So-called Parent Trigger Laws have been enacted in seven states and are being considered in at least a dozen more.  The laws grant parents the authority to force a school takeover providing the school is low-performing and a majority of parents agree to the takeover in writing. The laws enjoy wide appeal. According to the most recent Kappan/Gallup poll (2012), 70 percent of the general public and 76 percent of public school parents favor “allowing parents to petition to remove the leadership and staff at failing schools.”

Look, I’m a big supporter of efforts to strengthen parents’ voices in public education, especially among those who feel powerless. I know that change works best when all families, not just a vocal few, are meaningful partners alongside their schools and district leadership.

The authors of Parent Trigger Laws will say their intent is to empower parents. But, as with so many things, good intentions alone do not translate into good actions. There are two big problems with the laws. One, they supercede rather than facilitate school district-parent partnerships, even though collaboration is key to investing the school community in student success.  Then having put parents in charge, the laws give them inadequate tools that are not up to the task of effecting change.

While state laws vary, they all specify a limited number of strategies that parents must choose from in order to reform their low-performing school once they pull the trigger. Each of the seven states with current laws includes turning the school over to a charter operator as one option. Other states also have options for vouchers, school closure, replacing the staff and/or the principal. Only Ohio offers parents more than three options.

If you’re feeling déjà vu, you’re not alone. These “reform” strategies are embedded in NCLB, Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants (SIG).  A major difference is that these federal policies also have a provision that offers a little more wiggle room so those on the ground are better able to craft improvement plans specific to their unique situations. The “transformation” model still requires schools to replace the principal. But once that’s done, they have multiple options for developing a reform plan more tailored to local needs that includes such things as professional development, rigorous curriculum, new schedules, and many others.  Not surprisingly, the transformation model is the one most often pursued by turnaround schools, including a full three-quarters of SIG recipients.

Parent Trigger Laws don’t have any flexibility. And this is what we know about the options parents are given: they are far from proven strategies. The best you can say is that the evidence is mixed.

For example, we know that about only one in five charter schools outperforms its traditional counterpart. Newer research shows that schools managed by established Charter Management Organizations have a slightly better track record than independently run charters, but still not significantly different from traditional schools.

Closing a school or replacing the staff aren’t surefire solutions either. Plus many communities either don’t have other schools to send students to or enough qualified candidates to recruit as replacements.

New leadership is the one exception that shows promise as a strategy, but again, only if the situation warrants a change. Principals are second only to teachers in their impact on student learning. Good leaders set the tone for the school and can create supportive environments for teachers and students alike. But note that even experienced principals may take as long as three to five years to become effective in their new role.

Clearly, we can’t tolerate sending children to failing schools. But we also need to recognize that turning around such a school can be hard, messy and will likely look different in different places.  Parents are an important part of this work, including demanding action when it’s called for. But it also takes teachers, supportive administrators, engaged leadership and yes, resources. Parent Trigger Laws can pretend that a petition and pre-fab solutions are enough. But they are no replacement for good communication; a well-researched, customized plan; a relentless focus on improvement; and strong collaboration between schools, districts and parents.

This entry also appeared in the Huffington Post.

I trust you’ve heard of the Common Core standards? Of course you have. It’s been the biggest story in education for several months now as state and especially local officials begin to grapple with the implementation of new, often times more rigorous, learning standards.

You’ll recall, these new standards in math and English and language arts were a joint initiative of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop clear and uniform markers of what students should learn and acquire in these subjects — 46 states and the District of Columbia voluntarily bought into the idea and off we went, down a virtual Autobahn.

Two years later and here we are, speeding down the road on a collision course to disaster. Make no mistake: the destination is not the obstacle.  Developing a common rubric is a no-brainer if we want to be able to say that, at minimum (and these are base minimum not pie-in-the sky standards) students should be taught X, Y, and Z in math and A, B, and C in English, no matter if they reside in California or Kentucky. There’s nothing controversial or untoward about that.

But as with all great intentions, the devil is in the details, many of which have not been well thought-out— or even at all— leading to all sorts of panic, ill-advised moves, and even a dose of paranoia.

Perhaps, what we need right now is to take our foot off the accelerator, pull off to a rest stop and study the map again. Some of you call it a strategic plan. Bottomline, we know where we need to go and where we need to take students, but states and districts obviously need more time hashing out how to get there because each is starting the journey from a different place. Let’s not ignore that.

Will German lawmakers ultimately place speed limits on the Autobahn? Who knows. But what’s fascinating is that they are even discussing parameters in the first place.

Of course, we shouldn’t focus on two-year degrees simply to move up the international rankings. We need to focus on two-year degrees because they are fast becoming an essential minimum prerequisite for a good job. Which is why the results of a U.S. Department of Labor grant program aimed at encouraging community colleges to prepare students for high wage and high skilled jobs is so encouraging.

Because of the grant, 15 community colleges across Massachusetts worked together to put a greater focus on preparing students for technical and middle-income jobs instead of simply preparing students to transfer onto a four-year institution. These community colleges did so by creating new and exciting degree and certification programs that were aligned with the preparation needed for jobs in six targeted industries such as health care, advanced manufacturing, IT, biotechnology, green energy and financial services. They even hired ‘college and career navigators’ to assist students in connecting with employers, not just when students nearly completed their degree, but throughout their time on campus. This ensures that students are receiving the training that area employers are looking for in future employees.

While such a program, in and of itself, will not catapult the U.S. back to the top of the international college attainment rankings, providing additional resources and incentives to community colleges will lead to more students completing a college degree and being better prepared to compete in the 21^st century labor market. – Jim Hull

The answer is simply, no. This latest study just compares revenues received—both public and private— between traditional public schools and charter schools. While the authors do attempt to make a more apples-to-apples comparison, by excluding revenues traditional public schools receive for Pre-k and adult education as well as adjusting for certain student demographics, whether it’s a fair comparison is questionable according to some school funding researchers.

Keep in mind, however, the study only examines how much money is received not how the money is spent. So basically they are arguing that all charter schools should receive the same amount of funding no matter what services they provide. By that logic, a charter school that provides no extracurricular activities and where the district actually pays for the transportation of the charter school’s students should receive the same per-pupil funding as the traditional public school counterpart, which offers numerous clubs, sports, and other extracurricular activities as well as transportation for their own students. Extracurricular activities and transportation are not luxuries in traditional public schools. These are services most local taxpayers expect their traditional public schools to provide but many charter schools do not, so it wouldn’t be fair to taxpayers to provide the same funding to charter schools that provide fewer services.

To accurately determine whether charter schools do in fact receive their fair share of funding requires comparing how much funding traditional public schools receive for the same services and same type of students to what charter schools provide. Unfortunately, such a comparison is quite difficult for a variety of reasons. As we found in our report Charter Schools: Finding Out the Facts researchers have attempted to make such comparisons but the finance data available for both charters and traditional public schools makes such comparisons nearly impossible, particularly on a large scale. Yet, only when such comparisons can be made can it be determined if charter schools get the short end of the stick when it comes to funding.—Jim Hull

.

[An interesting sidenote: Ray Harryhausen -- one of the great pioneers of stop action film technique -- died yesterday at the age of 92]

Making atom movies is not really an item in the IBM team’s job description. The scientists are actually working on vastly increasing data storage capacity in smaller devices. Last year, they found a way to reduce the number of atoms required to store one bit of digital information from one million to 12. That’s not a typo. But as their website says, “even nanophysicists need to have a little fun.”  That wasn’t the only motivation for producing this film. Looking ahead to a future workforce, IBM hopes that it will get more students excited in science.

That’s certainly one of the goals of the Next Generation Science Standards, the final draft of which was released in mid-April.  The Next Gen standards are intended as a companion to the common core state standards.  The initiative was led by Achieve, Inc., which was also a key player in drafting the common core and directs the PARCC consortia developing aligned assessments.  It further involved twenty-six so-called lead states and was privately funded.

The final standards have been endorsed by the business community, science teachers and others.  Some earlier critics like the Fordham Institute have been more muted in their comments and are withholding judgment until the integration with the common core is completed. Nonetheless, many agree that they improve on current science standards in most states by defining a coherent K-12 program, emphasizing science practice alongside content, and not shying away from sensitive topics like evolution and climate change.

I was privileged to have a small part in an earlier science standards-setting effort called Project 2061 that was led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Then and now, my number one criterion for reviewing standards is: do they make me wish I could be a student again? Project 2061 definitely did that. To the degree that the Next Gen standards will demand more science, particularly at the elementary level, and encourage children’s curiosity about exploring the world, they are a definite move in the right direction. However, like Fordham, I am waiting to see more before making a final call.

The next gen standards can be downloaded for free. Be aware the format requires some perseverance on the part of the reader.

And talking about being excited about  science … below is a photo of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who wowed 5,000 attendees at NSBA’s annual conference in April. Dr. Tyson showed us that in relation to the cosmos, we are as tiny as the “boy and his atom” are to us. A great advocate for science research and education, he inspired everyone to make sure their students are encouraged to explore and imagine. And not just because our nation needs scientifically literate workers and citizens. But also because our students need a little fun, too.