A legislator in Florida is proposing a bill that would have teachers grade their student’s parents on their school participation.

Now, THAT would really do wonders for teacher-parent relationships…

Linda Perlstein has a good piece exploring the consequences of such a bill.

If you combine this crazy scheme with all the other unhelpful ideas Governor Scott and Michelle Rhee are cooking up, you gotta’ wonder if there’s something in Florida’s drinking water — at least in some portions of the state….

Former lawmaker won’t support changing ‘parent trigger’ law is an article from California Watch that provides interesting information, and it appears that trigger proponents don’t really have a grasp on how different an effort to unionize workers is from talking to parents, teachers, and districts about their schools. You can read my perspective on that difference here.

It’s also worth reading the comments on the California Watch article. As I’ve posted earlier, implementation of final rules for implementing the parent trigger has been delayed by the California Board of Education.

Yesterday, newly-elected Governor Jerry Brown made major changes to the California State Board of Education, including removing Ben Austin, the primary advocate of the parent trigger law. You can read all about it at a post by John Fensterwald. Here’s an excerpt on Mr. Austin’s removal (I wonder if some “school reform” advocates will ever learn that self-righteousness does not help their cause?):

Sure enough, Ben Austin, the number one target for ouster by the Ed Coalition, did not go silently. “Unfortunately, in the Governor’s first full day in office, he chose to stand with the state’s most powerful interest group that spent millions to elect him, rather than the parents and children of California,” he said, referring to the state’s two teachers unions, in a statement Wednesday.

Austin is executive director of Parent Revolution, a nonprofit group that has been pushing the “parent trigger,” a mechanism adopted by the Legislature last year that permits a majority of parents at a school to demand a takeover by a charter school or other dramatic reforms. Knowing that Brown could replace most of them, the Board had hurried the parent trigger regulations along. I wouldn’t be surprised if the new Board takes a longer look and puts off their adoption next week.

Well, it appears that one of my predictions for the new year might be true — the Obama Administration is trying to reconcile a bit with teachers.

Read Alexander Russo’s short post about how Ed Secretary Duncan has managed to stay out of the debate on the “parent trigger”…..after opposing teachers in so many other issues — firings in Rhode Island, making public teacher evaluations based on test scores.

Parent ‘Trigger’ Law Draws Attention, Controversy is the headline of a new article in Education Week.

It provides a good overview of what’s going on in California, as well as describing which other states are considering implementing similar laws.

Schwarzenegger’s misleading account of ‘parent trigger’ is the title of Valerie Strauss’ most recent piece in The Washington Post.

She refers to the guest post of mine she recently published. The comments are pretty interesting, too.

Here are a couple of articles on the parent trigger debate that appeared today:

N.J. legislator proposes ‘parent trigger’ for failing schools

Our lame-duck Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting it.

California Board of Education seeks probe of Compton charter campaign is the headline of a story in the Los Angeles Times this morning.

It’s all about the flawed effort to use the flawed “parent trigger” law.

The ‘Parent Trigger’ doesn’t help schools or parents is the headline of my new guest piece at The Washington Post.

It’s about the California law that allows a majority of parents at a school to sign a petition and have the school converted into a charter.

I’ve written often about the sham that is the California “parent trigger” law that allows an unclear number of parents in a school’s general area to “trigger” that school’s takeover by a charter school operator (not-so-coincidentally, the push for the law was led by a group connected to a charter school company).

Sadly, we can now see how it will be used by “school reformers” as they try it for the first time on a school in Compton (see Parents hope to force sweeping changes at Compton school).

Ben Austin, the head of the group pushing for the takeover, demonstrated a fair amount of self-righteous over-zealousness:

“The only way to succeed is to bring about a radical and unapologetic transfer of raw power from defenders of the status quo to parents, because they’re the only ones who care only about kids.”

Check-out my previous posts to learn about more of my concerns, and also read today’s post from School Finance 101, Potential abuses of the Parent Trigger???

(ADDITION: Here’s an article from The Huffington Post with a little more information on what’s happening in Compton — Compton Parents Use New ‘Trigger Law’ To Demand Charter School)

Walt Gardner at Ed Week has some interesting thoughts in his latest post titled No Bull’s-Eye for Parent Trigger Law (I’ve written many times about my concerns regarding a “parent trigger” made into law here in California. Using a petition drive, schools can be converted into charters).

Here are some excerpts:

Supporters of the law are not sure how to read the less than enthusiastic response so far. It’s hard to disentangle genuine parent concern from outside pressure from charter groups. Parent Revolution, which was responsible for the Parent Trigger law, is not a parent group, despite its name. It’s essentially Green Dot public schools, the large charter management organization. As a result, there is rightful skepticism about conflict of interest.

Later, he writes:

All that is known to date is that most parents in California have been indifferent. However the Parent Trigger Law ultimately plays out there, I don’t think it will make much of a difference in improving schools. There are still too many factors that account for educational quality beyond the control of even the best teachers.

I’ve written many times about my concerns regarding a “parent trigger” made into law here in California. Using a petition drive, schools can be converted into charters (of course, the impetus behind the move came from a front group for a charter operator).

Susan Ohanian provides an update to what’s happening with it, including a reprint of a recent Wall Street Journal report on the topic.

From The Department of Education blog:

On Tuesday, more than 150 people representing families, communities, state and local governments, philanthropy, federal agencies, practitioners, and support organizations joined the U.S. Department of Education at the National Policy Forum for Family, School, and Community Engagement. At the heart of the forum was discussion around systemic family and community engagement strategies that serve to promote student success.

It was nice to see that the DOE’s post about the event, at least, highlighted parent engagement/involvement efforts at non-charter schools. That hasn’t always been the case in the past (see Will Somebody Tell Secretary Duncan’s Staff That There Are “Regular” Public Schools Engaging Parents, Too?).

The blog post also says:

In the near future, we will be releasing a publication outlining the Forum’s highlights and resulting next steps; and the pre-meeting working paper will also be finalized and released.

I’ll look forward to seeing it…

Linda Perlstein from the Education Writers Association makes a great point:

In the debate about public release about teachers’ value-added scores, you see a lot of quotes of the “parents would want to know” variety, but not a lot of quotes from parents themselves.

Typical of these quotes is one from Eric Hanushek, a proponent of making these scores publicly available: “Now that The L.A. Times has published these scores, I think the genie is out of the bottle, and parents are going to want this information,” he said in the NY Times.

As Ms. Perlstein writes:

I think we are due for some articles, in California and elsewhere, that really get into the issue of what parents want, or do not want, regarding this information…

I think reporters might find that parents have more pressing issues on their mind, and have more trust in their child’s teachers than many “school reformers” might believe.

Yesterday, voters in San Francisco and in Portland, Maine voted down propositions that would allow non-citizens with children to vote in School Board elections.

In San Francisco, the proposition’s main sponsor said its purpose was to increase parent involvement in schools.

I think it would be great if non-citizens would be able to vote in school board elections. I’m not a political genius, but I also know that in this political climate the idea is non-starter (it was also voted down in San Francisco in 2004).

I just wish that the wasted energy that had been spent on these two campaigns had, instead, been used to promote genuine parent engagement in schools.

Family Tree is a comic strip drawn by Signe Wilkinson which is often funny and insightful (coincidentally, thirty years ago she and I met several times in Philadelphia when I was an intern at the nonprofit where her husband worked).

Her comic strip today, though I’m sure well-intentioned, communicates a message that I think is not helpful to the debate about how to improve schools.

It has someone going around asking parents to sign a petition demanding teachers be evaluated by their students test scores, and shows a parent eager signing it. Then a child comes around asking parents to sign a petition demanding that parents, too, be rated, and get a door slammed in their face.

I do not believe “value-added” teacher assessment based on test scores is a good way to evaluate teachers. Parents are allies in efforts to improve our schools, and surveys show that. Let’s engage in dialogue, not ridicule them.

The Washington Post just ran a column about a new book several education researchers have written severely criticizing the research base of President Obama’s “Blueprint For Reform,” his successor to No Child Left Behind.

Here’s a quote from that column:

For example, it says, “Family involvement is crucial to education, but the evidence for a causal link between student achievement and the type of parent involvement discussed is ambiguous and suspect. The proposals for safe schools boil down to increased local flexibility and increased gathering of survey data, neither of which can be expected to improve outcomes.”

That got me thinking that I should get around to actually reading what the Blueprint says about family involvement/engagement. And, boy, I was surprised to see how weak it really is.

It has three main components:

1. Replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone in twenty communities.

Now, I think that’s a great initiative.  But, as I’ve written before, I actually think parent engagement/involvement might be the weakest element of the HCZ. It’s important to provide the kind of services that the HCZ provides, but it provides social services to parents, not engagement.

2. Increase after-school program.

Again, I think it’s a great idea.  However, it is not a parent engagement/involvement program.  It’s a social service program that typically has little parent engagement.

3. Have school climate surveys.

I’m not making this up.  This is its third pillar — generate data through surveys.

Check-out the link to the Blueprint, and let me know if you think I’m giving an accurate portrayal of its plan for family involvement/engagement.

And let me know if you think it’s as weak as I think it is.