No ‘parent trigger’ fight in Los Angeles

California’s first two parent trigger campaigns were bitter fights, but Los Angeles parents seeking to transform 24th Street Elementary have found a “willing partner” in the school district, reports EdSource Today.

Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy met them and promised “to work side by side with you so every student – todos los niños – gets an outstanding education.” United Teachers Los Angeles President Warren Fletcher showed up unexpectedly at their press conference and vowed to collaborate with them, too.

The school’s parents union say 68 percent of parents signed the trigger petition, far more than the 50 percent needed.

Los Angeles Unified already has identified 24th Street Elementary as one of the worst performing in the district.

. . . before the parents handed in their petition, Deasy returned the school’s transformation plan, written by the principal and a team of teachers in consultation with a half-dozen parents and Parent Revolution organizers, as insufficient.

It was, however, candid in explaining the need for change: “We have continued to operate in the same manner for years and have consequently yielded the same ineffective results,” it said. “Rather than learn from our operational miscues and poor communication and look to our past for guidance, we have allowed the accretion of our failures to weigh us down.”

The 24th Street Elementary School Parents Union has set deadlines for converting the school to a charter by next fall, but parents could agree to an in-district school transformation plan, says Ben Austin of Parent Revolution.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. Richard Aubrey says:

    If the parents believe the admin, their kids will get what the adults deserve.

    • Not sure what you mean by that so I’ll offer my own interpretation.

      A nasty, messy court fight in a couple of who-cares, out of the way districts got more then a little coverage. What happens when the largest school district in the country decides to take a similarly adversarial stance? It’s a big story.

      Maybe the board sees a less distinctly adversarial approach as more likely to yield the hoped for result which, I’m pretty sure, is to head off the loss of another school. That’s what that “in-district school transformation plan” looks like.

      Who knows, maybe by not manning the barricades the district can delay the loss of a school and in politics a problem delayed is a problem solved.