California parents set to take over failing school

Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:27pm EDT

Eight-year-old Abraham Zamarripa sits in the audience in support of Patrick DeTemple, director of NGO Parent Revolution, who is speaking during a Adelanto School District board meeting regarding the parent trigger law, in Adelanto, California March 6, 2012. REUTERS/Alex Gallardo

Eight-year-old Abraham Zamarripa sits in the audience in support of Patrick DeTemple, director of NGO Parent Revolution, who is speaking during a Adelanto School District board meeting regarding the parent trigger law, in Adelanto, California March 6, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Alex Gallardo

Related News

Related Topics

(Reuters) - Parents in the impoverished desert community of Adelanto, California, will become the first in the nation to seize control of a failing public school under a controversial "parent trigger" law, the parents announced Monday.

The Adelanto School District had fought to preserve control over Desert Trails Elementary School. But on Friday, Superior Court Judge Steve Malone ruled that the parents had met all the requirements under the trigger law by gathering signatures from the legal guardians of at least half the students at Desert Trails.

Judge Malone ordered the district to validate the petitions and clear the way for parents to take over the school.

"This is a huge milestone in our struggle for our children to receive the basic education they are entitled to and deserve," said Doreen Diaz, a mother who led the petition drive.

Desert Trails, which serves a student population that is mostly low-income and minority, has posted abysmal test scores for years. When they graduate from the school at about age 12, barely one in four students can pass basic proficiency tests in reading, writing and math.

Ben Austin, who helped organize the trigger campaign through a nonprofit group called Parent Revolution, said parents would immediately begin soliciting proposals from private management companies interested in running Desert Trails as a charter school.

The school would continue to be publicly funded and open to all students, but as a charter, it would be free to write its own curriculum and disciplinary rules and hire and fire staff without the constraints of union contracts.

Carlos Mendoza, president of the district's Board of Trustees, said he plans to urge his colleagues to appeal the court ruling.

Mendoza pointed out that nearly 100 parents who had signed the original trigger petition later signed a second petition asking that their names be removed. Many said they had not fully understood the campaign and didn't want to convert Desert Trails into a charter.


The judge, however, ruled that they could not rescind their names.

"I'm disappointed," said Lori Yuan, a parent who opposed the trigger petition. She said she had confidence that Desert Trails was on a path to improvement and said she did not trust a private management firm to run a public school.

"This is a very dangerous opening that could lead to leaving the entire school district vulnerable to overthrow," Yuan said. She called the trigger campaign "a special interest group with an agenda to privatize the public schools."

Trigger advocates say they're only interested in improving educational opportunities for their children.

California was the first state to pass a parent trigger law. It lets parents in schools with the lowest student test scores band together to force change: They can fire teachers, oust administrators or turn the school over to private management.

Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana have since passed trigger laws and they are being debated in several other states, including New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Teachers' unions generally oppose trigger laws, saying there is no proof that mass firings or new management boost student achievement. But the concept of empowering parents to run their schools has gained considerable traction. Last month, the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed trigger laws.

Adelanto is the first community to successfully complete the trigger petition process. Parent Revolution also sponsored another trigger drive in Compton, Calif., but that remains tangled in court.

(Reporting By Stephanie Simon; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (1)
CarlosMendoza wrote:
Parent Revolution’s two-petition bait and switch strategy worked. The controversy centers on parents taking back their signatures because they felt misled or were confused by the process of signature gathering. Parent Revolution, the nonprofit organization backing the parent trigger petition had parents sign two different petitions and submitted the least favored one to the board. Petition #1 was for structural changes in the school organization. Parent Trigger leaders, however, stated that they knew it would not give them what they wanted. Petition #2 was for charter school conversion. Parent Trigger leaders stated that this petition would give them what they wanted, but knew that parents were opposed to charter school conversion. Seems to me that the two-petition strategy was predisposed to submitting petition #2. Parent Revolution refers to the two-petition approach as strategy to get the district to negotiate. I’m calling it bait and switch. State Senator Gloria Romero, author of the parent trigger law, initially called their two petition strategy a dubious strategic choice. You only need one petition at the ready to threaten a district to negotiate under the parent trigger law – not two. How does having parents signing two different petitions and submit the least favorite choice a strategy to convince districts to negotiate? I’m in favor of parent empowerment and that argument sounds dubious to me too. I believe the judge’s decision should be appealed.

Jul 23, 2012 7:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus