My, isn't it nice to be a liberal democrat living in a snazzy Alpharetta home having the best schools in the state. And now you have your buddies at SCLC and the NAACP supporting you. Posh baby. But, most kids in Georgia don't have all of your left wing poshness. They don't have great schools. Most of Georgia doesn't. That's why we're number 47 in the US. Not a great place to be when you're looking for companies to move into the state. Not a great place to be when you want to build a technology community. Our local school systems have been underfunding schools for years. They mismanage their tax revenues so much they have to rely on state funds to pay the bills. Even so, the head of Gwinnett country schools makes over $400K per year. While Gwinnett does better than most counties in Georgia, it still have some terrible schools. Who pays the price? The kids. They don't have 10 years for us to vote out, maybe, the school board members and make changes. They have only NOW. There would be no need for this amendment to the constitution if the local school systems would allow competitive charters. But, they won't. If those schools are successful with the kids and parents, the local system's flaws become more evident. The people closest to the children are the parents. Charter schools don't spring from the state or even from the county. They spring from concerned parents. Let's listen to the parents and put schools where they work for the kids, not for >$400K bureaucrats.

Elizabeth,
Thank you for shining a spot light on this issue and for adding clarity to a very murky Amendment.

Rep Jan Jones, Governor Deal and company clearly prescribe to the “smoke and mirrors” style of policy making. How sad for us. The old adage “voters beware” will take on a whole new meaning in Georgia on November 6th.

Ms. Hooper brings up a number of excellent points that people--particularly in urban and suburban areas--should consider when deciding how to vote on the constitutional amendment issue.

We really don't have any idea from where the money will come for Commission-approved schools and the issue is being dodged by legislators who are pushing for the amendment's ratification.

And, it is true that for people moving into an urban/suburban area, one of the questions they ask is "how good are the public schools?". If people can select an area when buying a house or condo or even renting, they opt for one with better schools. Every realtor I know will tell you the same.

Voters should read HB 797 which is the enabling bill for the charter amendment, especially the section regarding charter schools with a state-wide attendance zone. This is NEW when compared to the powers of the old Charter School Commission.
Any charter application declaring such a zone would go directly to the Commission and local districts would have no input. The school would then be located wherever the applicant decides.

I'd imagine that "better" zip codes would be near the top of the list for charter schools managed by for-profits--especially ones like K12 Inc. and Charter Schools USA who have already donated a total of $150,000 to the pro-amendment campaign.

Oh, so if other areas have great schools, they'll look better and complete with "us". So, let's make sure "they" don't have great schools, even if those policies don't push us to be better. That's not good anywhere.

Let me explain to you what a "state wide attendance zone" is. It's a VIRTUAL SCHOOL". Online. Yes, they will have a "building" where the virtual school can be managed. But, students can be all over. A hybrid "home-school, traditional school, charter school". That building can deliver to the home things the students need. If that building is better, for logistics reasons, in Valdosta, it goes there. Dalton, it goes there.

Think about this scenario. A statewide charter opens in a district with failing schools. Now there is an "option" in that neighborhood but there is no guarantee that all the children will get to attend due to enrollment limits and lotteries. Your child still doesn't have an "option" and you are still stuck with a failing neighborhood school that the state has STILL done nothing about (except cut funding). Now property values are still in the tank even though you have a "good option" in the area. Great opportunity for developers (cheap land), not so great for everyone else including the local school district because their property tax revenues cannot support the school system. Get it yet?

I'll expand upon my point regarding a provision of HB 797:
A state-wide attendance zone will NOT be limited to only virtual schools if the constitutional amendment is accepted by voters in November.

The pertinent section of the Georgia Code will be O.C.G.A. 20-2-2084(c)(1):
"For petitions for state charter schools with a state-wide attendance zone, the petitioner shall submit such petition to the commission and concurrently to the local board of education in which the school is proposed to be located for information purposes; provided, however, that this shall not apply to a proposed state charter school which will solely provide virtual instruction."

The statutory language above indicates that the Commission will have authority over other state-wide attendance zone schools, not just "solely" virtual schools.

There is no definition for "state-wide" attendance zone in the enabling legislation, which means that the Legislature is NOT confining the Commission on this point.

It leaves the door wide-open for a charter school petitioner to declare a state-wide attendance zone and determine where the school will be placed.

The other type of school addresses is a multi-county school. But, I'm sure you knew that already. Remember, those granted charters can have them take away. Charters must prove the reason for the charter in detail, including the details of the state wide attendance zone. If they break away from what they said, their charter can be yanked. If your charter is yanked, you aren't funded.

Also, the commission will be staffed by BOE folks too. Charters aren't just handed out. Nor does the state want to have to manage schools. Look at Museum School in Dekalb. Approved by the State Commission. Successful. Now being absorbed by the Dekalb County School System. Some visionaries defined, launched and ran a successful school that Dekalb didn't want. The commission approved it. Later, Dekalb wanted it and they wanted to be there. The state didn't have anything to do with that move, just ensuring a good idea could be hatched. Sure, I know, it's easy to pick a winner after they've won. But, I'm glad they got to the finish line. Had the decision been Dekalb's, Museum would have never existed. Maybe you could say they are the Tim Tebow of schools. The knowledgeable ones said "abort". Mom said, I want to have it, let's do it. BAM, high school state championships, Heisman, 2 NCAA national championships, a new hospital in Davao, kids with cancer showing smiles. It's really easy to stop all plans. It's forward thinking to find ways to get new things online, for the better

Ms. Hooper, As usual, your information is tainted with inaccuracies, so I will address these points in 2 separate posts.

Regardless of whether or not the Governor supports this, parents and taxpayers do. There are more than 5000 students sitting on waiting lists in our state. That is more students than 118 of our 180 districts have (66%). There is DEMAND in our state for better. With Georgia's graduation rate at 67.4%, I'd say there is evidence of need for better. The state, including Mr. Deal, have a responsibility under the Constitution is to provide for an adequate education - adequate isn't only regarding funding, but also academic achievement and work or college readiness.

Part II

Here, again, is the law: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/797. Please refer to line 317 which states, "No deduction shall be made to any state funding which a local school system is otherwise authorized to receive pursuant to this chapter as a direct or consequence of the enrollment in a state charter school..." Traditional public schools WILL NOT LOSE FUNDING THEY EARN if a charter is authorized by the state.

So where do the funds come from? The state's budget is $19,341,669, 543. Education receives 53.4% of this budget. The funds for any state chartered schools will come from the NON K-12 portion of the budget. This money is not the school districts' and they would not have otherwise received it.

As for the legislature having the right to divvy up the state's budget...let me take you to our state's Constitution - Article III, Section IX, Appropriations, which clearly delineates the powers and responsibilities in government branches and assigns the role of appropriations to our General Assembly. We elect officials LOCALLY for this job. Are you saying that you don't believe our elected officials have the authority to establish the state's budget?

Mrs. Hooper, are you aware that the opponents tried to take away the public's right to vote on the amendment itself? It was the charter sector pushing for a public vote. You and the districts like "local control" as long as the districts hold that control rather than the people.

Ga Citizen - let's just talk common sense. A virtual school can, practically speaking, serve statewide. Do you honestly believe a child in Valdosta would travel to Fulton County to go to school and that it would make sense for a bricks and mortar school to actually serve the whole state? What you imply is simply absurd.

MP, thanks. Elizabeth, now that you know, you can pass this on to your followers. The money comes from the line item listed by MP. BAM. Now you know. Come on over to the conservative side, where school choice, lower costs of operation, high performance is key. It won't hurt your kids education at all. Competition probably won't affect your situation in North Fulton as North Fulton is doing well. But, those schools close by will be better. And Georgia will rise. As will our economic prospects.

Part 1 of 2

@ Ms. Hooper -

Yes, let's talk facts. First of all, the statute addresses statewide attendance zones and requires a petitioner to submit the petition to the commission and concurrently to the local board of education in which the school is proposed to be located. As I mention above - this option is for a virtual school, as a brick and mortar could not demonstrate the ability to serve a statewide attendance zone. I would think you would be astute enough to reason this out and to read it in the statute, but apparently not.

As for budget.... how is it the districts on one hand claim to be doing "fair" evaluations of charters and then in the next breath scream for a "budget" to fund schools they don't fairly authorize? Even Dr. Barge didn't trust the districts, as he assumed 7 per year would screw up. The long and the short of it is that there should be few if any more charters having to go to the state if the district does their job, and thus, the budget impact to the state is negligible. But if it happens that they must authorize a charter, it will NOT come from the K-12 budget as clearly laid out in the law. The legislature has every right to re-appropriate monies from another area of the state's budget to ensure, per their Constitutional obligation, that every child receives an adequate public education.

Part 2 of 2

One thing we can agree upon is that districts should have oversight of their authorizing practices. There should be recourse when they violate the public's trust by not giving charters a fair review.

Our state statute is very clear about the purpose...it says, "to raise student achievement." Why don't you share with the readers which other states' statutes you are referring and precisely what this language says that is so much better than the simple language laid out in our own statute?

As for pro-voucher folks pushing...."choice" is a broad term. Charters are on one end of that spectrum with public school choice and vouchers on the other. Not all charter supporters support vouchers, but I'd say most voucher supporters support charters since it falls in the realm of choice. Before you start talking privatization, you might want to do a little research...I have. Our public school districts have spent out the wazoo on for-profit arrangements, many in contracts that are clearly not in the best interest of the districts. Careful, Mrs. Hooper. That may be a can of worms you might like to keep closed.

According to the polls so far, Ms. Hooper, the charter sector seems to have quite a bit of credibility. We will continue to publish facts with links to those facts for the readers. And each time we do, it shows the glaring lies that you and others of your ilk in the Establishment perpetuate to protect the status quo and to marginalize children.

Ms. Hooper - Here is the link: http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb797.htm

Go to lines 158, 159, 166-185. I was clarifying the fact that it is unreasonable to expect that a charter that was not virtual could serve a statewide attendance zone. Defined attendance zones would require the charters to go through the local district.

Regarding state Commission making decisions for a local community... Like any authorizer, the Commission will determine if the school has enough community interest, has a solid academic and business plan, rigorous goals, and meets legal and regulatory compliance for public charter schools. Those sitting on the charter board and governing it DO know what is in the best interests of their community and specifically the school they govern. These boards are governed by parents, educators, and local community members. You clearly don't understand the role of a state (or, for that matter, local) authorizer. There main jobs include authorization decisions and oversight. I'd argue that local boards with persistently failing schools don't know the needs of their own communities if they cannot make effective reforms on their own. And districts like Cherokee who claim to have a near perfect district doesn't understand its own community if 13% of their K-12 population enrolls in a charter.

@ Ms. Hooper - I am not digging through your blogs for some language on Maine. If you'd like to post it, we can discuss it.

As for my comments, I find it a little odd that you get your feathers ruffled with my statements, especially after seeing the near slander you stated about the head of the charter association. Civil discourse we can have; however, I believe strongly that you ARE marginalizing children, especially when you state information that is patently false. I dare you to spend 1 day in a failing urban and rural school to see what's happening every day in the lives of Georgia's children. Go interview some public school teachers and hear what is thrown upon their shoulders by district officials and boards far removed from the needs of the school and particularly the classrooms. Talk to some charter teachers to find why they left and what they've found working in the charter. Go talk to some parents who have found refuge in a charter when their children were not thriving in a traditional environment - sometimes a failing school, sometimes a good one. Your crusade shows that you, like many, have a narrow perspective of the role of public education and its accountability to the taxpayers and local communities.

All the charter sector has ever wanted is to be responsive to their communities, to educate kids well and to be a role model in public education, and to have fair authorization. This amendment is needed for any of those things to occur.

@ Ms. Hooper - Here is the link to the rankings against the charter school law(s) in each state: http://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/NAPCS_2012_StateLawRankings_Final_20120117T162953.pdf

Maine is #1 - main issues are a cap on charters and equitable access to facilities funding. Georgia is #14...fell from #4 after we lost the Commission.

Please follow up on the assertion that the funding for new state charters will come from outside the state K-12 education budget. The governor cut those budgets 3% across the board recently, so I suspect people from those agencies would like to know this group is giving notice can expect to those another $430 million+ in further cuts over the next five years.

I'd like to see Deal, Rogers, et al, address that issue in writing as I suspect it's a new red herring being disseminated among the other misinformation from the "Brighter Georgia" devotees.

Post a written response from one of the sponsors of HB 797 that the funding won't come from K12 budget; I think your personal interpretation of this is inaccurate. (Already noted why above.)

State charters were "underfunded" this year after the Supreme Court ruled that taking local property taxes for this was unconstitutional; Governor Deal "found" money to cover the gap.

The DOE got the $430 million figure from the average number of state-approved charters historically; it could be higher, obviously, if the rate of applications increases. (Not sure how this correlates to screwing up, fairness, or trust. They have to create projections with what HAS happened, not what MIGHT happen...)

Umm...not sure where you get your 62% figure. According to projections based on evaluation of the current proposal, a student in state charter will earn 2.5 times the amount in state funding that is allocated to a student in a local system.

One way that charters can operate on less funding than traditional schools is that they DO NOT have to serve all students. Look at the FSA audit and see what their budget reflected in Special Ed educator expenses, then look at what Fulton Schools spends. This is federally mandated but primarily locally funded.

Equalization grants? Plenty of people in districts which don't get these definitely ARE complaining. Expand your world just a bit and you'll find them; may I suggest reading some about DeKalb? http://dekalbschoolwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/less-is-more/

@ Me - The Governor's Office (David Werner) published an explanation of the funding that shows the 62%. The opponents like to just show the state funds and not show the total per pupil comparison. In all actuality, if you compare a district who gets equalization versus one that doesn't, you will see a higher state amount for that district. It's the same principle. When you look at the whole funding amount per child though, you can see that are closer to equal. Same principle with the charters. They get no local funds at all.

What MIGHT happen? So you are now saying that having an appeals body is necessary? Ok, then let's carry that further... Did you know that HB 797 covers state charters approved by the SBOE, too, with the same funding method? How is this process for projections any different then? The opponents and Dr. Barge claim we "already" have an appeals body. You can't have it both ways, sir. This is a disingenuous argument on their part.

Finish in a moment...ran out of characters.

Interesting that you bring SPED into the matter. First of all, charters DO serve SPED kids (about 8% according to the state). Districts, by the way, often keep the Medicare funds, even when they are not serving the students, but that is another matter. They also get higher funding for more profound SPED students AND they have access to a state fund for low incidence children. But, let's just assume you are right. Are you saying, then, that a district with a magnet magnet school or with a lower percentage of SPED kids should get less funding since they don't "need" it?

@ Me -

At the end of my comments, I will cut/paste the chart provided by the Governor's Office who worked with the Office of Planning and Budget and the DOE on this. The GSBA gives you only part of the truth, and they don't tell you that districts in Georgia get above the state average for state funds due to equalization.

Re: SPED - Sorry, in the charter school were I taught, we were required to bus SPED students, had a child who was moderately impaired (downs syndrome) and a child with rather several exceptionalities that required a one on one para. We had OT, PT, SLP, weighted pencils and those large ball things for an autistic child. And we had a child with diabetes that required insulin. We served them.

SPED students, regardless of whether they attend traditional or charter, are protected under IDEA, so parents could file due process and SUE if you didn't serve them based on their IEPs. Show me evidence of the contrary.

@ ME - continued -

Using one school as an example is not worth basing an argument upon. Part of the reason is that you have no idea what the IEPs said. You don't know how many of these kids were served in an inclusion setting, resource room, collaborative, that would drive staffing needs, so you are making assumptions based on a lot of missing variables.

How many rural school districts have 15% of their (minority kids qualified for SPED? You have to use state averages. Charters cannot pick kids and their numbers are based on how the lottery turns out. Sometimes it's a higher average, sometimes lower, sometimes about the same. Some has to do with parent choice. Charters can't control who chooses to come to them any more than a district can.

@ ME - continued again -

Some students qualify for Medicaid (apologies - didn't mean to said Medicare.) Some of the districts keep these funds even though the charter is serving the kids. Yes, it happens. I agree on the profound students' funding and mandated services. But what are you saying? In a locally approved school, these students are served based on how every other school serves them - if it is in any traditional school, the charter cannot be an exception. If these children are served in one location (as often profound, visual or hearing impaired often are), then the charter, like other district schools, would not serve the child either. The charter, in locally approved schools, follows district practices with respect to SPED spectrum served at the school level. If the charter is state approved, they are MANDATED under federal law as an LEA, to provide those services themselves.

@ ME - final continued -

Here's the link to the funding the Governor's Office explained. The chart is very helpful. Sorry I couldn't cut and paste it here.

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/08/14/governors-deputy-charters-still-operate-with-less-funds-than-traditional-schools/

@ ME - You say, "Begging the question... why would you choose to edit the section where you did?

317 - 320 (c) No deduction shall be made to any state funding which a local school system is otherwise authorized to receive pursuant to this chapter as a direct result or consequence of the enrollment in a state charter school of a specific student or students who reside in the geographical area of the local school system."

I stopped there because that is the end of (c) which discusses deductions from districts. The next letter (d) discusses a new topic - funding charters in the first year and distribution of the funding. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I just referenced the relevant section.

I do encourage you to pull and read the law yourself. It's not very long and it's pretty straight forward to read.

Ms. Hooper,

Do you understand what a defined attendance zone means? It means that a charter would select a given district or portion of a district or districts to serve. The majority of charters opt for this, as the state REQUIRES you to demonstrate how you will SERVE your target population. Call and ask them.

Evidently you don't understand chartering and its legal and regulatory constructs at all. HB 797 provides an explanation of how the Commission will operate, authorize, and how the schools will be funded. However, there is an overarching statute for all charters - the Charter Schools Act of 1998. HB 797 refers to the Charter Schools Act. The Charters Schools Act, specifically in 20-2-2061 states that the legislative intent of charter schools is to RAISE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH ACADEMIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION.

The State Board Rules and Guidelines explain HOW a law is implemented. Please view the guidelines http://archives.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/Charter%20Schools%20Petition%20Process%20Guidelines.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F655A02F38AF9C4E4CCBE9FC6FF1C3017D97AC46A9255A65B0&Type=D, which require petitioners do show how parents are part of the governance of the school (Part 2, I (5).

Ms. Hooper,

As for FSA, they did not lie. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. In my view, that was a set up job by a bunch of highly bigoted people, and they shut down an excellent school....at the kids' expense. Loss of this school casts a black eye on the Alpharetta community, and that black eye can go straight back to Fulton County Schools, NOT FSA. Shameful, ignorant adults. And from what I hear, they are setting up to do the same sandbag job to the elementary and high schools as well. The Alpharetta community seems to put an awful lot of stock into what Dr. Avossa says. I think you would be surprised by what has happened behind the curtain.

@ Ms. Hooper - you have called me Mark several times. Who is Mark?

@ Me - I suppose you don't know that over half of the students in the state schools are virtual students and that number continues to grow? Do the math.

@ Me - I'm SURE you have spoken with several FSA kids. Of course you have. Do you know that those board meetings are videoed? I'd defy you to show me disrespectful behavior by any FSA parent. Even when the school board refused to allow them entry into a cafeteria and posted bogus signs about occupancy loads (which, interestingly, was less than a lunch period at the school where they were), even as parents stood in a lobby and watched on a single TV monitor and children and parents stood outside in the rain looking in through windows at their school being closed- they remained respectful.

As for me bringing up FSA - I only did because Ms. Hooper mentioned FSA specifically. Frankly, I hope FSA parents sue the hell out of individuals in the school district and yes, the DOE officials in collusion with them. They have enough documentation and video to win by a landslide. But we digress from the topic at hand...

@ Me - I gave you (and others) the link to the law and gave you the lines to find the information conveniently to show that I typed the whole paragraph. You are hoping, I am sure, that readers won't bother to look and, based on your words and will assume I left something out on purpose. That's fine. I didn't, but if that's the best you've got, then so be it. I consider it a "win" when you get down to that level of nonsense.

@ ME - You say the following:

"There is a state school for the blind and one for the deaf, but no state school for students with other disabilities. The local district has to pay for those students' services, whether in a neighborhood or center school or residential setting. Do you think a child with those profound needs (in excess of $100K per year) would be accepted by a charter school? Really?"

ME - Do you know that there is a State Board Policy that allows ALL LEAs (traditional and charter) to place students with disabilities that are more profound than what they can provide in residential learning settings and obtain funding OR access grants and SPED pool dollars if serving the child is in excess of funds earned? Here it is for your edification: http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/External-Affairs-and-Policy/State-Board-of-Education/SBOE%20Rules/160-4-7-.18.pdf

Show me where you get your $100,000 figure. I can imagine where you pulled it from, but it wouldn't be very polite for me to say.

Do I REALLY think that charters may have some students with severe exceptionalities enroll? Yes, I do. Do I have proof that they will? No, but you also don't have proof that they won't. So it's a moot point.

@ ME - You comment: "I believe reading the ENTIRE section suggests that a district will not be impacted specifically by enrollment of students in their geographic area in state charter schools, NOT that the overall K12 budget won't be impacted by covering the extra funds allocated by the state for those students. Have you asked the governor's office, Chip or Jan to confirm that for you?"

Perhaps you are not understanding. Districts EARN funds, and those funds are allocated OUT OF THE K-12 education budget and not from any other place in the budget (you can obtain the budget from OPB online) to verify this. If the law states that funds OTHERWISE EARNED cannot be deducted, then it stands to reason that the state could not take funds from the K-12 budget, because that is the ONLY place K-12 funds are budgeted. Ergo, the funds have to be taken from the non K-12 budget that is not allocated (based on reporting by districts) to the traditional districts.

A little logic has to be applied. That's half the problem with the opposition, they (you) can't or won't use any common sense or even the black and white proof provided in the law. And it is exactly that which makes your arguments so weak.

But if you need the proof, then please go seek the answer from the legislators, the Governor's Office, or the Office of Planning and Budget yourself. I don't need to verify it, as I already know, but clearly you do.

@MP No need to get nasty, honey. I understand education funding and have actually been to legislative budget hearings. Logic is not one of my deficiencies (actually got a perfect score on the GRE there, btw). You still haven't supported your claim and you seem to be spitting and biting and trying to push off the verification of your claim to me. Not taking the bait here; YOU made the claim so it's up to you to support it. Go for it!

@ Me - My, my, you seem to be everywhere and know just everything. You could ONLY be a district official, I think.

Your numbers are inaccurate - case load is 6, benefits for non-certified staff is a flat rate. Kudos for effort though. And it's an irrelevant point anyway.

As for FSA, the Alpharetta community has been duped by their school system. That is very, very sad, but a fact. Fulton County couldn't compete - they did everything they could to set them up for failure (including refusing to provide unused facility space...hence, the building with the leaky roof. They STILL knocked your socks off academically when comparing apples to apples.) When the school district has to stoop to lying (as they are with this amendment), and obstructionism (something about a $7 million dollar cost for an open records request if recollection serves) - the district has already lost. Which, unfortunately means that the citizens and most importantly, the children in the district, have lost. It will come out publicly eventually, I am sure. Patience is a virtue. I think I will sit back...and just wait for the fireworks.

We're going to continue this FSA conversation. Sigh. Ok.

DID YOU KNOW....

Dr. Avossa sits on RESA's Board of Control...and the district paid Metro RESA $90,000 (which is about the same as what FSA paid Grace). RESA is filled with superintendents who comprise the board and serve the school systems? That is EXACTLY how Grace was established - as a non profit.

Fulton's OWN attorneys put in writing that the relationship with Grace was not a conflict.

Turkish is an official language listed in the SBOE Rules for State Funded Programs.

What makes no sense is:

1. WHY Fulton County would even offer a 3 year contract if the school was acting so egregiously.

2. WHY Fulton County's wasn't effectively monitoring the school for the past 10 years IF the school was really doing anything wrong.

3. WHY Fulton County did a forensic audit AFTER the denial and didn't bother to allow the school to even respond before it hit the newspaper.

4. WHY Fulton County was engaged with the 3 schools months and months before the renewal and even attended meetings at the DOE Facilities Department...then "suddenly" during renewal decided they had an issue with the schools going together for a bond.

5. WHY, when the school requested an open records request for a short window of time about communication about FSA, the district quoted them $7 Million dollars to provide that information.

It stinks, Ms. Hooper, worse than dead fish.

Oh, and Ms. Hooper, please tell me why the Fulton County School System spent $1.7 MILLION dollars on Global Teachers Research and Resource, which is a staffing agency for teachers from "around the globe" as it says on their website. Which means, Fulton County is hiring (gasp!) FOREIGNERS rather than hiring U.S. citizens.

Below is the Open.georgia.gov information on this payout. Fulton County is full of hypocrisy.

Records: 1 to 2 of 2
Organization
Vendor Name
Payment Amount
Description
Funding Source
FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION GLOBAL TEACHERS RESEARCH & RES $22,992.00 CONTRACTED SERVICE-T FEDERAL
FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION GLOBAL TEACHERS RESEARCH & RES $1,722,426.33 CONTRACTED SERVICE-T STATE/OTHER

http://gtrr.net/

Because they provided math, science and computer science teachers when the competition for those certifications was intense. (Shortages still remain; why do you think there is an extra supplement for math and science? And they get extra years of step credit?) Are you aware that many years the university system of Georgia has graduated between zero and two teachers certified in physics? Thought not.

One of those teachers has been teacher of the year at her school. What would the students she's taught over the years have lost if Fulton hadn't taken the steps necessary to bring highly qualified teachers into those classrooms?

I'd bet you that they WEREN'T contracting these teachers to teach character education (as FSAMS did). Speaking of hypocrisy.

@ Me - I'm glad you can "look things up." You still calculated the "PERCENTAGES" for non certified staff wrong, but that's ok. You can't find everything on the internet, Mom. And you are exactly right, case loads can vary - up or down. Those details are not really all that important, but since you quoted them, I addressed them.

FSA was awarded as a NATIONAL Blue Ribbon School. That doesn't happen by just outperforming the district (who isn't by a long shot a high performing district, particularly compared nationally) by 1 or 2 points. They were exceptional. I'm not going to discuss FSA anymore with you, as I've stated my position clearly.

On a positive note, I am super, super glad to hear that the typical schools in the area are raising the bar and increasing achievement - funny, that's what charters do. They raise the bar and are a rising tide for others around them.

Speaking of "typical" schools, it is so odd that the only person I've ever seen write or say that word as it relates to charters/non-charters is the Fulton County director of charter schools. Just as interesting is that the she and maybe one other of her garden variety is also the only person I ever knew to say that their performance was mediocre. Very, very odd indeed that you've never worked in a district. The state perhaps?

Yes, RESAs are EXACTLY like Grace. Here are 6 reasons why:

1. They were created to provide professional development to schools.
2. Their governing board consists of representatives of their systems/schools.
3. The representatives on the respective boards are non compensated.
4. Both charge dues and fees (BTW, the RESAs in Georgia charged $2.9 MILLION dollars in dues and fees.
5. Both charge for professional development services.
6. Neither district nor FSA put out bids to work with these groups, as they were designed to support specific needs.

Me - As for the forensic audit, I don't take issue with an audit. Here's what I take issue with:

1. Misrepresentation of audit company personnel as FSA employees
2. Refusal to provide appropriate documentation for authorization to access records not open and protected under FERPA (and oopsie! the district ended up violating FERPA themselves).
3. Refusal by the district to provide a copy of the report BEFORE it went to the media AND that the audit company did not allow the school to respond to their "findings."

A national firm (who, BTW, was the original company the district's auditor spun off from) was flabbergasted at the shoddy audit work that did not meet national standards.

But did anybody look at the 2nd opinion? Nope. As I said originally, the school was very skillfully and purposefully shut down.

You never did address the $7 MILLION dollar quote for an open records request. That's rather obstructionist to me. How can it be anything there than that? All they requested were emails over a finite period of time about the school. $7M is an awful lot of emails....

All of this just goes to show that an objective authorizer like the Commission is needed - so that charters petitioning in districts acting unethically at least have a shot at fair authorization. VOTE YES on November 6 to Amendment 1!

Government schools could get have a budget of 15k per student and it would not be enough. People we have a chance to take power back from the government with a yes vote on 1162 we do not get this chance very often we need to take advantage of it.

And by the way, even with defined attendance zones, the petitioner will have to demonstrate that they can practically serve the whole zone. If they get too large, that becomes (for transportation, cost, and time considerations) difficult or impossible.