In 2014, a group of working-class immigrant parents in Anaheim, California wanted better education for their children.  At the time, fewer than 18% of Palm Lane students were reading at grade level and fewer than 14% performed at grade level in math. In response to feeling like their children were making no gains, the parents of Palm Lane invoked a California law known as the “Parent Trigger Law.” This law states that when half of the parents are dissatisfied with the public education their children are receiving, they can sign a petition asking for one of several reform options.  So, they created a petition to convert the school to a charter school, gathered 332 parent signatures, and officially filed the signatures.

Believing they had every right to be frustrated with the education quality their children were receiving, the parents were soon shocked when their own district officials sued them. Ultimately, they ended up having to advocate for their children in front of the Supreme Court. According to the Anaheim Blog, “Throughout the legal battle, the parents were opposed by political activists and unions, claiming to be the champion for workers and immigrants.” However, this argument fell flat under the circumstances, as the parents of Palm Lane also considered themselves working-class immigrants. The parents were less concerned with whether the school’s teachers would be union members and more concerned with quality education and social mobility for the next generation of immigrant children. Speaking in Spanish with translators, they pleaded with the court and ultimately won.

After nearly a 5-year battle in court, Palm Lane was finally converted into a charter school. Now, a year since the conversion, students have shown significant improvement in 13 of 14 learning categories for the first time in more than 10 years. In many cases, student gains were really big, with up to 41% increases in academic achievement, reported The Orange County Register.

Mark Holscher, the parents’ attorney said to the San Diego Union-Tribune, 

‘We put a spotlight on the school. Once a petition is filed, the parents are now at the table, these parents who otherwise have no ability to advocate for their children. The parents,’ he said, ‘could choose to keep the school with the district, but at the same time, ‘parents are entitled to get the reform they petitioned for.’

Similar to Holscher’s comments about parent advocacy, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stated, 

Parents are more dedicated to putting kids first than any other stakeholder is. While teachers, administrators and education reformers all care deeply about students, the politics of public education are largely driven by the interests of adults because kids can’t vote and parents don’t have lobbyists.

The parents of Palm Lane finally “got their day in court,” but what about other parents in low-income communities who have children in failing schools with no power to change their circumstances? And what about the 5 years spent in courtrooms?  This period is kindergarten to middle school in “school years.”

Parents in low-income communities should not have to spend their precious time, money, and energy fighting for quality education as they did in Palm Lane. Their story is an incredible victory. But the education system could benefit from a structure where parents and children are not held hostage by their neighborhood assignments.