Issue link: http://educator.cta.org/i/649572
to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind. Since California has suspended the API and AYP is disappearing with the reauthorization of NCLB, the school district argued that there are no measures available to meet the law's requirement. A superior court judge ruled that the petitions are still valid even if they can't meet the letter of the law. The district is appealing that ruling. If the district wins its appeal, parent trigger law would become invali d unl e ss it i s re w ritt en usin g replacements for API and AYP. If the appeal is rejected, the law will almost certainly continue to be a source of division and case-by-case litigation. W h a t s t a r t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a h a s spread virally to other states. Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas have adopted some form of trigger law. CTA's experience and assistance were instrumental in helping defeat Florida parent trigger law proposals in 2012 and 2013. There is a lesson to be learned from the experience, says La Nita Dominique, former president of the Adelanto Teachers Association, now a CTA staffer for the Stockton Teachers Association. "Studies show that teachers are trusted, so it's important that we continue our efforts to build relationships and do community outreach," she says. "We need to be able to talk to each other. at is how problems are solved. at is when good things happen. We are all partners in education — stu- dents, teachers, parents and administrators. It's important that we always keep the lines of communication open." What Triggered the So-called Revolution In January 2010, the California Legislature enacted the nation's first parent trigger law, allowing parents at schools with low test scores to collect and submit signatures (representing 50 percent of the school's students) to force a school district to pull the trigger. The concept for the law originated in Los Angeles with Parent Revolution, which had been formed in 2009 in part to help promote LA's Public School Choice Initiative to par- ents, and to expand charter schools once that initiative was approved by the LAUSD board. There was a split in the orga- nization as Parent Revolution focused more on promoting a parent trigger law and as millions of dollars in support began pouring in from groups such as the Walton, Gates and Broad foundations. Parent Revolution's mission changed: It was now intent on creating and lobbying for parent trigger laws that could widen the charter school share of the public education "market." Ben Austin, a former Clinton White House staffer, was appointed executive director. Austin found two state lawmakers willing to co-author a trigger law, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) and Sen. Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar). The trigger bill became part of a slew of special session education legislation rushed through in an attempt to qualify California for President Obama's Race to the Top (RTTT) school funding competition. It was passed quickly under pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. California did not end up qualifying for any RTTT funding, and the so-called reforms hurriedly enacted to make that happen le schools saddled with consequences. Parent Revolution's tactics with parent trigger have come under fire, with numerous complaints that the organization has used the law to coerce parents into taking over schools. Significant numbers of parents have said Parent Revolution organizers used deception in obtaining petition signatures. In 2015, Ben Austin le Parent Revolution to work for Students Matter, the millionaire-backed group that brought the Vergara v. California lawsuit attempting to strike down basic due pro- cess for teachers. Fifth-grade educator Ingrid Villeda says pulling the trigger throws away valuable people and resources. La Nita Dominique 28 cta.org