Get Schooled

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 13, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

I think, what I have heard about the rural school funding is true and is definitely worth going to battle. Poor school district suffers, while they have to maintain the same standards as a more affluent community.

I saw a small south GA band perform two years ago - there were about 12 – 15 students on the field without Band Uniforms. The first thing that came to mind was embarrassment for them, but also the thought of the other “Truly Important” things their school could not afford. I have driven through small South GA towns on occasion and saw schools that I could not believe were still being used.

If I were a South GA parent, I would make this an election year topic.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

I’ll worry about these “poor” schools when they tax themselves at the same rate we do here in the metro areas, and use realistic property evaluations to compute taxe liabilities.

Till then? Happy trails to you.

By lynn d

June 13, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

Amazed

Please know that in many small, rural school systems in Georgia, the power structure is comprised of elites (at least by the local community standards) who have long since abandoned public education. It seems to me, at least, that these boards are primarily interested in keeping property taxes low — often the millage rate is set at the lowest permittable (by law) rate. So, in Gwinnett for example, you are paying far more taxes on a home worth the same amount as a home in Rural Georgia.

Also, we have far to many tiny school systems in Georgia. A system with one elementary school, one middle school and one high school should not have to have a bureacracy to run it. But they do. Several years ago, I heard of a very small system, that got rid of art and music in the elementary school to hire an assistant superintendent. Please.

Small systems should be required to consolidate or lose state funding. That is all there is to it.

By Jeff

June 13, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

lynn,

I’m moving to South GA, to a system where two counties’ MS and HS are already consolidated. But let me give you a more precise example:

The county I currently live in has 4 HS, 5MS, and SEVERAL ES. My county covers roughly 450 sq miles in area.

The copunty I am moving to is roughly the same size, area-wise. To get a system with a similar number of schools - which I would assume based on your post you still consider on the small side - one would have to consolidate roughly 6 counties in that area. Would you want YOUR children going to school in a system that comprised roughly 2400 square MILES???? (Hint: That is a bigger area than is covered by Cobb, Cherokee, Gwinnett, Fulton, Dekalb, and Henry counties COMBINED…)

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 13, 2006 08:02 PM | Link to this

Lynn,

I know first hand about small rural towns and the elite people who run things. I grew up in a small rural town. I know that the elite with hundreds of acres are responsible for some of the problems in rural communities. However, the vast majority of people in those communities do not own more than 1 or 2 acres and their income levels are much lower than Metro Atlanta.

I think Jeff pointed out the number one reason why consolidation would not work in some cases.

It would not hurt to think about a better system to fund education in this state, so that everyone can receive the same benefits.

But, from the attitudes of most people in this state - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

By Lee

June 13, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

Jim, the problem is that many of these rural communities do not have the tax base or sales tax base to adequately fund the many mandates coming down from Washington and Atlanta. As far as valuation, my 3 bed room home in rural Ga is worth about $130k. Move it to Buckhead, that same house will go for $500k.

Another example is that my school system built a new high school a few years back. The plan was to remodel the old high school and move the middle school into it. One problem, if you vacate a school for 12 months, you lose the grandfather clause and now the school has to be brought up to the DOE standards. The state also will not provide any funding for remodeling. It was going to cost more to remodel as it was to build a new middle school considering the state funding. End result, we have a usable school that is sitting empty and deteriorating.

But the biggest shame to all this is that money that should be going to education will now be lining the pockets of the lawyers.

By Lynn D

June 13, 2006 09:10 PM | Link to this

Oh, I absolutely think we have to rethink education funding in Georgia. And we should begin with unfunded mandates (when the government, state or federal, legislate something without paying for it.

I realize that there is immense poverty in many rural Georgia counties, but there still is under taxation. While we can’t expect all systems to equal the size of Metro Atlanta systems (in terms of number of students or schools), there is definetly room for some consoladation.

Keep in mind, that in the legislature, the rural counties actually have the majority. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Texas lawsuit, when finally settled, really hurt metro area (Dallas, et all) school systems. Parents in those systems are willing to pay for extras like foreign langauge and band. The Robin Hood effect was dramatic.

In Arizona, where education funding is largely from the state, parents have all kinds of choice. No longer are they confined to any one school district. Charter schools actually make up a district of their own.

I am including a reference to the latest happenings in Texas. I hope the link works.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/schoolfinance/stories/DN-taxplan_26tex.ART.State.Edition1.2289acad.html

By Karen Armsby

June 14, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Amazed, you are uninformed, and lynn d is right on target. Patti, maybe you can dig out some numbers on the State funding formulas. It is my understanding that the large ‘affluent’ metro Atlanta school districts send large sums of money to the State that in turn redistributes the wealth to rural school districts. The bosses in the rural counties long ago rolled back the millage rates on property taxes, because they get the money from the State to fund their schools. The truth is that the rural areas are led by ineffective leaders who have failed to attract and build businesses that can employ their residents and create some wealth that they can tax at a rate that will fund better schools. IMHO, they are lazy and we, the property owners in metro Atlanta, have been funding their schools for decades. Yes, I am for a new formula, one that lets the so called affluent school districts keep their own money, so that they can better serve their 100K student systems. The rural counties should develop a better model of schooling, one that doesn’t depend on spending money they don’t have. If ever there was an argument for homeshooling……

By jim d

June 14, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

So much for local control. Huh?

I fail to see a method of funding that wouldn’t strip even more control from local jurisdictions. Let’s say we give financial control to the state. Then what? The disparity in funding between states would come into play requiring the fed to assume control to create a truly level playing field.

Is that what we really want?

By jim d

June 14, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Let’s take it a step further.

What happens to property values in counties like Gwinnett that are noted for their schools? We pay the higher taxes to educate someones child in S.Ga. that is paying a fraction of what we are?

Herein lies the problem. We have placed a higher value on providing our children with an education and have elected to pay for this. People in other areas haven’t seen fit to do this so they want to rob from those of us that have in order that their children recieve the education we are voluntarilly providing ours.

C’mon folks, Be honest. If your child could recieve the same education they get in Gwinnett in another county with lower taxes where would you live? What incentive would exist for people to buy in Gwinnett and how would that affect property values?

I see some serious problems here.

By greene

June 14, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

The whole state of Georgia is being ripped off. The QBE (Quality Basic Education) formula that all school receive money for teachers, textbooks, library books, etc. has not been revised since 1986. Basically, ALL school are being funded on what things cost in 1986. Does anyone really think that a textbook costs $26 today. Parents with college age kids will tell you no. Another point to ponder. As I am watching Pres. Bush on TV, why does the federal government dictate almost all the school policies yet only provides money that only accounts for approx. 5% of education money for the state?

By Ernest

June 14, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Following up on Jim’s point, the same could be said about teachers salaries, since they make up about 90% of the budget. Metro area teachers make more money partly because the cost of living is higher thus counties may ‘supplement’ salaries for that reason. Could this also be an attempt to raise salaries in rural counties? If so, those counties could have a competitive advantage given the lower cost of living.

Some could rightfully say above is a stretch, but has ‘adequate funding’ been clearly defined? What would those monies specifically go to?

By jim d

June 14, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Greene,

We’re not required to comply with some regulations if we don’t take the money.

Perhaps someone should do the math other than our state gov.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 14, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Karen,

Are you saying that the vast majority of rural county residents own large acres of land, which benefits them greatly? I seriously doubt that a large number of hard working Christian\Republicans are trying to take anything from you and your family. LOL - That was a joke from a liberal.

Yes, taxes are low on property in rural communities. However, they usually pay a large some for consumer goods and other good that are sold in their communities. The average income in most rural communites is less than $35,000 a year. Yes, they could use SPLOST, but I seriously doubt it would bring in the tax dollars they need to get up to standard. If anything it would probably cripple the community. Many of those small towns are barely holding together. I guess it would benefit most of you if those towns became ghost towns and they all relocated to Metro Atlanta.

Yes, you are correct they do not attract big corporations. It’s not something they can easily compete with, when it comes to Metro Atlanta, the Airport and Education level - BIG Companies usually take these things into account when making a decision to build.

I don’t see Gwinnett giving too many BIG Corporations incentives to build here and I’m in Gwinnett. I think Gwinnett has BENEFITED from the BIG Incentives of being outside of ATLANTA. As Atlanta grew, so did Gwinnett. We do have a few BIG Corporations, but it’s the access to the Airport, Education Level and Other Corporate Business that has benefited our community.

By Karen Armsby

June 14, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

greene, why does we allow the federal government to have a say in local education? Let’s cut the beauracracy, top to bottom, federal and state control and restore control and money to local school systems. Good schools in a county will attract more businesses to grow the tax base and residents employed and able to pay the taxes to support the schools.

By SET

June 14, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

The issues discussed above are the same for most states.

My comment is that even when the rural vs urban conflict is settled we still have the conflict between liberals and conservatives that more money equals better education. Experience to date says that is not so. Basic education does not take a lot of money. Tax and spend liberals have jacked up the price of education to unreasonable levels while doing everything they can to create schools that can’t produce. Then they want more money to “cure” the cancer they’ve encouraged. Even the states are constantly legislating things that make public school operations more expensive.

The largest purveyor of this nonsense is Congress and the federal executive branch who have no constitutional authority to legislate K-12 education or any education beyond Military Academies and such. They do it anyway. The federal bench won’t stand up to them because education is “popular”. And the feds as a group are drunk with power and the further expansion of power.

Even if their mandates were funded they have no business making them.

It’s getting to the point that the private schools - and they are not perfectly efficient - are spending much less money on their kids. That’s wrong. In the information age you would expect it to be cheaper not more expensive to transmit info and educate - automation and all… Look at the increased productivity of the banking industry other “information” industries.

We can only print money for so long. I’m afraid the chickens will come home to roost in my lifetime. Be concious of inflation when you plan even for a few years now. The numbers I’m seeing “on the ground” are the largest I have ever lived under.

And no matter how broke they say they are, our rural schools in this state outproduce the urban schools.

By Karen Armsby

June 14, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Amazed, No, that is not what I said. I said the rural leaders (elected by the residents) have failed to attract and grow businesses that would adequately employ their residents, thereby enabling them to afford to pay a decent tax rate to build and maintain their schools. Not that long ago (25 years) Gwinnett was largely rural until its elected county commissioners went out and aggressively recruited businesses to locate in the county. Businesses grew, people moved to Gwinnett, the schools prospered, attracting more businesses, people, etc. Leadership is what I am talking about. If the State wants to help south GA schools they should help with business initiatives that will help those poor communities grow their economies, and not rely on handouts from the State. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish, and he can then feed his family and his community.

By jim d

June 14, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Education Funding solution for rural counties is quite simple.

Levy an alchol tax to fund education and you get all those closet drinking Baptists in S. Ga. :-)

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 14, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Another thing to think about,the Rural Elite, with big land and running the local towns. Most send their kids to their Private church/non church schools.

It’s the rural poor who attend those underfunded schools.

You might not need a lot of money to have great schools, but you do need a lot of money to (FIND, PAY and KEEP) adequate teachers to teach (Physics, French, Spanish, Advance Placement Classes, etc.)

Oh, I guess we should just keep those rural HICKS on the FARM. They will never LEARN French or Plan to GO to college. Better yet, let’s recycle our textbooks and send them to SOUTH GA. It will take them 10 years to catch up to what’s going on anyway. LOL

By jim d

June 14, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Karen,

You have omitted that the largest industry in Gwinnett is our school system.

This in itself speeks volumes on the value we have placed on education here.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 14, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Karen & Jim

Most of the people in Gwinnett, do not work in our county. I commute 22 miles oneway to my employer. The income level I earn, is hard to find in our relatively few BIG Industries in Gwinnett. The big traffic jam down 85, 316 and Highway 78 - is headed inside 285.

If we depended on employers in Gwinnett to employ all of our residents, we would look like South GA.

Yes, the elected officials should try to bring in Big Industries. However, they would need more than a few to make sure the economy stays BALANCED, if something should happen to one of those BIG Employers.

Our people are surrounded in a sea of success. Gwinnett would not become a Ghost town if Primerica, one of our Hospitals or if the Gwinnett Placed Mall closed.

You can’t throw a Kia plant in a small rural town and hope for the best. You might be able to throw Toyota in one, but they want more knowledge and know how.

By greene

June 14, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Karen, I agree we as a community should ask the questions is that 5% fed money worth the hassel? There should be more LOCAL control since the LOCALS are funding the majority of school funding since the state is shrinking their share which I believe is 30-35%. I encourage anyone to take a school finance class at one of our fine universities. It is a eye opening experience of who funds what and who has the power which right now is the federal government who happens to give the least.

By OldSchool

June 14, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

I don’t quite know what to make of all the above discussion. I live and teach in a very South Georgia county. We have 1 high school, 2 rural pre-K through 8 schools, 3 in-town elementary schools and one in-town middle school. The surrounding area is primarily farmland which is held NOT by a few big farmers but by many who lease their land to a few big farmers. There are a number of industries around here who employ a number of folks.

I teach in a lab with up-to-date software (AutoCAD Mech and Arch Desktop) and our computers are replaced in a systematic manner. The buildings themselves are 1950’s era that were remodeled in ‘96 when a science wing was added as was a new cafeteria. Our school serves as a hub for the community so folks down here take a very active role in several areas…locally funded mini and maxi grants, annual sponsorship of our band and theatre groups, and of course, athletics. My CTAE department has active advisory committees, the school has a great school council and very supportive parents group, and everyone goes to almost every sporting event (catflinging excepted…just kidding.)

Our test scores have been rising and more students are passing EOCT and GHSGT than ever but the best indicator (in my opinion) of any real success we have is that almost all of our graduates who qualify for HOPE, keep it.

And to that amazed indy woman, I know of a few teachers who send their kids to private schools but cannot think of a single administrator or school board member whose kids are anywhere but in OUR schools. Even the children of our superintendent and assistant superintendent are graduates of our rural public high school. We should never paint with too broad a brush.

Maybe the success of our schools ought to be measured not in test scores but in successful employment at least 5 years after graduation.

By Robert

June 14, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

On topic….

Martin is wasting our tax dollars with this law suit. The State of Georgia follows the same type of rules to distribute funding for school districts as other states.

And, IMHO, it makes sense. A school district with fewer students SHOULD require less funding compared to a district with more students. There are fewer books to buy, fewer buildings to build and maintain, fewer employees, etc. This is simple logic obviously lost to Martin.

Also, some of you wrote about how rural districts have a more difficult time attracting qualified teachers in certain areas. This is not an issue of pay - the pay scales between districts is practically the same (no real significant difference). The reason they have difficult time attracting teachers is due to the life style. Doesn’t it make sense that maybe those teachers don’t want to live in a rural area?

Matin will lose his law suit and waste our tax dollars fighting it…

By OldSchool

June 14, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

One thing more: about small bands and no uniforms… There have been bands that were newly formed or reformed after budget cuts. Old uniforms often got sold or were too worn out to continue to use. Until funds can be raised, students will often march in jeans and tee shirts. Most all funding for our band’s uniform is donated by our community or raised by the boosters. Even with good looking uniforms, we still march in jeans and tee shirts in a few local parades.

Price a uniform sometime. Wouldn’t you rather support music education in casual clothing than deny one kid the chance to perform because there are no uniforms? It should always be about the kids and the music.

By jim d

June 14, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Thanks Old School,

Glad to know there’s at least one school not wishing to rip off tax payers in other counties.

Robt. Did I misunderstand the suit? I was under the impression what Martin was talking about was per student spending. Not that I think it makes any difference because we all will agree that more money doesn’t necessarilly equate to a better education.

By Laf

June 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

rural counties sending their kids to the private schools. These people own the property so they control the money. Do you think they are going to support the local schools when they are sending their kids to the all white private schools. These people could give a hoot about the black and poor white kids. They are going to see to it that property taxes are kept to a minimum where they can pay their private school tution. This is primarily true throughout rural Georgia.

By Ernest

June 14, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Robert, you point is well taken regarding about some teachers (or for that matter, any person) preferring not to go to rural areas. I think you will agree that if the salaries were higher, it would increase the pool of candidates that would CONSIDER going to that school system. Still, this does not have anything to do with the quality of that teacher or instruction but having more choices should help.

Oldschool, you 11:44 post was right on time. Unfortunately, I know some school who put so much emphasis in their band, you wonder if the school day is the ‘extra’ activity until band practice. On the other hand, if boosters are willing to supplement base costs so they can have the extras, who can argue with that.

By lynn d

June 14, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Robert

Actually Martin might win the lawsuit. In many states, these lawsuits have been won.

The issue, actually is what is the state’s obligation to fund an “adequate” education. What is an adequate education has yet to be clearly defined?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 14, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

I’d like to know what school system “OLD SCHOOL” is referring too? Not all of South GA, falls into the poor category. If you could name the county seat, that would be appropriate.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 14, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

If Martin can get the right schools systems on his side, some right hear in Metro Atlanta, who are also failing to keep up with the federal requirements. He can win.. I think he needs to look for friends in Metro Atlanta, with a lot of failing schools/students.

The only thing he needs to do is find away to show his Metro Friends, with large number of failing students - what this law suite can do for them. Then make it a voting issue.

Yes, some might stand to loose money - but they may gain as well.

I don’t have a lot of confidence in South GA, but if they know how to make friends in the Metro Atlanta area - I can see them winning BIG.

By OldSchool

June 14, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Okay, Amazed and Laf, these blanket statements about the rural elite sending their kids to private schools is painting with that big old broad brush and I take exception to it…for the most part. Down here many of the moneyed folk in a neighboring county do indeed send their kids to a private school. In my county, the primary reason A FEW do the same is actually athletics. A smaller school gives an athlete a greater chance at starting. My school is only about 1300 students but the player pool is much larger than the private school’s. It’s all about winning, isn’t it? That’s why we recently spent over $700,000 on stadium and fieldhouse expansion/improvements and have another $4 million going into a brand new gym (to replace our 1955 gym). This was the high school’s portion of our SPLOST (there are other improvements as well). Besides, many of those kids who left to play ball have come back for the variety of really good elective courses our public school offers.

An interesting point to go along with our SPLOST figures: not one dime has been spent on our vocational heavy shops. They remain in the same condition and with the same equipment as when they opened in 1974.

As for some of the other comments that have been made about rural areas: we enjoy a more laidback lifestyle, lower property taxes, fewer public services, more accountability by our local officials and school administrators, more accessibility to those same officials and administrators, short commutes, stress-free commutes, neighbors that we actually know and speak to and can count on, a first class volunteer fire department with dedicated volunteers who we know by first name, more parents who will jerk a knot in their kid’s tails when they screw up than won’t, and an outstanding public library. Imagine all that…and football.

By Jeff

June 14, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Old School,

How far apart are we gonna be when I move? I need to buy you a beer! (I think I already told you where I’m moving, but if not, feel free to hit me up @ ajc_jeff@yahoo.com)

By BlindHomer

June 14, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

The solution is to do away with State funding for local school systems. The state can fund the state board, but should not allocate anything to individual schools or school systems. If a particular county’s tax base and milage rate are insufficient to support quality education, that’s their problem. Education is not some entitlement program, each county should get what they pay for.

By HB

June 14, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

I have lived in or have family in many rural South GA counties, and I have to agree with OldSchool that the rural elite/private school scenario described is not all that common. I can think of 2 or 3 counties in west central GA where very wealthy owners of peach and pecan orchards hold a lot of power in the community and send their kids to private schools. Most counties I know of, though, including the two I grew up in and those surrounding them, are pretty much as OldSchool described. The public schools usually are academically superior to the private schools (segregation academies turned anti-evolution institutions). They are a source of pride for the community, and it would be extremely difficult for someone sending their kids to private school to be elected or appointed to the school board. Like OldSchool, I knew of 1 or 2 teachers with kids in private school, but NEVER an administrator — they’d be run out of town!

By Laf

June 14, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

We should just used an increased state sales tax to fund education and use the property tax to fund other things that are not related to education. Why should the property owners have to shoulder the burden any way. Use a sales tax and then everybody can help pay for the schools. I have been referring to rural southwest Georgia. Very few landowners promotes higher property taxes for funding the schools. Most of them are fussing about having to pay property taxes to support those 3x3#y1& in the public schools. You ever been quail hunting on some of those big plantations? Ask those
guys where they send their kids to school at? Tell them you want to increase their property taxes on that big plantation. Then you will know what its like to be a southwest Georgia quail. Lets eat watermelon in Cordele!!! on Friday!!!!!!

By mj

June 16, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Why are we focusing on a state level? Don’t south Georgia students, or for that matter our north Atlanta students, deserve the same quality of education that students are currently receiving in a states like Connecticut? Parents, students, and communities set their own standards for excellence and no amount of stolen money will ever compensate for what they are not striving for anyway. Exposing all students to knowledgable and capable teachers around the country using technology is fair and reasonable, but stealing money to put these teachers in every community is criminal, wasteful, and unreasonable.

By SFR

June 16, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Connecticut, when I was growing up in CT, back in the late 60s and 70s, we had one ES, one MS which was built when I was going to school there, and one HS which was shared with the neighboring town. Today, the exact same schools are still in that town; they have been built onto, but they have not been torn down, and schools have not been built willy-nilly all over the place “just cuz”. Nor are they designer schools, even though the houses up there are now going for the better part of a million dollars, for the most part (not that they were anywhere close to that when I lived there, heh heh).

To be fair to all, the school taxes need to be paid equally. Just because people around Atlanta make more doesn’t mean that we should have to pay huge school taxes to send a big chunk of them to people who pay a lesser percentage of their income on their school taxes than do we. Their tastes are not urban, they are rural, and that is a totally different mindset. They wouldn’t know what to do with fancy-dancy band uniforms, and most of them wouldn’t even care. They are not second class citizens, but they are not Buckhead-savvy, either. To make them such is doing them no favors, and to send them money to try to get them there is wasting our money and making them feel inferior and uncomfortable. What a bargain.

A lot of the towns down there are no larger than the town in which I grew up, and they could use the same schools that are used in that town. They are not fancy, but they are quite utilitarian, with all the perks that our Taj Mahals have, and they get the job done just as well if not better. They don’t have to be built at every street corner; a little ride in the mornings and afternoons won’t kill anyone and the great farming question doesn’t exist anymore.

A good dose of realism before acting is needed, but that requires thinking and we’re talking about government here. That would be an oxymoron, and we all know better than to expect those to really happen.

By Lisa B.

June 19, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Georgia teachers have the same state-based pay scale. However, each county decides whether or not to pay a supplement over and above the state-based pay. Some counties pay no supplements, while others pay quite a bit. Some rural counties in South Georgia pay no supplements, making it difficult to entice those hard-to-find teachers to move. The pay difference can be high. For example, a friend of mine who teaches in the metro area earns $18,000 per year more than I. We teach the same elementary level, have the same number of years of experience, and both have education specialist degrees. The cost of real estate is lower where I live, but many people would hesitate to take large pay cuts to teach in rural schools. Because of this, some high school kids end up with a substitute all year for subjects like chemistry. My high school only offers Spanish as a foreign language. Money makes a big difference.

By MMM

June 19, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Yes it is worth battling over!

There are so many mandates and required “state-wide accountablity standards” that local control is a joke anyway.

My husband grew up during desegregation and moved every couple of years between small towns in Florida. There were communities that created “segregation academies” and then abandoned any attempt to tax themselves or expect anything but failure from those poor enough to only afford the public school.
There were also communities that grugingly combined schools and most or all of the whites stayed. Those are the rural systems discribed by some of our earlier posters. The echo of the other type is the county where my sister-in-law lives. Everyone who “cares” about their kids future is expected to put their kids in the private academies. She faces the delemma of wanting a public education but since no one who “cares” has actually sent their kids to (or voted for a tax increase) in 30 years—all she would be doing is sacrificing her own kids along with the other poor ones without any reasonable expectation of making a difference.

We need a neutral place where those of goodwill and high expectations (of both races and all socio-economic status)can start anew.