Legendary commentator Paul Harvey always spoke of “the rest of the story.” Get the rest, he told his millions of listeners, and you get the whole story.
The whole story has proven hard to get on the current charter schools bill.
The issue is simple: Should Georgia voters be asked to approve a constitutional change this November?
That change would result in the revival of a now-defunct, Atlanta-based commission of political appointees empowered to approve charter schools in local communities without the approval of local boards of education.
If I may, let me relate to you the version of that legislation as it is being told by those who favor a constitutional amendment. Then I would like to follow that with the very essential “rest of the story.”
Story line No. 1: “This is just an Atlanta issue.”
Not so. Before the state Supreme Court put a stop to it in a unanimous ruling last spring, “commission charter schools” were formed all over Georgia. They were set up without the advice or approval of the local school board.
Story line No. 2: “This is not about local control.”
The Boston Tea Party was not about tea either. It was about taxation. Setting up school through a faceless commission in Atlanta without the approval of the local school board elected by the voters is just plain taxation without representation.
Story line No. 3: “This is not about money.”
According to the bill, that’s right, it’s not about money. All references to funding were wiped out of the bill when it was revised after an initial defeat in the House of Representatives.
One reason is that money for local schools has been dropping as a result of the economic crash of 2008. It would drop further if the Atlanta-based commission plan were put in place.
Some leaders of the House claim there will be no attempt to divert local funds to commissioned charter schools, though they stop short of putting that pledge in writing.
But charter schools cannot operate on state funds only. Most charter schools state: “We cannot operate only on state QBE funds.” (The state has even thrown an extra $17 million in state funds to them to support them over the next two years.)
This whole matter puts the sons and daughters of Georgia in a box. We can write up a formula that takes money away from local districts or write up a formula that gives charter schools more state money per pupil than their traditional school counterparts.
Whichever, the commission would create automatic inequity for Georgia schoolchildren.
Besides, outside management companies are often brought in to run charter schools. This third-party involvement not only diverts money from local boards, but it also raises serious questions of accountability. Voters are left outside looking in on a multi-layered operation of public and private entities.
Story line No. 4: “A state-level commission is needed to ensure that more charter schools are created.”
The website of our own Georgia Department of Education lists over seven pages of charter schools in Georgia, more than 150 of them, all told. That includes start-ups, conversion of existing institutions to charters, and whole systems of nothing but charter schools. The charter school movement in Georgia is clearly flourishing.
Story Line No. 5: “This amendment is needed to ‘clarify the state’s role in setting education policy.’”
Without the amendment, the argument goes, it is not clear that the state can actually run schools. No, the state’s role is still what it was: a partner with local boards in educating Georgia’s boys and girls.
Story line No. 6: “Charter schools are good for Georgia.”
On this, we agree. But only if they’re set up and operated with the approval and support of local school boards elected by the people.
Herbert W. Garrett, executive director
Georgia School Superintendents Association
Atlanta, Ga.
