Governor responds to school chief’s strong opposition to charter amendment on Nov. ballot
Gov. Nathan Deal has issued a response to the surprising news yesterday that State Schools Superintendent and fellow Republican John Barge was breaking rank and opposing the charter school constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.
Barge argues that the amendment simply creates another needless bureaucracy to do what the state Board of Education can do and already does: Approve charters rejected by local boards of education. In this time of fiscal Armageddon for public education, Barge estimates that the creation of an appointed Charter Schools Commission will divert hundreds of millions from schools.
While negative, Deal’s response is far more temperate than that of GOP House leader Ed Lindsey of Atlanta, who sent Barge a blistering letter, which I posted yesterday. Please read it as it’s high drama.
Deal sent this note to Republican lawmakers:
I am discouraged that Superintendent Barge has changed his position since the campaign trail and no longer believes parents should have public school options for their children. His new position doesn’t change mine. I stand with 2/3 of the General Assembly and will uphold the promises I made when I ran for office: Parents and students should have public school options; this is the best form of local control.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
living in an outdated ed system
August 15th, 2012
8:55 pm
@Maureen convenient holds back my post which rebuts her accusation that I don’t read the facts. I didn’t share that story from the Center for Education Reform because I was looking for the political angle. I could care less if there were date inaccuracies, or as @Maureen says “even a simple Google check would know that Barge was elected in 2010 before the amendment.” That is not the point, but because all you care about is partisan politics, that is what you decided to focus on.
The reason why I shared it because of the language that you chose to ignore, which the history of why Georgia is hostile to charter schools, why monopolies don’t work, and the fact that “state test scores, credible research, and experience show that those states with multiple authorizers are home to the highest quality charter schools.”
But see, all you care about is the words of politicians, not the words that speak eloquently about the facts on how market forces work and why you cannot have a a single authorizer of a charter school!
Jeez!
Ron F.
August 15th, 2012
9:31 pm
outdated: there is no monopoly on education. There are numerous charter schools already working and private schools that compete with public for students. What this is about is giving the legislature control of something the state BOE can already take care of, without any extra money being used. The state commission WILL cost money to run, and the schools it authorizes will cost money to run- where will that money come from when the state is already asking all depts. for more budget cuts? How exactly will they “find” the money for this without further reducing state funding for existing schools? They won’t, and you know it.
Successful charter schools already exist and new schools are fully able to apply for charter with local boards as it is now. If those boards unfairly reject the charters, they can appeal to the state BOE. The system for approving these schools already exists. So your “monopoly” argument continues to be incorrect.
td
August 15th, 2012
9:34 pm
living in an outdated ed system
August 15th, 2012
8:13 pm
So you are trying to give us research by someone that is in bed with the Gates foundation and you want to call it objective? Try again.
living in an outdated ed system
August 15th, 2012
9:35 pm
Ron F – clearly you have no idea how markets work.
CharterStarter, Too
August 15th, 2012
9:38 pm
@ Maureen,
Indeed the Constitutional Amendment was not considered in 2010; however, the Commission was, and he supported it AND the fusing structure which then, DID reduce district funding proportionately for students they were no longer teaching. Charter supporters are trying to re-establish another Commission with the same function and a funding structure that does NOT touch districts’ funds. He provided inaccurate and outdates data. He is clearly the mouthpiece of the Supt. Ass. You are wrong, my lady. I dare you to go and pull the facts on these schools with accurate and comprehensive data. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised at their achievement AND that they have saved the tax payers money.
living in an outdated ed system
August 15th, 2012
9:41 pm
And again, you guys validate why I can’t offer any research, because ALL you can do is look at who is involved with the report instead of reading the damn thing which is loaded with facts and figures!
I bet that 90% of this audience is retired or soon-to-be-retired educators and you just can’t talk to digital immigrants about education reform and digital learning.
Ron F.
August 15th, 2012
9:44 pm
“I dare you to go and pull the facts on these schools with accurate and comprehensive data.”
If you would, please post a source for data different from what we’ve seen posted here. I for one would like to see it, especially if it factually refutes what we’ve seen so far. I think in the end the data will be a determining factor for many who read here and for voters in November. All sources of data are worth considering.
another comment
August 15th, 2012
9:54 pm
John Barge was the only Republican I voted for along with the one that opposed Holly Cash and the stupid Balanced Calendar that my children hated. I am so glad I voted for him, since he is standing up to the Republican sell outs.
CharterStarter, Too
August 15th, 2012
9:58 pm
@ Ron, the AJC posted links to CRCT scores this year for schools and systems. Check out meets and exceeds rates and mean scale scores.
You can go directly to the schools and request financials to see if they are in a deficit. You will ind that although severely trapped (at 62 percent of the traditional schools in funding), they are afloat.
LD
August 15th, 2012
10:01 pm
you can find the annual report on Georgia’s Charter Schools here:
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Charter-Schools/Pages/Annual-Reports.aspx
from a quick glance, it doesn’t appear that the charter schools perform statistically any differently than the state’s traditional schools.
living in an outdated ed system
August 15th, 2012
10:16 pm
LD – that’s PRECISELY what the Center for Education Reform noted, which is that charter schools perform better in states where there are multiple authorizers of charter school applications. Georgia is NOT one of those states!
Alex
August 15th, 2012
10:17 pm
This charter school stuff is all about Jan Jones, Edward Lindsey and Chip Rogers being able to resegregate schools. They want to make sure their slighly less wealthy friends can have all the advantages of private schools (no slow hispanics or blacks in need of remediation or other non-english speaking kids) slowing down their white kids. And yes…charter schools is all about grouping and making sure the rich get more. Shame on Nathan Deal for not loving all kids. Fix education rather than saving a few….that is your job Governor!
Ron F.
August 15th, 2012
10:22 pm
“that’s PRECISELY what the Center for Education Reform noted, which is that charter schools perform better in states where there are multiple authorizers”
But attributing that data solely to the “multiple authorizers” is a stretch at best. You have to consider such data as median income of families (which everyone knows affects education success), curricula, qualifications/certifications of teachers, etc. There are many factors that affect school performance, the authorizer of the schools notwithstanding. If there is a plausible link, please provide it.
Ron F.
August 15th, 2012
10:28 pm
Charter Starter: that data has been posted, and/or links to it throughout this blog. Unless I’m missing something, the numbers don’t show a stark difference, and in many cases, evidence to the contrary of your earlier post. If you have data that is more accurate or more comprehensive, it would be good to share it. The state’s data, which I’ve read numerous times, just doesn’t appear all that impressive as compared to existing public schools. If a majority of charters, with similar demographics, are in fact doing that much better, it would be helpful to many here to see a chart of that data.
Ron F.
August 15th, 2012
10:43 pm
Charter: just so you know, I think right now Mickey Mouse and the Mousketeers could run a better school than many in the metro area, and performance clearly indicates that. My debate isn’t about charters as an option; it’s about whether or not they have the ability to take the same kids and do more with them (and that would include the special ed. and those whose behavior requires a different discipline environment- we have to teach them all in the traditional schools). In our lowest performing schools, I think they might have a lot to offer with the freedom to specialize. That said, I still don’t see the need for yet another state-funded authorizer when we can’t cover the budget of any department in the state as it is. When our governor is more concerned with tax cuts at a time of such steep declines in revenues, I tend to wonder at the fiscal responsibility of the amendment. We just can’t afford it, and when you consider how much charter schools struggle to cobble together their funding, I don’t think depending solely on the state is going to work out. In the end, they could possibly end up not fully funding either current public schools or the state granted charters, and that would only worsen the problem. It’s a serious consideration we have to make when the partisan political rhetoric subsides.
BehindEnemyLines
August 15th, 2012
11:22 pm
I just amazed that anyone — be they governor or legislator or Joe C. Voter — is surprised. Barge was, at the very most, maybe the best of an incredibly sorry lot of candidates. To expect anything particularly useful from him is simply asking more than was realistic.
Ron F.
August 15th, 2012
11:28 pm
“Ron F – clearly you have no idea how markets work.”
Oh but I do…quite clearly, actually. Anyone may enter the education “market” provided they can attract enough students. If they wish, they may apply for a charter in a given system. If that charter application is denied locally, they can appeal to the state BOE, which has approved charters and will continue to in the future. If not, they may open as a private school and charge tuition. It’s not rocket science. The data as it currently stands doesn’t prove that the “competition” charter schools supposedly provide is producing appreciably better outcomes. Especially when you consider differences in demographics (as noted often, especially the difference in number of special education students and those with disciplinary struggles which are grossly underrepresented in charter schools currently). If the data is correct as currently posted, then the market would, quite clearly, fail to support charter schools in general based on outcomes.
What you quite clearly choose to overlook is the simple fact that the state cannot justify this expenditure at a time when it cannot fund its current obligations to nearly all state agencies and departments. Where will the money come from to fund the commission and the schools it charters? How will the state justify putting more of the budget into education when its single largets line item is already education?
I would appreciate some intelligent answers rather than more facetious responses. It’s time to produce facts that will convince voters, not snipe at legitimate questions or use the time-honored playground tactics of ignore and throw empty words back.
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Georgians for Educational Excellence
August 16th, 2012
1:52 am
At risk of being irretrievably captured in the political vortex claiming that “it’s all about the money,” might I suggest that we Georgians demand comprehensive, systematic financial audits of all out publicly-funded K-12 educational entities, for starters. Before we provide additional funding to traditional or charter schools, should prudence not dictate we possess hard evidence that the money being provided to each traditional and charter school is being legally, effectively and efficiently spent.
And don’t tell me that internal, local and GDOE auditors already perform such audits? Three among the numerous oxymorons in GAPubEd include internal audit, local-firm audit and GDOE audit. Eyes from outside our state would be the only fresh, disinterested ones.
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Georgians for Educational Excellence
August 16th, 2012
1:55 am
OOPS. One might think that I could type the word “our” in line 3 in my 1:52 AM posting.
LarryMajor
August 16th, 2012
6:19 am
CS2 – Let’s discuss that “does NOT touch districts’ funds” part you mentioned.
The reason for the lawsuit was that the Charter Schools Commission took state funding directly from students enrolled in GCPS and gave it to Ivy Prep. If the Commission had simply agreed to stop this parasitic funding practice, we wouldn’t be having this discussion because the lawsuit would have ended and the original Commission would still be operating. But, they refused to agree to this, didn’t they?
When Jan Jones and Ed Lindsey submitted HR1162, it had exactly this funding provision written into it. Think back to the original push for public support and you’ll realize this funding was never mentioned. The only conceivable reason is that the existence of a Commission was just a smokescreen to trick the public into writing this horrific funding inequity into our constitution.
The whole thing blew up in their faces when the House refused to pass the original version. It was only then the funding provision was not just removed, but replaced with the exact opposite language you mentioned – but this is clearly not what amendment supporters wanted.
Look at all the confusion over changing only three sentences. Lots of folks in Gwinnett were surprised when the state recently approved Ivy Prep’s charter because they were told the Supreme Court decision prevented the state from approving charter petitions. After that lie fell on its face, Tony Roberts said voters should support the amendment because the state’s authority to approve charters could be challenged in court:
“All opponents will have to do is go back to the court and say, ‘The state is in contempt of court,’ ‘They’re not following your directions,’ ‘They’re still violating the constitution,’”
As you should know, the state’s authority is already in the constitution and this court order is pure fiction. If this amendment is such a great idea, why do its supporters find it necessary to lie to the public?
You once told me that you know Lou Erste. If that’s true, you already know there is no need for a commission because all the hard work this man has done for charter schools speaks for itself.
living in an outdated ed system
August 16th, 2012
8:24 am
Hey Ron F. – read the damn report I sent you all! More money does not equal better education!!! I would rather the state use funds for creating new and better school designs than to let the status quo continue. It really is pointless trying to debate and convince narrow minded people that don’t really understand the root cause as to why we’re in this horrible predicament.
I am done trying to convince you and others who are putting the blinders on to the truth. A vote against the referendum is a vote for mediocrity and an acknowledgement that you will let the monopoly school boards continue to waste taxpayer dollars on a system that is irretretirvably broken.
Read the damn report! It has valid stats that will make you cringe. While I don’t necessarily support some of the framing, the report is crystal clear. America is losing its innovative and competitive edge and it all starts with the widening achievement gap. Poverty is the other culprit, not to be de-emphasized.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
9:20 am
@ Dr. Craig Spinks – I agree and have said not very long ago that there needs to be an external forensic audit of public education (and bring charters along as well). Results would have tax payers (and likely teachers) quaking in anger at the rampant waste and bureaucratic priorities versus instructional priorities.
@ Ron F. – You are right, the numbers and links are out there and have been posted. I send you there for yourself so that folks won’t think I’m “spinning” things. Pull some of the Commission charters’ data from this past year. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at their performance, particularly given they have only been in operation 1 or 2 years and have been under a severe financial strain. The long and the short of it is that if they can do it better for less, it’s a win for students and tax payers.
@ Larry Major – We meet again. You are absolutely right that the prior Commission reduced funds proportionately for students the districts didn’t serve. I cannot believe that you would argue that a district should keep funds for kids they don’t teach. Does that truly, in your gut make sense? Why shouldn’t the money follow the child? But that was past. So let’s move on to now. The enabling legislation was very carefully crafted to ensure that the districts would not have the same concerns. They never, ever made comment about the state authorizing schools as long as their funds weren’t bothered. And indeed, had the Supreme Court not foolishly opened a can of worms with their interpretive antics, perhaps the state department would have been adequate to continue their work with some enabling legislation to provide equity to the charters. However, that little gray area that Justice Nahmias and the Attorney Journal mentioned creates a problem, hence the need for the Amendment to clarify. If it is “pure fiction,” then why are some of the biggest legal minds in Georgia concerned? If you are unconcerned with the state’s authority, then why are you so afraid for the voters to have an opportunity to confirm it?
Keep in mind that the districts DEMANDED that their funds not be touched, and they are not. The statute lays it out for those on a first grade reading level. So why are the districts in an uproar? Because now they want to dictate how the state spends the other part of the budget that was not K-12 education. They have not been able to satisfactorily demonstrate that with the taxpayers large investment, our Georgia students are achieving (even back to 2002 when QBE was fully funded we weren’t in a better place academically). And now, we have schools that have a chance to make a positive difference and push the bar a little higher and do it for LESS, they are adamantly opposed.
The districts want to fight against the very, very tiny amount dedicated to these charter students to ensure an adequate education. Barge puts a big number out there for charters over the next five years that everyone is trying to back into. Let’s reason through this. First, if districts approve quality charters and turn down poor quality ones, the Commission will have no reason to authorize ANY. Secondly, the law also says “subject to appropriation”, meaning that just like K-12 education, charters will be funded based on what the state can offer.
How, Mr. Major, can you possibly argue against giving children a close to equal amount to fund their education if the tax payer is not investing more to do so and it is not costing the districts anything? Whether you like the Governor or not, his office clearly showed that a child going to a traditional district school would cost the tax payers with local and state together MORE. I am trying to understand your reasoning, but I just keep coming back to you protecting the system rather than considering what is fiscally prudent and just plain fair. I respect your knowledge and experience, as it is abundantly clear you have both, but don’t understand your reasoning.
As for Mr. Erste, I thought I knew him. I was mistaken. He is not who I thought he was.
Tony
August 16th, 2012
9:43 am
It is true that this fight is about funding. It is about the need for our state leaders to provide for ALL the children of Georgia an adequate funding stream that will allow us to have high quality schools. The fight should not be about whether a select group (charter schools) will get preferential funding treatment from our state.
Again, this issue is too complex for our political leaders to act like it is an either/or option. Their current plan is not good for the majority of the children in our state and Dr. Barge was brave enough to call them out on that point.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
10:54 am
@ Tony, I understand what you are saying, but may I pose a few questions for your consideration?
1. How do you define “adequate?” Is it solely funds, or does the state have a responsibility to ensure that “adequate” also encompasses assurance of outcomes for students?
2. Is there any connection between “adequate funds” and “adequate education” as demonstrated by outcomes?
3. When referring to adequacy related to funding, how much is “enough?” How do we know?
I can certainly speak to the charters’ perspective on these questions, but I am most interested to hear what you and others think.
Ron F.
August 16th, 2012
11:03 am
Outdated: If you’re talking about the CER report, that has clearly been proven to be dubious at best. As I’ve said NUMEROUS times, I’m not against charter schools. I am, however, against a state commission being created that will do what is already achievable via the state DOE. If anyone’s motives are in question here, it is the state legislature’s. Why even consider spending more money when the budget is as tight as it is? This is bad timing, in my opinion.
Do you have a right to be frustrated? Yes, but understand many of us in the so-called “status-quo” are demanding improvement and are just as frustrated at the slow pace we are forced to follow. I think many of the reforms charter schools offer can, and I believe will, be implemented in existing schools as the push for change continues. There’s no quick fix, and anything that seems that way is snake oil being hawked out of the back of a wagon.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
11:15 am
@ Ron F. – Please remember that the Commission, is only an appeals mechanism. Districts still will have the first right of approval/denial. If the districts fairly authorize and deny, additional Commission charters should be unnecessary. The funding for Commission schools was purposely set for less to provide incentive to work with the districts to obtain authorization. And the charters may not change their applications at all, so they will have to give their best effort the first time around.
As for the current Commission schools, again, the amount appropriated to these schools does not come out of K-12 education’s portion. This tiny, tiny fragment of the overall state non-K-12 budget is statistically insignificant, and future funding is subject to appropriation.
And finally, let’s take charters out of this for a moment and get to the root of everyone’s frustration – the lack of improvement in academic outcomes of students and more efficient use of tax dollars in K-12 education. What do you feel might actually incentivize districts to make substantial changes to how they do business and educate kids?
Ron F.
August 16th, 2012
2:18 pm
Charter Starter: I think the answer is simple, if perhaps unacheivable. Just as charters don’t make it if they don’t perform and please parents, I think we should be able to shut down schools or even systems like APS and Dekalb, and start over from the top down. As harsh as it is, if a school isn’t moving up in achievement or maintaining if it is already successful, start cutting funding. The threat of losing money will definitely get them moving! The other solution would be for us to find the way (and many schools do) to get parents involved. I know from my small town that parents are in the middle of everything (nothing else to do within a 30 min. drive), and that’s key. When that goes down, so do our scores. There’s been an upswing in their involvement, and not surprisingly our scores have gone up. The legislature could do a lot by just passing some legislation tying funding to student success. I think that would pass and be a lot more successful. It’s not likely, which is one reason I consider charter schools. One definite benefit is the freedom from often burdensome regulations set by local systems.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
2:27 pm
I just saw an “update” to Dr. Barge’s statement on the DOE website where he says he has been consistent throughout and provides proof based on his comments to question #4. Does anyone find it disingenuous that he fails to address the next question where he rates this belief as STRONGLY supporting the Charter Schools Commission AND its prior funding mechanism (that reduced district funding) with the reason being, “This is simple. The money follows the student.”
I believe the man has contradicted himself, and based on what he is clarifying as his “intent” for the multiple authorizer approach, is even contradictory within the survey. If you disagree, please help me to understand how.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
2:43 pm
@ Ron F. Ok, I see where you’re going. But can you see that charters address the majority of these things on a smaller, more controlled, less intrusive scale…and actually end up saving the tax payers money?? It is much easier to have a charter provide fair “competition” and financial pressure than to deal with the whole upheaval of a district wide takeover. And can you image the added bureaucracy and thus, the huge amount of money that would be needed to do this sort of overhaul in failing districts?
What you are suggesting is a truly dismantling public education, and again, chartering isn’t trying to dismantle, but to:
1) Push districts to create positive changes within to address poor academic outcomes (caused by all sorts of things like: priorities with spending,teacher morale, accountability, mentoring, differentiation, parental involvement, etc, etc.)
2) Provide choice for parents where, even in successful districts, every student’s needs may not be met.
And for the record, I believe the conversion charters and system charters should be subject to the same closure accountability as the start-ups rather than just reverting back to “status quo.” The purpose of a charter is flexibility in exchange for accountability.
I do believe there should be more accountability for districts. Aside from chartering, I believe the legislature or the State Board should put in place some checks and balances on state funds/accountability for student GROWTH (absolute outcomes are dangerous and can be unrealistic given all sorts of factors). But every child should be growing at an appropriate pace to their situation and in proportion to others of similar situation.
I also believe that boards should be held accountable for oversight in a way that doesn’t penalize children. Currently the only “check” in place is removal from school boards (which is problematic and difficult) and loss of SACS accreditation, which harms the children and does little but embarrass the board members.
I see that some officials have to put up some sort of bond…why don’t board members have to do that and if misappropriation or malfeasance occurs under their watch, hit them in the pocket book? Or, make it a legal offense with jail time attached. After all, if you are not providing adequate oversight and the kids aren’t learning and there is malfeasance or mismanagement of public funds, you ARE violating your fiduciary duties. Running a school board is serious business that is taken way, way too lightly.
LD
August 16th, 2012
5:10 pm
1) Tax money does not fund students; it funds systems. 2. Schools earn money based upon enrollment. 3. Tax money should stay within schools in the system it was generated.
Example: My county has traditional schools, conversion charters, and start-up charters. Regardless of which type of county school my child attends, the amount earned by the school should be equal. Now, if my child attends a state charter, then that school should only earn its state dollars, not any of the county tax money.
I do not understand why so many think that the money paid by one county’s taxpayers should go into another county or system. If a Georgia student were to enroll in an Alabama charter school, would we be saying that Georgia funds should go to the Alabama school?
Ron F.
August 16th, 2012
5:11 pm
“Running a school board is serious business that is taken way, way too lightly.”
Now THAT we can agree on for sure! Really, the only “simple” answer to the problem is citizen involvement, both as voters and parents. For too long, some districts have languished in the ideology that it’s someone else’s problem, and you’re right that it needs fixing. In my district, that involvement is a given as the board members are well known, and we hired a super who is totally about the data. The improvements we need are possible and being implemented, given the fact that we have a budget so lean they squeeze a penny until Lincoln screams! LOL Trust me, we know the frustration charters are feeling about budgets. The challenge is in the larger districts where there are layers and layers of management and overhead costs that would have the average accountant on Prozac in a week. That is indeed a problem for which there is no easy answer. I think the state BOE knows this and there’s plenty of impetus to get charters up and running in places where they’re needed without the extra burden of the state commission. I’m just not convinced that is going to do anything but create more hassle at the state level and more funding problems than we already have, depending on how many charters are granted and how fast they do it. It sounds like they want to get rolling quickly, which may be a mischaracterization, but it bears watching. And let’s face it, the whole issue of need for reform really hits the metro area and the larger cities like Macon and Albany hardest. If funding becomes an issue and more cuts are imposed, systems like mine that are improving and doing the job could end up suffering big time for a problem created in districts with which we have no connection, and that worries me. I’d like to see some sort of targeted response to those districts, and that is a challenging process I know.
I so like the idea of a bond or legal consequences. That is something the legislature could easily do that would cost little and push some change. But it always comes back to parent involvement both in the school and the voting booth. You do have the metro systems beat on that, and I hope the results show that more clearly over time. I just think now is not the time for the state to jump into this. If it works out that the state BOE won’t approve charters (and they seem to have been pretty fair about it so far if I’m understanding correctly), then maybe we’d need another structure in place for that.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
6:08 pm
@ LD – 2 things…
1. I agree with your reasoning about charters within districts. You should know that currently, START UP charters are funded at about 26% less than the district schools/students (and sometimes the disparity is even wider). That’s the reality of it. Plus, the districts keep 3% of the charter’s overall revenue for “administrative purposes.” How do you propose to provide equity?
2. With the new Commission being proposed, the districts will not lose any local funds at all (it is prohibited in HB 797). Not one dime. The state charters will earn their state funds and be provided a supplement from the NON K-12 portion of the state budget (so the districts’ state funds are also not being impacted negatively). The total amount the charters will earn will be, as the Governor’s office confirmed, about 66% of what a traditional public school student would earn. It sounds as if you actually should agree with the Charter Amendment since the locals are not losing any local funds at all.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
6:39 pm
@ Ron – You have me smiling.
I want to make sure you understand that the Commission will not cost MORE for the taxpayers, rather, less. I’m hoping just their “presence” will incentivize districts to be fair, but IF the Commission has to approve quality charters, then…
1. Those charters will be operating on 66%, so that is an overall savings to tax payers for educating those kids (and they have accountability for that 66%, too).
2. The past Commission was the only authorizer that REDUCED its authorizing fees down from 3% (since then, I think APS has, but not at the time). That means the Commission operated more efficiently and more dollars got into the classrooms at the charters.
3. Keep in mind that the Commission itself is an unpaid position. The staff, however, would be paid out of that “up to” 3%, which is no different (and as noted in #2), likely less than if the charter ended up authorized in the local district. Consider that district boards are paid. That, too, is a savings, or at the least, not an added cost.
You have to realize that this is not an “added layer.” This body existed before and was no more burdensome than the state department doing the review and recommendation to the SBOE (and districts aren’t supposedly bothered by that). It actually provides some objectivity as well.
LarryMajor
August 16th, 2012
7:46 pm
@CS2, I see you’re quite busy, but I just want to clarify a couple points.
The Commission did not deduct funds for students GCPS no longer educated; it deducted funding from kids who were enrolled in GCPS and gave it to Ivy Prep.
You shouldn’t believe I would argue any system should get state funding for kids they don’t teach because my position is the exact opposite. It was the Commission that took funding earned by kids enrolled in GCPS and gave it to Ivy Prep. I still have all the legal documents, if you’d like to review them.
No, this was positively NOT carefully crafted to avoid funding concerns, it was originally written to STOP the money from following the child, as you phrased it. I also have the original wording before it was changed, if you’d like to review it.
The “pure fiction” is this non-existent court order, but feel free to post a copy of it. Although I’m not sure why you think I’m afraid of it, the state’s authority to create special schools in already in our constitution. What Tony Roberts basically said was the constitution can be declared unconstitutional because it violates itself. There are no functioning minds, legal or otherwise, that would take this statement as anything but nonsense.
Finally, you have evidently assumed I am voting against this. You can’t possibly know how I’m going to vote because I have not yet decided. My fierce opposition to this Resolution was specifically directed at the original funding language which no longer exists.
You evidently assumed I am still opposing this amendment because I am correctly stating facts – and THAT CS2, is something you should really think about.
CharterStarter, Too
August 16th, 2012
8:47 pm
@ Larry – no….if those students had attended GCPS, those funds would have been dispersed amongst all of the students. If the proportionate share had NOT been deducted, the districts would have had the same amount of money divided by less kids (and thus yielded MORE.) I can understand this thinking, but never thought that should take precedence over ensuring every public school child was funded adequately. The kids were STILL being educated in Gwinnett County by a public school and they were held accountable for results. But that is all water under the bridge. Let’s agree to disagree on move on, as we’ve hashed and rehashed that for months.
I am unsure of what court order to which you refer. I am referring to Judge Nahmias’ comments in his dissenting opinion and the follow up by the AG on the challenges presented by the decision. The footnotes within the majority opinion seems to contradict the explicit language in the opinion as well. It’s truly a muddled mess. And frankly, I think the prosecution was just as surprised at the angle addressed in the decision as the charters were. I think everyone was executing a ruling on the funding alone.
The SBOE will have to not only uphold Commission decisions this time around, but approve their decisions (which, if you think of it, really puts the final authority in the hands of the state). If the districts do not dispute the state authorizing schools, then please explain why all of their opposition literature says the “state” rather than the Commission? I don’t quite understand their beef. And, what happens if they DO sue again?
And finally, why in the world should it matter if the voters affirm this or not? Wouldn’t this be the most Democratic manner in which to address the issue? In prior posts you always ask why the state schools didn’t request a local referendum for funding. Well now we are going to the voters directly on a matter, so why is this being challenged? Why shouldn’t the voters get a say so in this decision?
The 797 legislation was crafted to ensure that districts would NOT be funded less than the charters. That is exactly why the bottom 5 districts’ averages are used rather than the state average. Charter supporters WANT charters to go through their districts. It is better for both. If there was any way to assure that would happen, then we wouldn’t be in this predicament. If nothing else, the Commission will make a district think twice about denying a quality school. And it will also affirm denials for poor quality petitions.
You raise a very good point in your last paragraph, and one I will take to heart. Perhaps I’m a little gun shy and assume folks are either a “yea” or “nay” on the issue. You are right, some are still in consideration mode. I really hope voters will read carefully all facts for themselves and think. All kinds of inaccurate muck is floating around on the issue.
I always enjoy bantering with you. You have a keen mind that I very much appreciate (even when we disagree).
Concerned
August 16th, 2012
8:48 pm
Thank you Dr. Barge! What scares me is how deceptive the language is on what people who are not fully informed will be reading! Without the facts who does not support choice! But, as stated we already have that! This is about money and power! I will vote No! I intended to make sure my friend have the facts about this for profit agenda and how it will hurt communities and public schools!
Ron F.
August 16th, 2012
10:47 pm
Charter Starter: thanks for the patience and careful answers. While not convinced, I do like having the information to talk about around the table. The views I encounter are widely varied between yes and no, so I like having something to share on both sides and all in between. I’m still not convinced by the data mind you, but I’m keeping an open mind on charter schools in general. We’ll see…
While I can see the commission might be objective, we both know the legislature standing behind it isn’t. And they’ve created such an adversarial relationship with districts and education in general, that it’s starting to look like the battle of Atlanta lining up, only this time Sherman isn’t as well armed as he thinks. Unfortunately, no matter how positive the potential, right now it’s tainted by the bad image of government in general these days. Even as conservative as this state is, I don’t see a slam dunk coming on the vote as upset as so many are with our legislators. How sad that bitter politics has cast us all as educators is such an ugly light, regardless of how much we care. Whatever happens, if we run off the caring teachers and school leaders, nothing will work.
LarryMajor
August 17th, 2012
4:46 am
It’s important to be very clear on the Commission’s funding method because this funding mechanism is exactly what Jan Jones tried to write into our constitution with HR1162.
For brevity, I’m going to ignore things like individual T&E multipliers and the five mill deduction which has subsequently changed. Here is Ivy Prep’s QBE funding sheet (at the time the lawsuit was filed):
http://www.cpoga.org/img/allot_ivyprep_2010.pdf
The sixth line from the bottom – TOTAL STATE FUNDING ON THIS ALLOTMENT SHEET – is the QBE funding for these 306 kids. This funding follows these kids to any public school in Georgia. Had these same 306 kids enrolled in Buford City Schools, then Buford would have received this million dollars. If they enrolled in GCPS, then GCPS would have received this million dollars. They enrolled in Ivy Prep, so this money went directly to Ivy Prep. The problem is two lines below, Charter Commission Local Revenue for $1.2 million. To see where this money came from and why it’s a problem, look at the GCPS QBE sheet for the same year:
http://www.cpoga.org/img/allot_gcps_2010.pdf
Look at the sixth line from the bottom in this sheet. That is the QBE funding for the 159,956 kids enrolled in GCPS. Again, look two lines down at the Charter Commission Local Revenue and you will find a deduction of $849,944. THIS is where the Commission got the “Local Revenue” amount to give to Ivy Prep – they took it away from kids enrolled in GCPS and the other plaintiff school systems. It’s not an opinion.
If you didn’t know Jan Jones tried to reinstate this funding structure, don’t feel bad; very few people did know. The original wording in HR1162 was:
“The state is authorized to expend funds for the support and maintenance of special schools in such amount and manner as may be provided by law, which may include, but not be limited to, adjusting the proportion of state funds with respect to the affected local school systems”
This “adjustment” isn’t referring to the million dollars Ivy Prep received in normal QBE funding because this money never belonged to anyone other than Ivy Prep. It is referring what was called “Charter Commission Local Revenue” on these sheets and it is clearly taking legitimate QBE funding away from the kids who earned it and giving it to another school.
Since they are now bragging about how local funds aren’t affected, I can understand why you thought this was their original intent, but as you can see, it wasn’t. The above funding language is what they tried to push through the House and the ONLY reason this wording was completely reversed is because they failed to get what they really wanted.
LarryMajor
August 17th, 2012
5:44 am
The “court order” was in reference to a statement Tony Roberts made:
“All opponents will have to do is go back to the court and say, ‘The state is in contempt of court,’ ‘They’re not following your directions,’ ‘They’re still violating the constitution,’” said Tony Roberts, president and chief executive officer of the Georgia Charter Schools Association.
Contempt of court is when a court order is violated – and there is NO court order. This is going to sound like hair splitting, but since Roberts is yet again causing confusion, it’s important to understand what happened.
The Supreme Court ruled the 2008 Georgia Charter Schools Commission Act unconstitutional and that’s the ONLY thing it did. This is a court “ruling.” A court “order” is a specific type of ruling that requires some entity to take, or not take, a specific action. This ruling did not include any court order.
The Commission was not ordered to disband; it disbanded because the law that created it was struck down. Nothing in this ruling can have any effect on the SBOE or the state’s authority to create schools because these things are not part of the law that was struck down.
Roberts used this scenario as a reason to vote for the amendment and it isn’t because it can’t possibly happen.
CharterStarter, Too
August 17th, 2012
8:35 am
@ Larry, while I understand why you believe the funds were calculated from GCSS’s QBE earnings because the deduction shows up there, actually, it wasn’t. It was placed on the allotment sheet for transparency and accounting purposes for the districts.
John Dunn did an Elluminate session in the early part 2010 for the Commission Schools. Here is how (on Dunn’s slideshow) he says the calculation was done. This applies to local tax equivalencies, equalization, and local fair share deductions:
The total (local revenue/equalization/local fair share) amount is divided by district students and charter school(s) students combined. The amount per pupil is then multiplied by the number of students in the charter school.
In other words, there is no tie to QBE earnings in the calculation. Although it shows up on the allotment sheet since technically they were reducing state funds, the net effect to the district’s overall budget would be a proportionate drop in (local) funds with the number of students leaving for a Commission school.
From a numbers perspective this is fair. I think everyone wanting a Commission realized that it wasn’t going to fly though, even if it was initially proposed. 797 really was a bi-partisan effort to come to an agreement. There were a lot of hot heads going into that initial discussion over 797, and they came to an amicable agreement in the end.
As for Tony Robert’s statements…he isn’t a lawyer. What is absolutely true is that the decision left a gray area that could be challenged in court. That is a fact pointed out by folks smarter than you and me on the law.
My point is that if everyone is “fine” with the state’s current role in authorizing charters, why would there be any concern about the voting public affirming this? Why such a fight from opponents of charters and/or the Commission about giving the voters a voice?
And as for your delineation between the Commission being struck down and the SBOE authority, they are both “state” appointed entities. The decision called into question the authority of the STATE in authorization (not just the Commission).
CharterStarter, Too
August 17th, 2012
8:53 am
@ Ron, I don’t think it’s the legislature that has created the adversarial relationship. Truly, I don’t. I think the “rub” is that districts have been over the last few years challenged, pushed to account for student achievement and how they spend their money. Those districts showing strong achievement and prudent fiscal stewardship have no reason to be upset at all, as they are doing their job. And in fact, these districts should be incensed with districts not meeting this same bar since it brings the whole system’s image down. Those districts not growing kids and who squander tax dollars are likely to be bristling and defensive…and we are seeing that. But like any bureaucracy, they band together to protect the whole rather marginalizing those bringing the whole system down.
The legislature has actually taken its Constitutional responsibility to provide an adequate public education to ALL Georgia students (through taxes) quite seriously. It is providing, through law, an avenue for students/parents who are “stuck” in poor performing schools or schools that don’t meet a child’s needs. They are providing, through law, a mechanism to ensure that public school students receive equitable funding – regardless of the size of the total tax dollars collected pie. Every public school child should have a piece of that pie, not just the ones educated through districts, especially in failing districts. Our kids deserve a fair shot.
Does no no one find it odd that districts, who are large and should have cost savings through economy of scale, are still hollering “not enough.” And our state charters, who are earning only 66% of what the districts are earning are making it work? Doesn’t that say ANYTHING? I keep saying this, but I’ll say it again, somebody needs to evaluate how districts are spending not just state dollars (since that’s pretty set in stone), but how they are spending LOCAL tax dollars as well. I believe “not enough” needs to be qualified by demonstrating that the whole amount of tax money used in the districts is being spent efficiently.
Gay Wiley Shook
August 20th, 2012
10:32 am
I applaud John Barge for his leadership in declaring the charter schools amendment should be defeated in November. I predict that Mr. Barge will be honored by all public school employees and parents who can see through this sorry scrim of vested interests. The folks who will get blasted with voters’ ire will be the good ol’ boys in the Legislature who thought this plum to the for-profit education management organizations was a good idea. (Can they have forgotten what happened to former Gov. Roy Barnes when he ran afoul of the teachers of this state?) This is NOT about charter schools, folks–it is all about control of tax money. Please don’t be fooled. We do not need an appointed state commission to overrule our local school boards over the approval of charter schools.