Education law expert: Language of charter schools amendment lesson in subversion
Attorney Thomas Cox represented Atlanta and DeKalb schools in the lawsuit that led to the abolition of the state-run charter schools commission. That 2011 legal victory by school systems prompted the current campaign to change the Georgia Constitution so the state can recreate the commission and go back to approving charters over the objections of local boards of education.
A public school parent, Cox is a Harvard Law School grad who specializes in education law and policy. He is a co-founder of the Atlanta “Faithful Lawyers,” an inter-faith group that has co-sponsored continuing legal education seminars at Emory Law School, addressing issues of faith and the practice of law.
In this essay, Cox takes on the language in the charter schools amendment, which, like every other constitutional amendment on the ballot, is written to be as platitudinous as possible and provide as little detail as possible.
(That’s one reason why so many tax breaks get approved by voters in Georgia. The ballot questions are written in such congenial and broad terms that voting “No” seems the moral equivalent of pushing grandma down the stairs or running over your neighbor’s pug.)
But this amendment may go further than most in its lack of detail and honesty, according to Cox.
By Thomas A. Cox
The advocates, both in and outside the General Assembly, supporting the Charter School Constitutional Amendment have expressed confidence that Georgia citizens support the creation of a new politically appointed state-level body with the power to overrule decisions of locally elected school boards and create charter schools. It is unfortunate for Georgia voters (and the democratic process) that their confidence has not extended so far as to allow the actual issue to be placed fairly and honestly before the voters on the November ballot.
The ballot question states: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?” This question bears virtually no resemblance to the contents of the proposed constitutional amendment itself. For at least three reasons, the ballot question is both inaccurate and misleading:
First, local school boards already have, and regularly exercise, the constitutional authority to approve local charter schools, and there are now well over 100 such locally approved schools operating in the state. The only plausible reason to have inserted the words “local approval” in the ballot measure is to confuse some voters into believing that, without this amendment, charter schools cannot be locally approved.
Second, the ballot measure’s language stating that these new charter schools can be approved “upon the request of local communities” implies that, before the state can approve a new charter school, there must be a demand by a significant segment (perhaps even a majority) of the residents of a “local community.” A reasonable voter would probably conclude that a community consists of residents of a local school district, or at least persons living in the targeted school attendance area.
Yet the actual language of the Amendment would permit the new appointed commission to conclude, in effect, that a single individual may request a charter, and thus presumably constitutes a “local community.” For example, under the Amendment, an executive of a charter management company, or a real estate developer seeking to profit from approval of a school to cater to residents of his planned gated community, could seek and obtain charter approval, even in the face of overwhelming opposition from local residents, voters and the elected local school board.
Third, the ballot measure is deceptive because of what it omits. What will constitute “state approval” of a charter under the Amendment will not be the approval of any elected state officials, the voters of the state, or even the State Department of Education. Instead, it will be the approval of a politically appointed commission, answerable and accountable to no one (except, perhaps indirectly, to the politicians who appoint them).
Apparently concerned that even this ballot measure language drafted by the General Assembly might not alone lure sufficient numbers of uninformed voters into casting “Yes” votes, the Governor (acting along with the Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House, who make up the Constitutional Amendment Publication Board) chose to add even more deceptive “preamble” language, which states that the Amendment “[p]rovides for improving student achievement and parental involvement through more public charter school options.”
Under Georgia law, the only purpose of a preamble is to serve as “a short title or heading” that describes to voters “the substance of the proposal.” Yet nothing in the substance of the actual Amendment requires, or even mentions, either improved student achievement or parental involvement. By placing on the ballot a preamble that fails to serve its only legitimate statutory purpose, but instead recites positively charged buzzwords (who, after all, could vote against “improving student achievement” or “parental involvement”?), the Publication Board has failed the citizens of the state and has helped subvert what should be the most open and serious of processes — asking voters to decide whether to amend our state’s constitution.
It is certainly possible that a majority of Georgia voters agrees that the constitution should be amended to grant a group of unelected political appointees the authority to overturn or ignore decisions of locally elected school boards and to approve new charter schools. Because the Amendment drafters are unwilling to put this issue squarely and honestly before the voters, we are unlikely ever to know.
–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
97 comments Add your comment
DeKalb Inside Out
October 8th, 2012
2:49 pm
Shar,
Given the Georgia Supreme Court decision last year, I don’t think these local charter petitions can appeal to the state DOE anymore. As far as I can tell, only “State Chartered Special School” can be authorized by the state. I can’t find any “State Chartered Schools” approved since the supreme court decision.
I believe the Charter School Amendment addresses the state’s constitutional right to authorize “State Chartered Schools”.
Lynn43
October 8th, 2012
3:02 pm
The State Board of Education just last Tuesday, October 2nd, issue 3 new charters and renewed 3 charters.
Burroughston Broch
October 8th, 2012
3:14 pm
The authors and supporters of the proposed amendment are not represented in this post – just an “education law & policy expert” with a vested interest in the status quo.
Everyone seems to have a vested interest – in the money and power side.
No one represents the students who have the most skin in the game.
ATL SB
October 8th, 2012
3:28 pm
@SHAR: You missed my point; those tax dollars are NOT going to help my son or others in similar circumstances. And I’m sorry if I’m too sensitive but I take offense at being labeled a “dupe”. I make educated informed decisions and try to look at all sides. I am decidedly biased in this instance, but if I was confronted with the same situations that I have heard from concerned parents who did resort to the charter school; my stance would be the same. Provide all parents with choices for our children to ensure they receive the best education. This cannot be done by the PS anytime soon and my child’s education is too vital to wait while people bicker over where the dollar should go and who is the least corrupt.
“Corrupt education management”. I don’t paint in as broad of strokes as you do. Nor do I base my decisions on individuals who blog their opinions; not facts. I didn’t intend to try to sway anyone’s vote with my comment; but to remind them that their are sides that are not being heard and rather than denounce what is offered; come up with a viable alternative.
I’ve heard more comments here than I did in 5 yrs of attending PTA meetings. It’s a shame the people who care the most about where their dollar goes are only able to make their voices heard on a blog.
@Lynn43: Unless you have a legitimite source you wish to name citing that children are being used; to whose benefit is it for you to make inflammatory remarks?
DeKalb Inside Out
October 8th, 2012
3:35 pm
Hi Lynn
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=1262&MID=25698
Those Charters are local start-up charters approved by their local boards. The Supreme Court ruling last year and this amendment is about charter schools denied by their local boards.
Academy for Advanced Studies Charter School – Board Item
It is recommended that the State Board of Education grant a charter for Academy for Advanced Studies Charter School, a grades 9-12 start-up charter school approved by Henry Board of Education
Savannah Classical Academy Charter School – Board Item
It is recommended that the State Board of Education grant a charter for Savannah Classical Academy Charter School, a grades K-12 start-up charter school approved by Savannah-Chatham Board of Education
Please let me know if you can find “State Chartered Schools” denied by their local board and approved by the State. Thanks!
Grizz
October 8th, 2012
4:01 pm
@Burroughston Broch
I DO have a vested interest in my public schools, even though our kids are grown and gone. As a taxpayer, I want some say over the operation and funding; as a homeowner, I know that good public schools support the value of my home. I have a grandson who’ll be starting school here in a few years so I do want him to be able to receive the same quality of education as his mom did. And, most of all, I want to have a say as a voter to be able to speak with my school board representative and the entire board if I choose, not some appointed board two levels removed from direct election and who are directly accountable to no one.
Lynn43
October 8th, 2012
4:54 pm
Dekalb Do you know of any charters presented to the State Board that have been denied by the State Board and were they denied by the state? Looks as if this amendment is not needed if local and state boards are approving these schools. Why do we need a million dollar agency to oversee charter schools. If a charter petition isn’t up to par, I guess we need a million dollar agency to approve it.
Burroughston Broch
October 8th, 2012
5:04 pm
I am in a similar situation with 11 grandkids, 5 of them in the public schools now and 4 graduated. I would prefer local control as well, and I want to be able to vote on elected representatives.
BUT, it is obvious that we have a problem with the public schools in general and school boards in particular. If all of the school boards and school system executives were doing a good job, there would be zero interest in charter schools. The facvt that there is so much interest in charter schools is indicative of the level of dissatisfaction.
I have tried talking with my school board members in DeKalb and it is a total waste of time and breath. They have a different agenda and, if they were all voted out tomorrow, DeKalb voters would replace them with a similar bunch. I am at my wit’s end and am ready for a better solution. The fact that the entrenched education bureaucracy in this state is fighting so hard is proof that it’s all about money and power.
Lynn43
October 8th, 2012
5:08 pm
Should have been “denied by the local school board”. I’ve had too many disruptions during the writing of this statement.
DeKalb Inside Out
October 8th, 2012
5:26 pm
Hi Lynn.
Before the Ga Supreme Court decision, charter schools could petition the state if they were denied locally like
http://www.gacharters.org/school-directory/young-men%E2%80%99s-leadership-academy-at-kirkwood/
Now, the state no longer has the authority to approve state charter schools like this. The Supreme Court said there must be a change in the constitution for the state to do that. That’s what the Charter School Amendment is addressing.
Million dollar agency … that’s pretty expensive. How do you come up with that figure?
Please let me know if I didn’t answer your questions.
Grizz
October 8th, 2012
5:41 pm
@Burroughston Broch
Well, I’m in Gwinnett and have been for almost 40 years. I’ve worked with the teachers, adminstrators, superintendents and board for most of that time. Doesn’t mean I’ve always agreed with them, but the point was that I had access and a vote which will not be the case if this amendment passes. They will not answer to you, me or any other voter. They are given an open checkbook regarding funding so it’s no surprise that much of the funding to support this measure is coming from for-profit companies. You wanna talk about money and power? There is nothing more that these companies want than an open, publically funded checkbook with virtually no oversight. This is a bell that, once rung, will be difficult, if not impossible, to unring. And you will pay, and pay and pay…. with no recourse. I agree that there are disfunctional boards and systems. The choice is not to walk away – it is to find people like yourself who want effective governance and will work their butts off to make it happen. Find them; work together and put in place something that works best for everyone.
Truth in Moderation
October 8th, 2012
6:07 pm
Hmmmmm. Why are the pro-public school people so worried about this amendment? Could it be that years of dumbing down the populace is now coming back to bite them? Have you no confidence in the public school educated voters’ ability to see through this fraudulent amendment that would further turn the Constitution on its head? Haven’t the students been carefully instructed in protecting their personal freedoms? Have they not been taught to be critical thinkers and to question anything in print? The wording really isn’t that tricky nor any worse than all other proposed amendments. Hint: Just read the first phrase, “Shall the Constitution be amended…” and it is clear that the answer should be “no.”
There is only one exception, “Shall the Constitution be amended to overturn compulsory school attendance?” Then the vote would be a resounding YES! After all, compelling a law abiding minor to do academic work for a set number of days and hours/day, violates the 13th Amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Compulsory education law also violates the First Amendment because all education has religious bias.
In summary, overturning the compulsory education law would solve all public school/charter school legal conflicts, since the schools would no longer exist.
MB
October 8th, 2012
7:11 pm
@DeKalb IO The Supreme Court decision said that the state could not take local funds to supplement state-approved charters, not that the Ga DOE could no longer approve state charters.
Current state law:
“Upon denial of a petition for a start-up charter school by a local board and upon application to the state board by the petitioner, the state board shall approve the charter of a start-up charter petitioner for a state chartered special school if the state board finds, after receiving input from the Charter Advisory Committee, that such petition meets the requirements set forth in Code Section 20-2-2063 and the provisions of this title, and is in the public interest.”
Look at everything the commission has to do, and consider the 3% fee (on $430 million plus) and do the math on how much it will cost. Do local districts get assistance in locating outside funding? The state charters will, per this legislation.
Vote NO to Amendment 1!!
MB
October 8th, 2012
7:16 pm
And this afternoon we hear that “taxpayers” are suing Fulton and Gwinnett for trying to educate the TAXPAYERS in their districts. How much of our tax money will be spent on this lawsuit, when Fulton (at least) just posted an FAQ on the website, noting that the Board has “not made a public statement” on the amendment. Can we counter-sue that group for the legal expenses? (I, too, am about to send a good deal of money in for my property taxes, and I don’t care to see them wasted on such.)
http://www.wabe.org/post/taxpayers-sue-school-districts-alleged-use-taxpayer-funds-campaign-against-amendment
bootney farnsworth
October 8th, 2012
7:25 pm
this idiotic amendment is from the pit of hell, right alongside the brains that proposed it.
MB
October 8th, 2012
7:28 pm
“In Fulton’s case they prepared a Frequently Asked Questions, which we think is a thinly veiled anti-propaganda material…” So they’re admitting that what the pro-amendment folks are putting out is propaganda??
Here is the Fulton FAQ on HR 1162; http://portal.fultonschools.org/News_Room/Pages/QAaboutHR1162.aspx
Goldfinger
October 8th, 2012
7:32 pm
@Grizz
Glad to see you are alive and kicking! LOL!
Burroughston Broch
October 8th, 2012
8:34 pm
@ pride and joy
Amen!
So much for the new AJC that portrays both sides of the story.
Goodforkids
October 8th, 2012
8:36 pm
@Pride and joy, If you followed the blog and the paper you would know they have been posting pro and con articles from a variety of folks.
I love teaching. I hate what it is becoming...
October 8th, 2012
8:36 pm
P&J,
Can you really find ANYONE, pro or con, who honestly can say the wording of this amendment proposal is “clear and honest”? Because it is NOT! I don’t care if you are for or against the idea of the Charter Amendment, there is NO reason, other than trying to mislead folks, that the wording should be so convoluted. I have had several friends ask me whether they should vote no or yes. They ALL were clear about whether they favored the amendment or not, but the were ALL puzzled by the wording. All six of them have college degrees and professional careers. If THEY find the wording confusing, imagine what others will think!
yuzeyurbrane
October 8th, 2012
8:53 pm
And the pro forces are showing their further disdain for the general public by twisting all sorts of arms to prevent State School Superintendent Barge, local school boards and public school teachers from voicing their opposition to the proposed Amendment while at the same time telling staff of publicly funded charter schools that it is both OK and that they should express opinions and otherwise organize in support of the Amendment. So Atty. Gen. Sam Olens is threatening Barge and local school boards and teachers with criminal prosecution if they share their expert views with the public. And today, Glenn Delk, a private attorney who has represented virtually every effort to destroy the public schools that has come along, filed a lawsuit attacking the Athens local school board for opposing the Amendment. The fleas come with the dog. That says more about what is really at stake than anything. And it also shows that private polls are showing that this C-Splost con is in danger of going the way of T-Splost, something causing early signs of desperation by this corrupt crowd.
Tony
October 8th, 2012
9:04 pm
From the misleading ballot question to the utter lack of evidence of the worth of charter schools, it is clear to me there is another agenda for this strong push by our politicians for this unnecessary amendment.
Here is an essay with multiple links regarding the charade. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/10/the-great-charter-charade.html?spref=tw
MB
October 8th, 2012
9:08 pm
Lest anyone believe the assertions of Pride & Joy and Burroughston Broch (another AKA for a troll, Maureen?) that the AJC doesn’t provide pro and con opinions on this amendment:
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/10/01/two-influental-house-members-urge-support-of-charter-amendment/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/09/24/charter-school-amendment-is-the-epitome-of-small-government/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/09/24/charter-school-amendment-is-the-epitome-of-small-government/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/08/14/gop-house-leader-to-state-school-chief-on-charter-stand-%E2%80%9Cwere-you-lying-then-or-are-you-lying-now%E2%80%9D/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/08/15/govenor-responds-to-school-chiefs-strong-opposition-to-charter-amendment-on-nov-ballot/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/08/22/state-board-charter-committee-no-fireworks-but-a-few-sparks-today/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/08/17/war-of-words-escalates-in-charter-school-amendment-fray-between-barge-and-gop-leadership/
Lynn43
October 8th, 2012
9:13 pm
Dekalk, I think that MB answered your questions. ATL SB, I do have proof. A friend of mine got the call. It was a child (girl), and she heard an adult prompting the child. My friend has “no dog in this fight”, and therefore, had no reason to tell an untruth.
Tony
October 8th, 2012
9:25 pm
Thanks for posting the lawsuit info. What an outrageous set of claims. According to the details in his lawsuit, they have the opinion that all of the education associations are extensions of boards of education. If that is the case, the so is ALEC an extension of the states’ legislatures.
MB
October 8th, 2012
9:50 pm
Why would this group sue Fulton, rather than Cobb or DeKalb, which are larger systems? Again, there have been no position statements by either the Board or the Super in Fulton.
Well, the cesspool is stinking even more…it looks like there may be some judge-shopping going on in this maneuver. The evidence mounts that the major (out-of-state) donors may be unhappy with news of actual critical thinking and questioning, and push-back, in the state of GA.
Seems to me that Deal has a lot to lose as well. You know it cost a pretty penny to get him to that Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce meeting to promote Amendment 1. From this piece, it seems that he should be expected to “reimburse the public treasury for any actual violations.” If the suit “cites state officials giving public speeches opposing the amendment,” then state officials giving public speeches supporting the amendment should have the same penalties, yes?
(He can pay out of pocket for the state patrol, security, staff salaries, etc., for all those meetings he attended to promote Amendment 1’s passage.)
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/de30a3e16d2941ddb68cc02a86b2155d/GA–School-Boards-Lawsuit-1st-Ld-Writethru
MB
October 8th, 2012
9:57 pm
“Superior Court Judge Wendy Shoob has scheduled a hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction for Wednesday at 2 p.m. An injunction is granted in cases where a judge believes the party seeking the order has a reasonable chance to win the case.
Shoob has been involved in the charter school debate already. The state previously had a charter commission like the one contemplated under the November amendment. Opponents sued, arguing that the state constitution limits the state’s power to grant independent charters. Shoob sided with the state, ruling that the General Assembly was within its powers to create the body. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed Shoob in a 4-3 ruling.
That led Gov. Nathan Deal and others to push the amendment that voters will settle next month.”
If Judge Shoob is savvy, this will be kicked out BECAUSE they filed it in her court and Fulton School System is not guilty of politicizing the issue. If the injunction is granted, I hope it is appealed with immediacy, overturned by Friday, and a judicial investigation initiated.
MB
October 8th, 2012
10:01 pm
@Maureen, Can you investigate this lawsuit? (And maybe what a ridiculous waste of resources responding to it will entail?I hope this is on the front page – at least of the Metro section – tomorrow. (Both the opinion on the wording and the fact that a hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday.
Early voting begins on Monday (in Fulton, at least), so this issue needs to be front and center before those voters respond to the manipulative wording.
Thanks!
MB
October 8th, 2012
10:23 pm
Tony: Amen and amen! Someone the other day was saying that RESAs were exactly the same as the Grace Institute (Fulton Science pseudo-non-profit). There is definitely some visitation from alternate universes on this blog.
As you note, but others may not know, the WABE story contains a link to the actual lawsuit filed. (See my 7:16 post) Didn’t you love the part about “the Education Empire” and “requiring Defendants to distribute immediately factual material prepared by Plaintiffs?” And exactly who would determine the “facts?” And the funding to prepare and distribute the “factual material” would be from…?
Disgusting!
MB
October 8th, 2012
10:30 pm
Brane – Is there new polling data out? I am hoping people are waking up on this one and asking (GOOD) questions!
yuzeyurbrane
October 8th, 2012
11:55 pm
MB–I wish I could say there are published polls showing opposition to C-Splost but my statement was just based on deductive reasoning. We know the other side has lots more cash and is likely doing its own private polling. And their recent strong-arm tactics would not have been exerted if they thought they were coasting to victory. So, it stands to reason that something is making them take extreme anti-free speech measures. My own view is that it is what they are reading in their own private polls which probably reflect the overwhelming opinion of the blogosphere that the public is catching on to the scam and deception.
Grizz
October 9th, 2012
7:07 am
h/t to MB:
“Superior Court Judge Wendy Shoob has scheduled a hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction for Wednesday at 2 p.m. An injunction is granted in cases where a judge believes the party seeking the order has a reasonable chance to win the case.”
BINGO! I was in her courtroom for that trial, listened to both sides and was astounded that she could have a decision within minutes of the final argument. IMO, that was a prime example of a kangaroo court in action.
For those who might wonder why elected Republicans and/or supporters of this amendment are willing to spend monies on what appears to be a frivilous lawsuit, the answer is to change the narrative in the weeks before the election. That is, let’s not talk about the ramifications of this law, let’s talk about the possible wrongdoing of school boards and teachers, pass the law and then, months later, watch the case crumble. But, by then, the damage will already have been done.
DeKalb Inside Out
October 9th, 2012
7:27 am
MB … thanks for the data! I may not be able to get to it until Wednesday.
jw
October 9th, 2012
9:13 am
This will allow Muslims to start schools with no local voice.
Bryan Preston
October 9th, 2012
11:08 am
Follow the money: sure are a lot of lawyers and out of state corporations funding the campaign to pass Amendment 1.
http://media.ethics.ga.gov/search/Campaign/Campaign_ByContributions_RFR.aspx?NameID=17639&FilerID=NC2012000048&CDRID=68943&Name=Families%20for%20Better%20Public%20Schools%20&Year=2012&Report=75%20days%20Before%20Date%20of%20Election%20-%20Ballot%20-%2011/6/2012
Cassandra Gill
October 9th, 2012
11:56 am
Did either Downey or Cox actually read the bill? Because I just did (its very short and simple) and what he wrote was far more opaque and confusing than the actual bill itself.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20112012/HR/1162
Why are people wanting to maintain the status quo of our current education system? Charter schools allow local communities to bypass antiquated and broken systems and regulations in order to address CURRENT needs. So you want local boards to be able to say NIMBY?
Maureen Downey
October 9th, 2012
12:07 pm
@Cassandra, Read the bill and went to all the hearings. Maureen
DeKalb Inside Out
October 9th, 2012
12:20 pm
Hey MB
Where in OCGA is that law you cited?
Any idea how Barge came up with that $430M everybody keeps throwing around?
DeKalb Inside Out
October 9th, 2012
12:56 pm
MB … one more question. The “3% fee” thing. I’m having a hard time finding out what that is. I did see where the commission ran on about $200K+ annually over the last couple of years.
Let me know if you find any documentation on the 3% fee. I’ll keep digging myself.
alpharetta mom
October 9th, 2012
1:20 pm
Dekalb – the current law is OCGA 20-2-2064.1. Note reference to yet another 9 person appointed committee – the Charter Advisory Committee. How many appointted committees do we need? There is no evidence that this will be challenged in the future. So – the voters are expected to provide charter school operators “life insurance” just in case it is challenged in the future? That is what this constitutional amendment is all about. Stinks to me. It’s all about money – Charter Schools USA has alot to invest and they want to come to Georgia (with all the millions wealthy chinese immigrants are giving them under the EB5 visa program). They’re not going to buy property unless their investment is legally rock solid. Not my problem. Let’s not sell our public schools to them!
MB
October 9th, 2012
11:20 pm
Alpha mom, Thanks for updating.
@ DeKalb I/O The 3% fee is in HB 797 20-2-2089 (b) – see line 312 http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/127650.pdf
The $430 million calculation was explained originally, I believe, in Dr. Barge’s position statement on the DOE website. (Sorry, the bullies got that removed, so can’t refer you there any more. Because of course who would want actual data, right?) From what I remember, it was based on the funding of commission schools in its 1st iteration, with a (conservative, IMHO) estimate that the commission would approve seven state special charters per year as in the past.
An interesting conversation this evening with someone from rural Georgia brought up a new, disturbing possibility. If the segregation private schools decided to close and the staff and parents applied for charter status, we could be faced with “separate but equal,” take two. State funded re-segregation – unintended consequence, or part of a plan?
DeKalb Inside Out
October 10th, 2012
11:31 am
Hey MB,
I’ve been trying to spend my spare time researching the specifics of those data points. I may not be able to focus on this until next. Anyway, I keep coming back to Nancy Jester’s Charter School Referendum Facts. She’s an advocate for the amendment, but her data is usually accurate. Let me know what you think.
http://www.nancyjester.com/charterschoolreferendumfacts.aspx
The previous charter commission operated on an amount equal to 2% of state charter schools’ funding (state law caps it at 3%).
The constitutional amendment on the November ballot would provide Georgia with the same ability to authorize state charter schools that it had exercised for the previous 11 years. The Georgia Supreme Court sharply limited that ability and jeopardized it going forward in a 4-3 decision in 2011.
Amy H.
October 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/versions/hr1162_HR_1162_CSFA_7.htm
DeKalb Inside Out
October 10th, 2012
3:35 pm
Alpharetta Mom,
current law is OCGA 20-2-2064.1 …. thanks!
DeKalb Inside Out
October 10th, 2012
4:49 pm
MB and Mary Elizabeth,
Please correct me if I’m wrong in any of this … heavens knows I’ve gone round and round trying to figure it out …
Supporting Documents
Majority Opinion: http://scogblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gwinnett-county-v-cox-majority-opinion.pdf
Nahmias’ Dissent: http://scogblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gwinnett-county-v-cox-nahmias-dissent.pdf
The Ga Supreme Court majority report says the 1877 Constitution of Georgia granted local boards of education the exclusive right to establish and maintain K-12 education. The state cannot therefore establish competing State-created general k-12 schools. Nahmias talks about funding in his dissent, but the court is clear that counties have exclusive rights to establish K-12 education except in “Special Schools” like schools for the blind.
There were 8 schools in the process of being commissioned when this ruling came out, Odyssey School was one of them. Barge recommended they be approved and Deal worked out funding. Since then, no other state charter schools have been commissioned.
What are your thoughts?
concerned_parent
October 11th, 2012
7:19 am
As much as I hate any “appointed committee” with little accountability, my understanding is that the local education boards have blocked the formation of charter schools unjustly, which is why a committee at the state level is needed for appeals. Is it perfect? of course not. But as a parent who has been stuck in a bad school, I welcome as many options as possible.
Yes, there are 100 charter schools currently operating in the state, but precious few have been granted in the last few years. My children have attended both public and public-charter schools in Georgia and the charter schools tend to be better – because parents have to actually DO something to put their kids in there, it creates a more involved community. The charter schools are not allowed to discriminate on admissions, so contrary to concerns of segregation, I believe it gives under-served communities more options to escape failing schools. If you have never had to petition to have your child transferred from your home school, you cannot appreciate the degree to which we are prisoners in the system.
DeKalb Inside Out
October 12th, 2012
7:37 pm
O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2064.1 says
Upon denial of a petition for a start-up charter school by a local board and upon application to the state board by the petitioner, the state board shall approve the charter of a start-up charter petitioner for a state chartered special school
20-2-2064.1 was not thrown out in the 2011 decision. The 2011 decision also said
“State chartered special schools” established under the Charter Schools Act of 1998, OCGA § 20-2-2060 et seq., are not in issue in this appeal and we intimate no opinion as to their status under the 1983 Georgia Constitution.
They are just saying the 2011 majority opinion’s definition of “State chartered special schools” can’t be used in other court cases. They are not saying their definition isn’t accurate.
“State chartered special schools” have always and will always be special schools like schools for the blind. The 1877 Constitution of Georgia granted local boards of education the exclusive right to establish and maintain K-12 education.
Please let me know if I am interpreting this incorrectly. Thanks!