The Columbus City School Board was scheduled to get a briefing last night about a state pilot program that could allow parents to force a wholesale staffing change at low-performing schools. But the presentation on the new "parent trigger" law raised more questions than it answered. Alison Holm has more.
There are a few things that are clear about the "parent trigger" law that was passed as a part of House Bill 153 in 2011. The law applies to schools that have been in the bottom five percent on academic standards for three consecutive years. The state's pilot program applies *only* to the Columbus City School district. And that program has no end date, or mechanism to determine if it's effective.
The "parent trigger" law has very few specifics, and Associate State Superintendent John Richard told the board repeatedly that decisions will be made as situations arise. He explained that to start the process at least 50 percent of parents at a low-performing school need to sign a petition requesting change, and file it with the district treasurer by the end of the calendar year. They could request several different options:
Richard: Option number one is re-open the school as a community school. The second option is an option to replace at least 70 percent of the personnel in that particular school that have something to do with the academic performance of that school. Option number three is to contract either with another district, another non-profit, or another for-profit, but the key in this portion of the statute specifically say that entity must have a demonstrated record of effectiveness. Dnd then finally, the fourth option is to turn the operation of the school over to the state Department of Education.
Richard says the Department felt it wouldn't be appropriate for either the school district or the state department to guide parents through the process of petitioning for a change. Although the law doesn't make any provisions for a "facilitator", Richard says the state decided to give that task to the pro-charter group StudentFirst, in part because the only other group the state contacted declined. Board member Mary Jo Hudson found that choice "extremely troubling".
Hudson: Students First is not an impartial participant in this process. And no one works for free. No one. They're getting something out of this, and it certainly.... It sounds nice that nobody's paying, but somebody's paying. And my position would be that it's the students, and we're putting students at risk with this arrangement.
But StudentsFirst Ohio director Greg Harris insists that his organization can be impartial when it comes to advising parents.
Harris: While we're not neutral about parent trigger - we support it as a tool that gives leverage to parents - we are neutral on the outcomes. We're not going to try to steer to a certain outcome. We'll set up a process where we work with the parents if they want us to help facilitate community meetings, if they want us to explain the school options, explain the process - that's the role I see us taking. And then it sort of evolving based on where the parents want to take the campaign.
This is the first year the parent trigger becomes an option, and there are 20 schools within the district that fall under the criteria for inclusion. Parents have until December 31rst to file petitions for change that would take effect in the fall of 2015. Board member Michael Cole pointed out that - in the same meeting - the board was expected to approve a five-year financial forecast. And he pressed the Department of Education's Richard to explain how the costs of a quick change at the building level would be handled.
Cole: Provided there is a set of recomendations that are made for a progression plan if there is new management how is that funded? Who pays for that? Who foots that bill? does that go on the ballot? Do we pay for that? How do we split the costs? These are just questions that I am not clear on, and I'm fairly confident the law itself is not clear on. Have you guys given any thought to that, has this congolomerate given any thought to that? I'd just like to get some clarity on that.
Richard: Other than the phrase about "Columbus City Schools would implement" the law is silent; you're correct on that. Which is why again I would go back to my earlier comment, we will all be working through this process if it comes to fruition. We have talked about these things, probably the same as Columbus City has discussed this and we all have quite a few questions marks. As this is the first year this law is going into effect we are taking it one step at a time.
The state officials stressed that even if parents petitioned to bring in outside administrators, the school district would still own the physical buildings, many of which have been part of the long-term building renovations and replacement program. Board member Hudson pointed out that that leaves a lot of liability and oversight questions up in the air.
Hudson: Sounds like it's more of like a receivership situation, where ODE is the only oversight authority. And so, you know, our taxpayers are servicing the debt, many of these buildings are brand new.... Citizens of Columbus are paying for that; who oversees all of that? And what happens if there's an operating loss, who fills in that gap, who takes care of that? Is there a seperate levy, what happens later and for other funding? There are a myriad of issues here I think we all need to figure out.
Superintendent Dan Good promised that the districts counsel would meet with the state department's counsel to discuss the issue of a impartial facilitator for parent groups, and to work out some of the other unresolved issues before situations arise. The 20 schools affected by the "parent trigger" law include Champion and Mifflin middle schools, Beattty Park, Bradley, Cassady, Columbus Scioto, East Columbus, East Linden, Eastgate, Fairwood, Highland, Leawood, Livingston, Ohio Avenue, Trevitt, Watkins and Weinland Park elementary schools, Windsor STEM Academy, Columbus Africentric K-12, and the Columbus Global Academy.
