Paren t Tr i gge r : No S i l ve r Bu l l e tA P O L I C Y B R I E F

1 Parent Trigger

In statehouses across the country, Parent Triggerlegislation is being proposed as a remedy to thenation’s education crisis. These laws authorize

parents – through a petition drive at their child’sschool – to force their school district to convertthat public school into a charter, replace its staffand leadership, or even close it down.

Supporters of Parent Trigger laws argue that theyempower parents, giving them the ability to force

dramatic changes to improvelow-performing schools. Crit-ics argue that the laws don’tgive real, sustained power toparents; that the interventionsauthorized through ParentTrigger have no track recordof actually improving schools;and that the laws are beingused to privatize publicschools through chartering.

This brief reviews the history and current status ofParent Trigger legislation, presents a critique ofthe legislation, and suggests alternative ways tomeet the stated goals of a Parent Trigger.

What is a Parent Trigger Law?

The first Parent Trigger law was passed in Califor-nia in 2010. The law authorizes parents to circulatea petition at a low-performing school, calling forone of four specific interventions – designed afterthe federal school turnaround models. If 51 percentof the parents at the school sign the petition, thedistrict is directed to impose the requested model.The four interventions are:

• Restart: Convert the school into a charterschool.

• Turnaround: Remove and replace at least half ofthe staff of the school.

• Transformation: Remove the current principaland implement other specified reforms.

• Closure: Close the school.

As of October 2012, five additional state legisla-tures have passed versions of the Parent Trigger,and several other states are considering proposals.To date, there has been only one successful effortto utilize the Parent Trigger process to intervene ina school.

The Parent Trigger initiative is led by an organiza-tion called Parent Revolution, which was foundedin California in 2009 for the sole purpose of pro-moting and lobbying for that state’s Parent Triggerlaw. Parent Revolution was founded by Ben Austin,a former policy consultant for Green Dot CharterSchools and a long-time political insider. Austinserved as a deputy mayor in Los Angeles, workedon numerous Democratic presidential campaigns,worked in the Clinton White House, and wasbriefly a member of the California State Board ofEducation. Parent Revolution was launched with a million-dollar budget supported by the Gates,Broad, and Walton Foundations, all major philanthropic supporters of the charter schoolmovement.

After the passage of Parent Trigger legislation inCalifornia, Parent Revolution took their campaignon the road. In December of 2010, the AmericanLegislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a coalitionof legislators, businesses, and foundations that pro-motes conservative, corporate-supported policyproposals, voted to embrace the Parent Trigger.Since then, its members have introduced or co-sponsored Parent Trigger bills in seventeen statesaccording to an analysis by the Center for Media

Paren t Tr i gge r : No S i l ve r Bu l l e t

Critics argue that the laws don’t

give real, sustained power to

parents and that the authorized

interventions have no track

record of improving schools.

and Democracy.1 The five states that have passedParent Trigger laws, each with some variations,include Texas, Ohio (a pilot program for Columbusonly), Indiana, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Keycomponents of and links to these laws are includedat the end of this brief.

Implementation Attempts

To date, California has been the only state in whichparents have attempted to utilize the Trigger provi-sion. In both cases, Parent Revolution spearheadedthe efforts. Both proved to be bitter, divisive, andprotracted campaigns.

The first effort was at McKinley ElementarySchool in Compton, California. Parent Revolutiondrafted the petition, calling for the school to betaken over by Celerity Education Group, a Califor-nia-based charter operator. Petitions were circu-lated by paid Parent Revolution staffers notaffiliated with McKinley. The petition drive almostimmediately caused a storm of protest from parentswho argued that they had not been fully informed –or were actually misled – about the purpose of thepetition drive. A number of parents eventuallyrescinded their signatures, claiming harassment anddeception by Parent Revolution. Compton SchoolDistrict officials challenged the petitions as well,and a court ruled that the petitions were not validfor multiple reasons. The effort was eventually nul-lified, and the California General Assembly wentback to the drawing board to develop new regula-tions to guide future efforts. The ordeal left par-ents in Compton divided and embittered. ParentRevolution’s executive director admitted that therewasn’t enough buy-in from parents to make the bidsuccessful.2

Parent Revolution’s second attempt at implement-ing Parent Trigger took place at Desert Trails Ele-mentary School in Adelanto, California. This time,Parent Revolution organized a group of parents to

spearhead the effort and began circulating two pro-posals. The primary petition called for parents tojointly run the school with the district anddemanded specific inter-ventions. A second“backup” petitiondemanded that DesertTrails be converted to acharter. This time, ParentRevolution included lan-guage allowing the parentsthemselves to choose thecharter operator. Aftertalks broke down on theprimary petition, parentssubmitted the petition forcharter conversion. As inCompton, the effort turned bitter. Nearly 100 par-ents rescinded their signatures, and the schoolboard ruled that more than 200 others were invalid,dropping the number of valid signatures to just 37percent of Desert Trails’ enrollment, short of the51 percent required. In July of 2012, a superiorcourt judge upheld the parent petition and author-ized the next step in the process, a vote on whichcharter management organization would be hiredto run the school. As allowed by state law, onlythose parents who had signed the petition werepermitted to vote. In late October, those parentsselected a charter school operator affiliated with alocal university to take over Desert Trails.

1 www.prwatch.org/node/11763

2 “Parent Trigger Law to Reform Schools Faces

Challenges,” New York Times, September 23,

2011. www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/education/

24trigger.html

Center for Education Organizing at Annenberg Institute for School Reform 2

To date, California has been the

only state in which parents have

attempted to utilize the Trigger pro-

vision. In both cases, Parent Revo-

lution spearheaded the efforts. Both

proved to be bitter, divisive, and pro-

tracted campaigns.

3 Parent Trigger

Why a Trigger is Not Enough

In addition to the practical challenges made clearby implementation attempts thus far, policy-makersaiming to engage parents in public education orimprove low-performing schools should considerthe limitations of using Parent Trigger to achievethose important goals.

Research does not support the elements of ParentTrigger laws either to effectively empower parents,or to improve student outcomes. One examinationof Parent Trigger laws concluded that three key

elements of a smartapproach to school turn-around are missing fromthem: first, that it “gen-uinely arise from delibera-tion and organizationwithin the affected com-munity, not through exter-nal advocacy groups usingthese communities to

advance their own agendas;” second, that it mustimpose interventions that are evidence based andlikely to improve student outcomes; and third, thatit focus more on opportunities to learn, rather thangovernance changes.3

While there is undeniable appeal in the idea thatparents can “take over” their child’s school andforce dramatic change simply by circulating andsigning a petition, the real benefit from parentengagement comes when parents have a long-termrelationship to the school and when they can joinwith teachers, administrators, and students todesign and implement an improvement strategy.Parent Trigger legislation gives parents the“power” to force the intervention but is silent on acontinuing role for parents. Furthermore, there isno evidence that chartering or closing a school, orreplacing a school’s entire staff – the interventionsauthorized by Parent Trigger – create academicimprovement in and of themselves. Historically, the four interventions most commonly authorizedthrough Parent Trigger laws have not proven effec-tive in improving student outcomes.4

Why the push for Parent Trigger laws then? Criticsof the laws believe that supporters of privatizationare using the Parent Trigger laws as a mechanismto convert more traditional public schools into pri-vately operated charters. Indeed, both Parent Rev-olution and the foundations that have bankrolledthe effort to date strongly support charter schools.Both the Compton and Desert Trails efforts to uti-lize the law have involved petitions to convert theschools to charters. And in two of the states thathave passed Parent Trigger legislation, convertingto a charter is the only option allowed.

In addition to the lack of evidence that charterschools provide stronger academic outcomes thantraditional public schools,5 many parents, teachers,administrators, and public education advocatesbelieve that privatization is a significant threat toour tradition of democratically controlled publiceducation. Public schools are often steeped in tradi-tion and serve as important social and culturalanchor institutions in their communities. Theyserve as symbols of the promise of democracy andpossibility in the United States. When just half of

Parent Trigger legislation gives par-

ents the “power” to force the inter-

vention but is silent on a continuing

role for parents.

3 Lubienski, C., Scott, J., Rogers, J., Welner, K.

(2012). Missing the Target? The Parent Trigger as

a Strategy for Parental Engagement and School

Reform. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy

Center. Available at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/

files/pm-trigger-2012.pdf.

4 Trujillo, T. & Rénee, M. (2012). Democratic School

Turnarounds: Pursuing Equity and Learning

from Evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education

Policy Center. Available at: http://nepc.colorado.

edu/files/pb-turnaroundequity_0.pdf.

5 The largest of these studies is Multiple Choice:

Charter School Performance in Sixteen States,

Center for Research on Education Outcomes

(CREDO). Available at: http://credo.stanford.edu/

reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf.

the parents who currently have students in a publicschool are allowed to turn it over to private opera-tors, it undermines the local control that communi-ties should be able to exercise over their publicinstitutions. Instead, privatization exposes publicschools to potential manipulation by outside, pri-vate interests with even fewer mechanisms fordemocratic accountability.

Equity-oriented change and sustainable improve-ment in our nation’s most struggling schools aregoals we can achieve when we embrace and honorthe democratic tradition of an empowered andengaged citizenry. The notion and spirit behind theParent Trigger idea may be noble, but as a mecha-nism for change it is fatally flawed. In the case ofschools, it is imperative that families and commu-nity members forge deep ties and longstandingpartnerships with their public schools. These arenot conditions that come about by merely trigger-ing a change process in which there is no role forfamilies and communities except for signing a peti-tion. In fact, successful change processes are abouta lot more than their triggers; by definition theymust entail thoughtful and comprehensive thinkingfrom the start and throughout.

The outlined alternative approaches that followmake clear that Parent Trigger laws are not whatwe need and that instead, we must focus on reformefforts that consider the roles of multiple stake-holders fully, thoroughly, and over time. Thesealternatives move us away from the notion thatequitable and sustainable change can result fromanyone’s silver bullet fired by quick hands on a trigger.

An Alternative Approach

A school improvement strategy should focus firston what’s happening in the classroom and designsystems at both the school and district levels thatsupport students, teachers, and families. Researchon the “five essential supports” needed for success-ful school reform does not recommend changes ingovernance, but rather strategies that strengthenschool leadership, improve the quality of instruc-tion, support teachers, focus on student-centeredlearning, and engage families and community.6

There are models for successful school improve-ment strategies across the country. Many districtshave demonstrated effec-tive models that appearto create significant andlasting turnaround.7

In Connecticut, the legis-lature, confronted with aproposed Parent Triggerbill in 2010, insteadcrafted a bill that requireslow-performing schoolsto establish “school gov-ernance councils” made up of parents, teachers,administrators, and community members who aretasked with conducting a thorough analysis of thesupports and challenges in the school and develop-ing a school improvement plan to be implementedwith state support over three to five years. For thetext of the Connecticut law, see: www.cga.ct.gov/2012/ACT/PA/2012PA-00116-R00SB-00458-PA.htm.

Center for Education Organizing at Annenberg Institute for School Reform 4

Successful change processes are

about a lot more than their triggers;

they must entail thoughtful and com-

prehensive thinking from the start and

throughout.

6 Bryk, A., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S.,

and Easton, J.Q. (2010). Organizing Schools for

Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

7 See descriptions of several models in A Way

Forward: From Sanctions to Supports, the report of

the New York City Working Group on School Trans-

formation (April 2012), produced with support from

the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/

SchoolTransformationReport.pdf

5 Parent Trigger

In October 2012, the National Education PolicyCenter (NEPC) released a report on the historyand impact of school improvement interventions ofthe kind called for in most Parent Trigger legisla-tion. As an alternative, NEPC’s report includedlegislative language proposing an in-school assess-ment of challenges and needs, followed by aschool-led development of an improvement plan.Access the report here: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/lb-turnaroundequity.pdf.

A coalition of community organizations developeda proposal in 2010 called “Sustainable SchoolTransformation.” Communities for Excellent Pub-

lic Schools (CEPS) pro-posed this model as analternative or additionaloption for the federalSchool ImprovementGrants (SIG) program.The proposal recom-mended an in-depthassessment and planningprocess by a team ofteachers, parents, admin-istrators, and students,followed by the develop-

ment of a school improvement plan that focused on improving instructional quality and content and providing wrap-around supports for students.Download the CEPS proposal here: www.otlcampaign.org/resources/proposal-sustainable-school-transformation.

These reform ideas have much in common. UnlikeParent Trigger, they focus on the substance ofteaching and learning, support for disadvantagedstudents through additional services and wrap-around supports, and ongoing collaborationbetween teachers, parents, administrators, and theschool community. The following elements are

present in many of these proposals and offer astrong, comprehensive alternative to Parent Trigger:

Collaboration and partnership at all stages to

ensure local ownership and relevance

• Parents, students, teachers, and communitymembers are engaged from the beginning ofreform efforts and on an ongoing basis.

• School-based teams made up of parents, stu-dents, community members, and school staffhelp design and implement a reform plan thatmeets the specific needs of the school and com-munity.

• The school improvement plan is based on athorough assessment of the school’s challengesand strengths and specifically designed toaddress the needs of the students and instruc-tional team.

• The district and state education agencies aretasked with supporting the local team and pro-viding the resources necessary to ensure success.

Attention to strong instructional practices

and supports for teachers and teaching, cur-

riculum that is rigorous and relevant to stu-

dents, and safe and secure schools

• School improvement plans employ the best andmost relevant in instructional strategies, sup-ports for high-quality teaching, and the use ofdata to inform an understanding of studentneeds.

• Supports for teachers include time for collabora-tion and support in building meaningful rela-tionships with students and their families.

• Schools are safe and secure, without the use ofzero-tolerance policies and oppressive lawenforcement presence.

Wrap-around services to support student and

family needs

• An assessment process is developed to identifyand address students’ non-academic needs.

Unlike Parent Trigger, alternative

approaches focus on teaching and

learning, support for disadvantaged

students, and collaboration between

teachers, parents, administrators,

and the school community.

• There is access to college and career counselors,mentors, and tutors.

• Extended school days and years are utilized toprovide students with additional academic sup-ports and provide teachers with (and fully com-pensate them for) more time for planning andcollaboration.

These comprehensive proposals offer not onlymore authentic and ongoing parent and commu-nity roles in improving schools than Parent Triggerlaws, but they also contain strong, research-basedinstructional components and a focus on the social,health, and academic supports needed by all stu-dents.

More Information About ExistingParent Trigger Laws

The following are brief descriptions of and links toexisting Parent Trigger laws:

California: (2010) Parents can petition to force anintervention in the identified school. The inter-vention must be designated in the petition andmust be one of the four school improvementoptions identified in the federal School Improve-ment Grant program. www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx5_4_bill_20100107_chaptered.pdf

Indiana: (2011) Under Indiana’s law, parents of stu-dents in schools identified by the state as low per-forming for two or more years in a row canpetition to have the school converted into a char-ter school. The school board then votes onwhether to accept the petition. www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HE/HE1002.1.html

Louisiana: (2012) Louisiana’s Trigger law states thatschools identified as “D” or “F” for three consec-utive years under the state’s grading system aresubject to parent petitions requesting that theschool be taken out of local school board controland placed under the authority of the state-run

Recovery School District (RSD). This moverequires approval of the state board of education.www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=793655

Mississippi: (2010) This bill allows parents atschools with three or more consecutive years clas-sified as failing by the state to petition to convertthe school into a charter. The petition can call forconversion into a digital charter school and/or the hiring of a for-profit or nonprofit educationmanagement company. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/pdf/SB/2200-2299/SB2293SG.pdf

Ohio: (2011) The reform options that can berequested by petitions with the majority of par-ents signing are: conversion to a charter school;replacing at least 70 percent of the school’s aca-demic personnel; contracting operations toanother school district, the state educationdepartment, or an education management organi-zation; or restructuring the school’s staffing orgovernance. The law is limited in scope toColumbus and only potentially affects nineschools. www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_HB_153_EN_N.html

Texas: (2011) The state requires schools that fail tomeet performance targets to be “reconstituted”with a new reform plan including replacement ofthe principals and teachers. If the schools con-tinue to fail to meet performance targets, afterthree more years parents can petition to imple-ment one of three options at the school: 1) repur-posing the campus, which requires a newacademic program, replacing faculty, and allowingstudents to transfer; 2) selecting an educationmanagement organization or another district totake over operations of the school; or 3) closingthe school. www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB00738I.htm

Center for Education Organizing at Annenberg Institute for School Reform 6

7 Parent Trigger

Resources

The National Conference of State Legislaturestracks Parent Trigger laws. A review of variousstate laws and their components can be foundhere: www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/state-parent-trigger-laws.aspx.

Missing the Target: The Parent Trigger as a Strategy

for Parent Engagement and School Reform byChristopher Lubienski, Janelle T. Scott, JohnRogers, Kevin G. Welner. National EducationPolicy Center (September 5, 2012): http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/missing-the-target.

The Heartland Institute, a conservative, free-market oriented policy research think tank, sup-ports Parent Trigger legislation and maintains apage of legislative updates and links to ParentTrigger legislation across the country: http://theparenttrigger.com/in-your-state/.

Center for Education Organizing at Annenberg Institute for School Reform 8

Center for Education Organizing at Annenberg Institute for School Reform

www.annenberginstitute.org/educationorganizing

educationorganizing@brown.edu

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University

n Box 1985Providence, Rhode Island 02912

n 233 Broadway, Suite 720New York, New York 10279

www.annenberginstitute.org

Twitter: @AnnenbergInst

© 2012 Brown University