Had you attended the House Education Committee meeting last week and listened to the debate around the charter school amendment, you might have been confused about what the proposed change to the state constitution would do.
At various points, the amendment was described as a simple effort to clarify the definition of a special school, put into question by the May 2010 state Supreme Court ruling declaring a state-created Charter Schools Commission illegal. Other times, the amendment was cast as a means to spur charter schools in underserved areas where school boards remain hostile to them.
That confusion probably wasn’t an accident.
And it was never even quite clear if the amendment did what its detractors allege, even after the sponsor modified the language to appease them: Does this amendment allow the state to channel local funds — through a complex sleight of hand that involves withholding state funds from local systems — to charter schools rejected by local boards?
The architect of the amendment vacillated over whether the amendment merely “affirmed what we have been doing for 14 years,” as state Rep. Jan Jones of Milton initially explained, or whether it created a legal route around local school boards to address what she called “their hard-line in approaching startup charter schools.”
Despite the contention of legislators that charter schools are stymied, Georgia had 35 seven years ago; it now has 119, according to the Department of Education.
Charter schools are public schools of choice that operate under the terms of a charter or contract that extend them flexibility from certain rules in exchange for raising student achievement. While the growth of charters in Georgia has not been as rapid as some states, Georgia has not had the failure rate of other states, perhaps because the applicants here are more carefully vetted.
A lesson I’ve learned from the dozens of constitutional amendments that the General Assembly has put on the ballots over the years: The more innocuous and innocent the language, the more complicated and costly the consequence.
Some education leaders warn that this proposed amendment, despite its benign language, will also be costly.
“Despite the smoke screens, this is not about naming an alternate authorizer for startup charters; it is about tapping into local funds without the local board having approved the charter school,” said Tim Callahan of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators. “It is not about choice, but who pays for the choices of others.”
Callahan argues that current law — which allows charter school applicants to petition the state board — is sufficient if the goal is to create more charter schools rather than commandeer local dollars.
“If this were really about alternate authorizers needed to overcome recalcitrant local school boards, current law seems to be just fine,” he said. “The remedy for Luddite local boards is an appeal to the state board. I think there is at least an imperfect balancing of interests here that does not run roughshod over either local boards or the constitution.”
The constitutional amendment could essentially allow the state to create its own parallel k-12 system, drawing on the same limited pool of tax funds. It would end the historic framework of public education as locally controlled.
Supporters argue that local control has not yielded a quality education system. But there’s no evidence that an explosion of charter schools is the antidote, given the proverbial mixed results of charter schools nationwide. The only proven path to improving schools is a larger investment in teacher quality and teacher training.
If the House and Senate approve this constitutional amendment by the necessary margins, the question may be one of the most important facing voters in November.
It is likely many of them will not understand the full implications of what’s being sought. And it won’t be because they can’t read. It will be because they can’t read between the lines.
About the Author
