Parents protest surge in standardized testing is the headline of a Reuters article today. Here’s how it begins:

A backlash against high-stakes standardized testing is sweeping through U.S. school districts as parents, teachers, and administrators protest that the exams are unfair, unreliable and unnecessarily punitive – and even some longtime advocates of testing call for changes.

I’ve previously posted about what I believe is the California PTA’s major error in aligning themselves with billionaire Molly Munger and her ill-fated effort to increase taxes for schools in the fall ballot in our state.

Her self-funding of this alternative to Governor Brown’s proposal is pretty much the only thing giving legitimacy to her effort. Not only is it doomed to fail (which was predictable and is being shown in respected surveys), it’s dragging down the Governor’s proposal — which is what the Governor, the California Teacher’s Association, and many other supporters of public education feared.

Today, I learned about The Shoe Button Complex. It’s a lesson that Ms. Munger’s father (Warren Buffet’s associate and the source of her wealth) used to guide his career:

Munger’s grandfather had managed to corner the market on shoe buttons back around 1900. The grandfather exercised a virtual monopoly over their production and sale. Emboldened by his business acumen, the old man grew to believe that he not only knew more than anyone about shoe buttons but that he knew more than anyone about anything—and he preached and proclaimed at length on such. Munger and Buffett named the syndrome the Shoe Button Complex, and they encountered it frequently in their dealings with successful business practitioners.

(Another source says Munger learned this story from a college classmate).

It appears that Ms. Munger did not learn this lesson from her father. And, since the initiative petitions have already been submitted, even if she takes it to heart now, it apparently will be too late to help our schools, anyway.

It’s not too late, though, for the California PTA to abandon her to proceed on her Quixotic quest alone and maintain their political credibility.

I can only hope that the Governor and organized labor (including both teacher’s unions) will be enough to off-set the damage she’s causing.

Today’s New York Times article, Way Beyond Bake Sales: The $1 Million PTA, highlights the nuances/conundrum/challenges inherent in the issue of parent fundraising for schools:

Of course, we want parents to support their kids and their schools. But what about the disparity between economically secure families/communities and those who do not have those resources? And, by focusing so much effort on fundraising, are we then de-emphasizing the much more important aspects of parent engagement in schools?

There are no easy answers. Some districts are implementing more centralized fundraising programs so that donations are distributed fairly to schools. I also think that California Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to use a “weighted formula” to provide more funding to schools in communities facing greater challenges is a good step for how to handle public funding.

The best way to deal with this issue is to ensure that all of our schools received adequate public support. Here’s how a recent Education Week article on the topic ended:

“Private giving is a distraction, as there isn’t enough private money in the world to pay for a high-quality education for every child,” said Amanda Broun, the senior vice president of the Public Education Network, an intermediary organization that supports large urban foundations. “Our focus instead should be on how we can ensure we are using the public resources we have well, and properly funding public education with them,” she said. “Public education is a public responsibility.”

The Houston School District has been touting the creation of five new “parent super centers” with computers.

I’ve previously posted about my reservations about these kinds of centers:

I generally don’t tend to be a big fan of these kinds of parent centers because they are often well-intentioned efforts to “do to” parents (involvement) instead of “doing with” (engagement). It can have a kind of “if you build it, they will come” perspective. Instead, I’d rather have resources devoted to supporting teachers and other school staff go out and visit with parents, listen to their needs and desires, and then have parents work together — with school support — to figure out what they want.

They might, or might not, want a parent center.

Of course, it’s easier to just build a room….

In that previous post, reader Melissa Whipple also left a thoughtful comment:

I agree with you Larry, Parent Centers are simply a room at a school site. They are not a magic bullet. A Parent Center is only one component of an effective family engagement strategy–not to be confused with being the entire answer. If only it were that simple. Deciding on have a parent center is similar to mandating student uniforms or painting a school building a new color–they are nice ideas–but in and by themselves they do not boost student success and development. They may improve school climate but that is not sufficient.

Parent Centers may also send an inadvertent message that the only important parent engagement takes place on the school site. Research indicates that the kind of family engagement most related to student success is what families are doing at home–which schools need to acknowledge, celebrate, incorporate, and expand upon.

Supporting student success requires building deliberate and ongoing relationships among the adults in children’s lives.

What do you think?