The parent trigger hits Columbus: go time or time to go away

This year’s state report cards brought a new twist for some Columbus parents—a parent trigger. Parent triggers, made famous by several high profile efforts in California and a major motion picture, allow a majority of parents in (usually) low-performing schools to force changes to how that school operates. If this sounds to you like a recipe for controversy, you’re right. Even here at Fordham, Mike and Checker have taken different views on whether the pursuit of a parent trigger is worth the effort.

As for me, I’m a huge proponent of empowering parents. Giving dissatisfied parents at low-performing schools the opportunity to take control of their school does that. I’m not an ideologue though, and care most about whatever leads to better academic and life outcomes for kids. The question then is whether the parent trigger is a tool that should be used or even expanded in Ohio.

Just the facts

Ohio’s parent trigger law was passed as part of the state budget bill in 2011 (House Bill 153). It’s designated as a pilot program affecting only Columbus City schools that have been ranked in the bottom five percent of all schools in the state on the performance index for three consecutive years. Because it requires three years of data, 2014-15 is the first year that Columbus district schools could be affected by the trigger. There are twenty-one schools eligible this year—more information on the eligible schools is below.

Exercising the trigger requires a majority of parents whose children attend an eligible school to sign a petition requesting the school to be restructured and to submit it to the school district treasurer before December 31^st. The treasurer has 30 days to validate the signatures and determine if the signature threshold (a majority of parents) was met.

There are five statutory options that parents can choose when going through the petition process. They are:

(1) Reopen the school as a charter school;

(2) Replace at least 70 percent of school personnel who are related to the school's poor academic performance;

(3) Contract with another school district, a nonprofit, or for-profit entity with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school;

(4) Turn operation of the school over to the department of education;

(5) Any other major restructuring of the school that makes fundamental reforms in the school's staffing or governance.

Controversy ensues and many questions remain

At last week’s school board meeting, Columbus board members took turns, before a standing-room-only, anti-trigger crowd, expressing their frustration with the parent trigger and the fact that the law applied only to their district. Board members also raised a number of important questions like how schools exercising the trigger would be funded, who owns the facilities, and whether district taxpayers would have to continue to pay on bonds for schools that were taken over. The Ohio Department of Education, who was briefing the board on the parent trigger, didn’t have answers to these critical and complicated questions. It will be a real challenge to figure out how the trigger works when and if it’s exercised. As it stands now, there’s sufficient vagueness (the trigger law has never been used in Ohio) and high-enough stakes that the only certainty is that a court and many lawyers will be involved.

Eligible schools

The performance index of the 21 Columbus schools to which the parent trigger could apply is very low; each of the schools receives either a D or F on that measure. That index, it’s worth noting, is the best measure to gauge absolute student achievement—or how much students know—in a school.

Under the state’s parent trigger law, that’s where the eligibility determination ends. Look more closely though at each school’s value-added measure. Value-added is the state’s attempt to measure the impact that a school is having on student learning by considering student progress from year to year. A grade of “C” means that a school’s students are generally meeting growth expectations. Similarly, a grade of “A” suggests that students are exceeding growth expectations. Of the 21 schools in Columbus eligible for the parent trigger: 8 received an “A” in value-add and another 5 schools received a “C.”

There’s nothing wrong with giving parents whose children attend a school with low absolute achievement levels additional education options. In fact, students at many of the schools have a variety of options available including another district school, a charter school, and even an EdChoice voucher that would enable them to attend a private school. However, careful consideration should be given to whether it makes sense to fundamentally restructure a school whose students are meeting or exceeding learning expectations.

Attitude shift

In the tension surrounding the issue at the Columbus School Board meeting, it would have been easy to miss the district’s report on the parent trigger issue. In that report, the district made it clear that it would aggressively communicate with parents to let them know what was happening with the schools subject to the trigger. In fact, Superintendent Dan Good met with building leaders from each affected school before the board meeting to prepare them for questions from parents. This bodes well for the district and should help it to better understand and address any concerns that parents might have. A proactive approach to communication is the right thing to do whether the school is eligible for the parent trigger or not. It will be critical though that the communications be less about selling the strengths of the various schools and more about listening to the thoughts, ideas, and concerns of Columbus parents.

***

The parent trigger gives parents a voice in how their school is run—and some potential leverage to bargain for big change. That is a real and positive benefit of the law; however, the structure of the law in Ohio makes me unenthusiastic about its ability to improve low-performing schools. It’s important that the Department of Education or the legislature (if needed) clear up some of the procedural aspects that the Columbus school board has identified. It’s also critical that schools making significant academic gains in the area of value-added aren’t forced into restructuring at a time when they’re already improving. All in all, if the experience in California is any indication (only three schools in the state have exercised the parent trigger), Columbus’ parent trigger is unlikely to affect many schools. It would be wise then for all involved to relax and adopt the now very much over-used mantra: keep calm and carry on.