported comments (accurate or not, intemperate or not), it would appear that their only safe course is to take a vow of silence. In the course of the McKinley “civil war,” will parents too be threatened with legal charges for their utterances?
Also, by the way, the Rose Group has been sending letters on behalf of its client Parent Revolution urging editors to rein in their reporters’ coverage. One of those letters also included a complaint about me, accusing me (baselessly) of hypocrisy, among other things, and going into some detail about my family. I would appreciate your refraining from such tactics in the future, Mr. Austin. They are a diversion from the issues and don’t advance your cause.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I just want to make the obvious point that isn’t all organizing “astroturf” organizing? When SEIU, comes into a hospital to organize nurses, isn’t that “astroturf” organizing? Or when Obama staffers flooded the nation and organized impossible places like Texas or Mississippi, and they were all from California or New York isn’t that also “astroturf”?
There is an obvious reason for that: organizing takes organizers because most people don’t necessarily know how to organize themselves. Because when you are battling Goliath, its probably better that all of these David’s be trained. Worse yet, its not “astroturf” that is an offensive term used to prevent people from organizing by those in power.
It just seems to me that the rhetoric you have is the oldest in the book, Caroline. I’ve read about it in every ethnic studies class i’ve had. MLK was accused of being an outsider and they accused him of stirring up trouble. Every time workers organize, the boss blames the organizers for stirring up trouble. the “civil war” line is classic. in any case do the perpetrators of the problem stop and admit that there are some issues that warrant change? never. This school was FAILING and as far as i’ve read, the district isn’t really saying what they are going to do about it differently.
I’ve been reading about these parents in the paper and it seems that they know what they want and at the very least they don’t want a failing school. Why are others making it about anything else? I wouldn’t want failure, so why do we expect Compton parents or anyone else to want that?
I’ve no doubt these parents didn’t know each other. I don’t even know my own neighbors for goodness sake much less other parents. I think its patronizing to assume that POC’s are running around holding hands singing pretty ethnic songs. that is a very dangerous to assume that POC’s or low income folks are somehow more docile and like the lower decks of the Titanic. thats ludicrous. That was what the zoot suit movement was about in the 1950s. So I’m going to assume that in that case, ben ausin is probably right: people don’t know their neighbors and its not like they can get the school rolodex.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Maybe I just haven’t been paying enough attention, but I haven’t heard anyone discuss parent trigger in relation to people’s immigration status. I’d guess this might be a significant issue with regards to McKinley as it is located in a high poverty area. How many parents in this district can vote? Does parent trigger in a sense enfranchise people who would otherwise be disenfranchised by law? Is parent trigger really a “pro-immigration” law? I’m guessing this is the third rail of parent trigger as “conservatives” who strongly backed parent trigger don’t want this aspect discussed and “liberals” who are opposed to parent trigger don’t want to mention this advantage of the law. Personally I think this aspect of the law is OK (I’ll refrain from going into the reasons here and now). If I’ve missed the boat on this aspect I’d sure appreciate being in the know if you’d like to fill me in.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ana, one rather significant and not exactly subtle difference is that the most powerful and wealthy forces in the nation are vigorously backing – and generously funding — Parent Revolution and the Parent Trigger. I somehow don’t think that has historically been the case with labor organizing or the Civil Rights movement.
Paul, here in San Francisco, voters just rejected a ballot measure that would allow residents who were not citizens to vote in school board elections if they had children in San Francisco public schools.
While right/left splits are very convoluted both here in SF and in the education politics world, there was quite a clear right/left split on that measure, Prop. D, with Republican commentators from far outside San Francisco blasting it. So that’s just an interesting twist on your comment.
But the current Parent Trigger law “empowers” parents to make only a limited set of choices for their school, even if one actually bought the hype that it’s about empowering parents and not charter operators at all. In addition, again, the Parent Trigger guarantees “civil war” in the community and resulting ugliness – as we can see in real time — which really isn’t the case with actual democracy.
Also, if you scan the Internet for commentaries, you can readily find examples of leftish media who fell for the superficial picture, the hype that the Parent Trigger is actually about empowering parents. Both the left-liberal Mother Jones and change.org did favorable commentaries on it with no information except the initial, superficial media reports plus the Los Angeles Weekly’s fiery (and badly out of touch with reality) pro-Parent Revolution commentary. Both changed their views after I and others provided more information.
As to who is actually empowered and who is attacked, here’s an apt quote from a Los Angeles teacher:
In the topsy-turvy current “education reform” storyline, he says, “The richest and most powerful people in the U.S. are cast as a plucky band of selfless rebels fighting for the civil rights of poor children of color, while dedicated and overworked teachers who can’t afford a house or pay for their children’s college tuition are imagined to be the greedy overlords of the old order.”
And Anthony Cody’s commentary on “2010: The Year of the Billionaire” is apt here, too:
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2010/12/2010_in_education_the_year_of.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Let’s take a bit of a historical perspective on the actions of Mr. Austin. First, from Sharon Higgins’ blog, The Perimeter Primate:
The “Parent Trigger” and its connections to the phony LA Parents Union, Green Dot, Steve Barr, and Eli Broad
Originally conceived in Los Angeles by Steve Barr’s (of Green Dot) Los Angeles Parents Union, and largely funded by the Broad Foundation, the “Parent Trigger” has spread east, and here and here. This is an initiative where if enough parents can be convinced, pressured, and tricked to sign a petition, a school will be closed down and replaced with a charter. On each Form 990 from 2005 to 2008, Steve Barr is listed as the CEO/President of the LAPU board.
Eli Broad contributed nearly 50% of the funding for the launch of the LAPU (formerly the Small Schools Alliance, aka the Parent Revolution). The money he supplied helped pay for the propaganda to make it seem like the movement is being generated by “the people,” when in fact it is a carefully planned, targeted marketing campaign designed to wipe out the public schools.
It is most important to know is that this organization is not grassroots. It’s astroturf!
And then in 2008, Mr. Austin was hired as a consultant by the Greedot charter franchise. As Kenneth Libby asked in an article regarding Ben Austin at Schools Matter:
“Shouldn’t Austin also mention that he pulled in $94,475 in 2008 as a private “consultant” for Green Dot? It all makes me wonder: is Green Dot a candidate for running the school in the near future?”
There is nothing grassroots about Ben Austin and his paid posse of organizers.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
So, Mr. Austin thinks the school board in Compton in somehow remiss in verifying that the “parents” whose names appeared on the petition re the Parent Trigger to enshrine one particular charter company really are parents of children at the school and qualified to sign a petition to a public entity? I would suggest that the board would be guilty of misfeasance if they didn’t do it as a matter of due diligence.
The CDE regulations (according to the CA legislature) authorized such a process but did not mandate it. The SBE did adopt “emergency regulations” that ignored the issue. What kind of foolishness was that? Any list of any names and the elected representatives of the community are just to hand over the keys to a public school to a private entity that used stealth tactics to harvest some signatures for financial gain? Right.
As usual in these kinds of situations it is necessary to “follow the money.” Who (aside from the charter company whose motive is obvious) stands to gain financially from all of this?
Mr. Austin states “we are strong supporters of open, public debates…” Needless to say there was none of that in Compton.
And now come the unsubstantiated charges of intimidation. by school employees. Some charges have been made but there have been no “findings,” no established facts, nothing, nada, zip. And that constitutes the basis of Mr. Austin’s conclusions. Even the press noted that Mr. Austin’s cronies had quickly played the intimidation card, so quickly the press couldn’t ascertain from which side the intimidation was supposed to be coming from. And, therefore, the need for more rhetorical grenades.
History is full of self-appointed protectors of the public interest All heroes and legends in their own minds. It is not atypical of these characters to make cruel and reckless charges. I will borrow a quote from someone who famously confronted one of these characters and address it to Mr. Austin: “Have you no sense of decency , sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?”
Mr. Austin need not bother with trying to answer.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I fear that the Parent Trigger law might be “hijacked” by anti-public-education forces that wish to dismantle public schooling and replace it with privatized, corporation-run schools. These folks have made no secret of their hostility towards public education, and inappropriate use of this law could be very damaging to our educational system.
If this law were implemented only by the parents of students in failing schools, I could see value in it. However, there are reasons to suspect that this is not the case. What we need is some type of legal “firewall” between parents who wish to implement the Parent Trigger and any organizations that could take advantage of the law for anti-public-education purposes.
Anti-public-education activists have shown repeatedly that they won’t “play fair” in matters of school policy. These folks show an increasingly strident “take-no-prisoners” approach to public education policy, and there is some really big money pushing this anti-public-education agenda.
I fear that there will be some dark days ahead for public schools as the emboldened right wing resists all efforts to raise the necessary taxes to keep public education off of life-support. It is not surprising to see under-resourced school performing poorly.
It seems that these some folks will stop at nothing to vilify schools and hard working educators who struggle with the increasingly impossible task of providing quality education to our nations children without adequate support and resources.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The critics of Parents Union and the Trigger just can’t stand the fact that poor parents who materially have no possible way today of getting a good education for their children, suddenly now have an escape hatch.
The motives of Parents Union and its founders and Celerity education have been attacked in various and sundry ways, none effectively, in an attempt to draw attention away from the real issues.
Each and every teacher or administrator employed by McKinley elementary will take home over $4 million each in today’s dollars during their careers, on the backs of children who can neither read nor write. The socialists who want you to think that Austin is a carpet-bagger, Broad is a fraud, and Gates hates, are trying to distract the public from the real money issue. This is about money. It is about their desire to lock children in failing schools across Los Angeles because it pays very well.
If the children escape to schools that deeply care about each one of them, they will probably lose their jobs. Schools are not job-mills. They exist to educate students.
Haven’t children and families in Los Angeles suffered enough. Let our children go. What will it take?
Per Ben’s article, it’s fairly amazing that of 75% of parents reached, 63% want out. If that’s not a declaration of freedom, I don’t know what is. Unfortunately, his article does not mention the role of teacher unions in training teachers to protect their schools at any costs. And of course, the next battle will be against fully paid teacher union operatives, not just angry, job-protecting teachers.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
By all means, let’s make improvements in the Parent Trigger law. Let’s make sure that parents have access to other parents’ contact information for organizing purposes. Allow school districts to validate signatures in a way that is convenient for parents and protects against fraud. Let’s make sure that there is no intimidation of parents from any public official. And when a petition is successful, there should be an open process for selecting a charter organization and education model that is appropriate for that school and that community. With those changes, would everyone opposed to Parent Trigger be satisfied? From the tone of some of the previous posts, I doubt it. Why? Because they don’t want anything — nothing at all — to interfere with the right of any current public school district to maintain its monopoly and conduct its affairs as it, and the teacher’s union, see fit. Whenever I read the diatribes against “billionaires”, I know that pseudo-populist rhetoric is sure to follow. I don’t care if one, or ten, billionaires support something, if it is a good idea. Some of these wealthy people have a billion dollars because they’ve actually had a good idea or two in their lives. (I wish I could say the same for the administrators in my own monopoly school district.) Eli Broad, for example, has spent tens of millions of dollars providing managerial training to aspiring public school administrators. Personally, I felt that he was pouring the money down a rathole, so long as those people were destined to work for the ossified, dysfunctional train wrecks that are our large urban school districts, but it was his money, and many of the beneficiaries of the training said that it helped. But to suggest that what he or Bill and Melinda Gates are doing is somehow tainted because they are wealthy is just too reactionary for words.
I sincerely hope that the residents of Compton pursue their struggle for decent schools, and do not let their school district, or any other part of the professional education establishment, get in their way. “Let my people go” is absolutely the right sentiment here. Parents have endured three decades of debate and non-progress around “accountibility”. The sad fact is that most of these entrenched public school monopolies will never, ever become truly accountable. Parents deserve a choice, because, as we know from almost every other areas of our lives, without choice, there can be no accountability.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Sounds like “Let my people go” is the image du jour here.
So, Jim Mills indicates that it’s the billionaires crying to teachers to “let their people go.” So just to clarify, what you’re saying is that teachers are the oppressors and billionaires are the underdogs who must wage a valiant battle against them? That, as the headline on the original post puts it, the billionaires “need protection” from the teachers?
To call all this surreal would be an understatement.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline – There is nobody more powerful or better represented in Sacramento than teachers. The CTA spends more on politicians and influencing California voters than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Political support and donations are one type of power. But if teachers actually had power, they’d be amply paid, respected and not vilified. Their opinions would be the FIRST sought out when a president was crafting education policy or a national media network was putting together an “Education Nation” project, rather than being ignored or at best treated as an afterthought. Their experience would be respected rather than disdained in favor of the “freshness and energy” of bright-eyed beginners and temps treating teaching like a brief adventure. They would not be blamed and demonized for the effects of poverty and other social ills that challenge children like the students at Compton’s McKinley Elementary.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
Why is it that teachers’ unions in failing schools are so quick to blame the students’ failure to learn on poverty, social ills, and lack of parental involvement — anything but the teaching? How do you explain Vaughn St Elementary, which takes kids every bit as diverse and poor as those in Compton but gets them to love learning and excel academically? I don’t suppose it has anything to do with the fact that the teachers WANT to be there so much and are so confident of their abilities that they don’t mind being evaluated nor do they need or want a union.
On your issue of respect, maybe teachers would get more if they would allow themselves to be evaluated for performance. The teachers’ unions always roll out the hoary excuse that maybe a principal might have a personal vendetta against one teacher, or that the ”art of teaching” is so ethereal and hocus-pocus that it’s impossible to evaluate. Give me a break. Teachers have so much “due process” protection that you can virtually count on your fingers the number of teachers who get fired for performance annually at the largest district in the state, LAUSD. And don’t expect me to believe that the number is so small because all of the others are so good.
Finally, why won’t the unions acknowledge that the low quality of teaching at the lowest-performing schools is perpetuated by a policy — demanded by them in collective bargaining agreements — that ensures that the worst schools are constantly staffed by a revolving door of teachers who are least experienced and least prepared to deal with these schools’ problems.
Perhaps it’s too recent for you to have heard about the January 21 Superior Court decision upholding a settlement agreement between the ACLU and LAUSD which prohibits the district from laying off 45 least-senior teachers, 25 of whom are from the lowest-performing schools. The issue raised by the ACLU was that the district’s “last-hired, first-fired” policy — insisted upon by the UTLA – unfairly harms students at under-performing schools, where traditionally heavy turnover has been exacerbated by seniority-based layoffs. Maybe you didn’t know that UTLA leaders (although, ironically, not the rank-and-file) fought tooth-and-nail against the settlement agreement and plan to appeal the ruling because the decision could have statewide implications. (God forbid we place the interests of the kids ahead of those of the union.) Maybe you missed that the new SPI Tom Torlakson, whose campaigned was bankrolled by CTA, has filed a brief AGAINST the decision. His reasoning: it could hurt students by requiring them to be taught by inexperienced teachers rather than finding ways to bring in more experienced and “arguably more effective teachers.” Huh?
Caroline, if the performance of McKinley Elementary is so abysmal, the current regime obviously isn’t working. The status quo guarantees that every year that goes by is a year of education lost to a child forever. There are other models that work. Why not give one of them a try? There’s nothing to lose.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Superbly illiumnantig data here, thanks!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Uo6XjD xvonvwjmywyp
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
hspNHx vpmwvjjewwba
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I disagree with the tirade against teachers, but I’ll leave it at that for now since there’s more important business with the topic at hand.
The L. A. Times has just condemned the McKinley Parent Trigger fiasco, despite the Times’ history of fervent support for charters and Green Dot.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trigger-20110129,0,927932.story
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As a hard working teacher in an urban public school I find this type of response sad but not surprising. I only wish all of you who feel this way could walk in my shoes for a day. It is not easy and rest assured, I’m not getting rich over here. I simply show up daily and work hard against many, many obstacles.
I wonder why in these debates people leave out the fact that research has shown time and time again that the biggest factor in predicting student achievement is socioeconomic status and without adequate resources it is beyond difficult to bridge the gap between what these students know and what they should know. People also fail to mention that charter schools tend to have the luxury of picking and choosing the brightest students to “educate” while public schools are required to provide an education for ALL students.
Yes, I know that there is research available that suggests that certain groups are creating mircles in impoverished areas, but I also know once you begin to dig deeper you will most certainly find that these groups have left out a critical piece of the story such as the schools receive extra funding to provide before or after-school tutoring for the students, many of the students only qualify as being poor on a technicality because their parents are pursuing a graduate education, or all of the students were provided with much needed free medical and ophthalmological services, and the list goes on.
Honestly, I wish this revolution would end and the charter schools would just take over already just to see who they blame next when the charter schools fail to get students who don’t speak English, refuse to do homework, can’t reach a parent (no phone or refuses to answer), frequently absent, etc. to pass all these mandated exams. I’m tired of being the scapegoat. I want the best for my students that is why I went into this profession and chose to teach in a district where most people quit after (often time during) their 1st year. If the charter schools can do a better job then I say have at it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity