Now that

the governor's A+ Education Reform Act, HB 1187, has met

its first challenge and sailed through the Georgia House

of Representatives this past week, it is imperative that

citizens take a long, hard look at what this bill means

both to the state and to Fayette county.

I salute GOP House members

Kathy Cox and Lynn Westmoreland for standing firm and

voting NO to a bill which is sure to change the face of

public education in Georgia in ways that few have truly

realized, and before all is finished, fewer still may

applaud. We can only hope that the Georgia Senate will

amend HB 1187 to offset some of the likely pitfalls, and

that what was railroaded through the House will take a

more responsible pace in the Senate.

One of the hidden harms in

HB 1187 is in the provision for a reduction in

student-teacher ratios. While most agree that smaller

class size translates to greater classroom success, the

bill makes no provision for the additional classrooms.

In Fayette, where many

schools are already beyond capacity, and the school

system lacks the funds to construct new schools, where

will we fabricate the extra space?

When questioned about this

dilemma several weeks ago, the governor's office

suggested that districts partition classrooms and place

two teachers with up to 34 students. Now there's an idea

sure to wreak havoc on classroom instruction.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland,

representing portions of Fayette and Coweta counties,

expressed concern that the teacher to student ratio

mandate might restrict the use of paraprofessionals

because of a glitch in the funding equation which would

only count teachers, not parapros, in the reduction of

classroom size.

Those who volunteer in

local elementary schools know that placing a parapro with

a teacher in a relatively small class is a wonderfully

successful way to individualize academic instruction and

enhance learning. An added benefit is that parapros

provide one-on-one tutoring in an outstanding program of

early intervention for reading and/or math skills in

grades K-2 while their assigned class is engaged in

`specials,' such as music, technology, art, and P.E.

Greg Hecht, a Democrat and

one of Fayette's state senators, said that he, too,

"does not like the provision [in HB 1187] that might

limit paraprofessionals."

Another problem facing

larger, wealthier districts is the threat of a net loss

in funding due to changes in the funding formula.

Equalization, which

distributes money at a higher percentage to districts

with lesser tax digests to ensure that no child will be

deprived of a quality education by virtue of where he or

she lives, will probably result in lost revenue for

Fayette county.

Jim Stephens, Director of

Finance for the Fayette school system believes that the

reduction in the fiscal bottom line for Fayette between

equalization and recomputation of the local "fair

share" formula (which would have occurred anyway)

"could be substantial," though absolute figures

cannot yet be calculated.

Echoing Stephens' concern,

Westmoreland sought to clarify what HB 1187 would mean to

Fayette and Coweta counties in terms of funding, and was

told by the state Department of Education that Fayette

would lose around $20 million and Coweta $10 million.

However, a second call by Westmoreland to the Governor's

Office of Planning and Budget, projected a gain of

$900,000 for Fayette and $2.5 million for Coweta.

Westmoreland cited this

discrepancy as his "number one reason for voting

against HB 1187." He hopes to glean some actual

figures during the Senate debate of the bill.

State Superintendent of

Education Linda Schrenko was expected to hold a meeting

with superintendents of Georgia's school districts this

week to outline "what this is really going to cost

[each] school system," according to Stuart Bennett,

Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction in

Fayette, who laments that this bill seems to address

"everything but instructional issues."

Other critics are concerned

about the use of testing as the sole measure of

accountability.

While I agree that

nationally normed tests are an invaluable tool in gauging

the state's educational performance, we shouldn't have

the cart pulling the horse. Overemphasizing test

performance will create a climate of teaching to the

test. A great deal of instructional time will be spent

prepping children which may diminish teaching of core

subjects within a strictly academic context.

Furthermore, the

"reform" tests will be state commissioned tests

used only in Georgia. They will yield no comparative data

on how well our children are performing on a national

level. For this reason, we should maintain our use of

nationally normed tests, which will result in even more

time spent testing.

How serious is this

problem? Ask parents in other "reform" states.

Last week, an Oregon newspaper ran a story about parents

who were attempting to organize a statewide boycott of

their accountability tests to try to force the state to

back away from the performance (outcomes) mentality in

favor of a more instructional emphasis.

As I stated last week, I

have concerns over the battle to end teacher tenure, but

not for reasons most people might think. I admit, I find

it odd myself, as a "parent activist," to be

advocating tenure for teachers, but as I said then, this

bill makes for some strange alliances.

If it were any other time,

and not associated with such a sweeping (as in too much

hidden agenda being swept under the rug) reform bill, I

would probably have favored a more fair market approach

to job security, too.

I believe that ending

teacher tenure will have an overall negative result on

education in Georgia, one which outweighs any gain made

teacher.

In teaching, experience and

desire to impart knowledge to the next generation is

everything. Tying pay increases, and even the job itself,

to the performance of one's students sounds good in

theory, but in reality, there are far too many factors at

play.

Even the greatest of

teachers in a poverty-stricken district know that while

they might have the child for six or so hours a day, they

have no control over socioeconomic factors a child might

be facing away from school which may be hindering

learning.

The end result will be a

loss of teachers who are simply too burned out to carry

the load anymore. The loss of job security will cause

less to enter the field and more to leave after only

short stints. Georgia will see a higher rate of turnover

and thus lose one of the most valuable tools in the

educational arsenal - experience.

Even more alarming is the

thought that Georgia teachers might turn to the National

Educators Association (NEA) for unionization and

collectively bargained contracts. Then we'll have a real

crisis in education.

I think that Gov. Barnes'

whole tenure debacle was nothing but a political ruse to

gain Republican votes and distract Georgians from the

real meat of yet another mass centralization of power

into his office.

Many would rather see an

amendment to provide vouchers to children and parents in

underperforming schools to be used for private schools or

higher performing public schools. This will be a big

argument in the Georgia Senate throughout the next week.

In a Sunday AJC article,

Drew Allbritten, Georgia Association of Educators (GAE)

executive director, was credited with saying that he

suspects that Gov. Barnes "sold out" teachers

to the business community to help his 2002 reelection.

And just what does the business community get in return?

A chance to train the future workforce to suit their own

corporate needs through a cheap labor pool of secondary

school level apprenticeships. Tell that to the 6000

people losing their jobs at Coca-Cola.

I have not even mentioned

concerns about politically motivated school councils and

state funding for licensed nurses in all schools with no

clear definition of what "critical medical

services" will be encompassed.

According to the language

in HB 1187, that will be defined by the Department of

Education. In some reform states, similar funding has

been used to establish school-based clinics which then

bill Medicare for services to non-insured, low-income

children. In still others, state funded school clinics

have been used to dispense birth control and other

referrals without parental consent.

No one has indicated that

to be the case here, but then nothing was indicated at

all. I find that suspicious.

I believe that Georgia was

on the way to consistent improvement already under the

leadership of Linda Schrenko. Her emphasis on strong,

core academic skills, early intervention for emerging and

remedial readers, and making public comparisons of

individual schools and districts were making strides in

meeting the needs of Georgia's students.

Now we are facing top-down

management of our schools. Local control is being

alarmingly revoked, unconstitutionally so, many believe.

What Barnes has touted as a necessary shot in the arm may

be a shot in the foot.

Eight to 10 years from now,

will we still believe that this "looks good, sounds

good, pushes all the right buttons" bill was such a

great idea?

Let the spin begin.