SUMMARY:  LC 33 5951-EC    LC 33 6086S (SCS)   LC 33 6186S  

This is the enabling legislation for a constitutional amendment (SR 287) to allow the creation of a statewide Opportunity District to take over schools that meet a certain criteria.  It creates an additional accountability system run by the Office of Student Achievement.

The constitutional amendment must pass each chamber by 2/3 vote for it to be placed on the November 2016 ballot.  If a majority of the voters approved it, this bill would be effective January 1, 2017.

Some of the most troubling aspects of the takeover are:

PROVISIONS:

Below are some of the provisions with line numbers to SB 133 as it passed.  The word "transfer" is used in the bill rather than "take over."

Who runs it? 

The Opportunity School District (OSD) Superintendent would be appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and serve solely at the Governor's discretion.  The Superintendent:

• sets the rules for the operation of the OSD (line 51)
• has sole discretion in which schools are "transferred" (line 69) 
• has sole discretion in the timing and sequencing of transferring the schools (line 70)
• determines which intervention model to use (line 82 and lines 113-114)
• can close and reassign students (line 123) 
• is authorized to waive most State Board rules, regulations, policies, and procedures (line 84) 
• supersedes any charter, charter system, or IE2 contract in place (line 103)
• decides whether any personnel previously assigned to the school remain (or the charter governing board appointed by this Superintendent does), if not the local board must make the necessary personnel decisions (lines 179-191) 
• makes the final selection of the governing board members for OSD charter schools after considering recommendations from the legislative delegation (lines 214-217)
• determines each student's proportional share of local revenue that will then be deducted from the state earnings of the local school district (lines 331, 343-345)

Since the OSD Superintendent has no board, there are no public meetings where decisions would be discussed or made in the open as is the case with the local district, the State Board of Education and State Superintendent, and State Charter Schools Commission.

There is no appeal process for parents, taxpayers, or the elected local board. 

What goes besides the students? 

Facilities of the schools taken are under the control of the OSD (line 261-262). 

• All contents of the facility must remain with the facility. (line 265-268)
• If the OSD Superintendent closes the local school, the local board is not allowed to open a school with the same grade span or attendance zone that is substantially the same for three years. (lines 268-270)
• OSD is responsible for routine maintenance but the local board is responsible for extensive repairs and capital expenses (lines 271-278).
• If the OSD school becomes a state charter, the local board is required to continue all facility use and service agreements for as long as the school wants even after the state charter is no longer part of the OSD (lines 245-248).

There is no requirement that the OSD get the local board's permission before making structural changes to the building.

If the local board needed another facility, taxpayers would have to pay for more land and another building since they would be unable to use their own. 

How is this funded? 

As noted above, funding of the schools in the OSD includes a "proportional share of local revenue" which is determined by the OSD Superintendent.  That amount is then subtracted from the local district's QBE earnings (or whatever it's called by then).  State and federal funding, of course, goes with the students. (Lines 320-333, 341-345)

• The Superintendent can hold a school in the OSD for 5-10 years (lines 283-292).  
• Within 3-6 years though, there are unlikely to be any students left for whom the local board was ever directly responsible given the usual school configurations of K-5, 6-8, and 9-12.

If the Superintendent chooses the state charter as the intervention model for the school (line 113), that school continues to get local funding forever (lines 346-348).  The Constitutional amendment also contains this provision (lines 15-17).

The OSD can withhold up to 3% of all the funding as an administrative fee, just as the State Charter Commission is funded. (line 334)

What is the role of the local board? 

Other than serving as a revenue source and doing what the OSD Superintendent says, the local board has little to do with the school(s) taken.  It is not clear whether the "agreements" are actually negotiated or whether the terms are simply dictated.

• The OSD Superintendent must conference with the principal, local board, and local superintendent to share his evaluation findings to discuss options for remediation before taking a school over (lines 72-77).
• One of the intervention models is shared governance in which the OSD Superintendent and local board enter into a contract for the board to operate the school and the OSD Superintendent to make the decisions. (lines 116-118)  There is also a required agreement for specific goals for higher academic outcomes for students, quality careers for graduates, safe and positive learning environments for children, parents, and community engagement, and the efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars (lines 218-222).
• The OSD school may purchase services from the OSD, the local board, or an educational service provider for routine student support and operational services. (lines 151-152)
• The local board is required to cooperate fully with the school to make available at a reasonable cost all appropriate services requested including, but not limited to, transportation, cafeteria services, custodial services, alternative education, broadband, utilities, special education services, test administration services, and student information services. (lines 154-160)
• If the OSD school did not become a state charter, the OSD Superintendent is to engage the school, the school community, and the local board in a negotiation to determine the best transition plan for the school to leave the OSD (lines 293-295).
• If an OSD state charter does not want to remain under the State Charter Commission, the OSD shall coordinate the development of a transition plan back to the local board which may include approval by the local board of the school as a local charter. (lines 301-303)
• The local board is responsible for all data reporting under the shared governance model. (line 314)
• If a school qualified for take over but was not taken, the Department of Education can do an on-site evaluation that includes the local board chair. (375-378)
• If a local board fails to implement interventions prescribed by the State Board of Education or the Office of Student Achievement, the school system will earn only funds for nurses, accountants, visiting teachers, school psychologists, and secretaries. (lines 410-415)

POINTS TO CONSIDER

Whether a school becomes eligible for takeover depends largely on the system designed by the state and will change each time the system changes.

• The initial list of schools eligible for takeover are based on the first three years of the CCRPI index which has changed each of those three years.
• On the Adequate Yearly Progress report for 2011, the year before the state switched to the CCRPI, 50 of the schools now qualifying for takeover met the AYP standards.  13 of them were recognized as distinguished in meeting AYP -- eight of them for 7-8 years.
• Over 100 of the schools identified as qualifying for takeover are not currently identified as a priority, focus, or alert school by the state according to the reports on the Department of Education website.  If the state wants to change the accountability system to identify issues, it can do so under current provisions.
• Schools qualifying for takeover in 2017-18 will be largely based on the first administrations of the Georgia Milestones assessment.

The state has had statutory authority to intervene in schools since 2000 when the A+ Education Reform Act passed.  Some of those interventions have never been used.

The state has had some method of contracting with or entering into an agreement with school districts due to school level performance for about ten years.  In 2011, twelve of the schools on the current takeover list were already state-directed and some had been for several years.

There is no "appeal" process for any OSD decision.

The takeover is based on three years of data but the state can keep the school 5-10 years or forever if it becomes a state charter school. 

Some terms in the bill are unclear:  Qualified partners, timing and sequencing of transferring schools into the OSD, shared governance.

Negotiation with the local board is mentioned only in connection with transferring the school back to the local board.  Is the local board ever in charge of these schools after takeover?

The performance contracts which the state is forcing the local school districts to sign by June 30, 2015, are meaningless under this system. 

The OSD Superintendent should recommend to the State Board which waivers are needed for each school and let them waive their own rules.  That brings more transparency to the process and maintains the integrity of the system.

If the OSD Superintendent decides to close a school rather than intervene, it is not clear who reassigns the students.  

If the OSD decides not to retain personnel, the local board has to either find a place for them or RIF and pay the legal fees involved.

Under the "shared governance" model several legal issues would need to be resolved to ensure everybody knows who is working for whom and who is responsible for what.  It is unclear what, if any, negotiating rights the local board has.

There is no requirement that any governing board members be parents of students.  Even if the initial governing board members are hand-picked, there should be a different method thereafter. The substitute bill allows parents and advisory council members to be eligible for the governing board but there is still no requirement.

The local board should approve any major structural changes or repurposing of its facilities just as any landlord would.

There is no mention of rent being paid to the local board for the use of the building. 

Under current law, state charters do not receive a proportional local funding (whatever that is) but instead receive a state supplement.  This bill, however, gives the proportional local funding to all opportunity schools including those that become state charters. 

EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2017 if the Constitutional amendment on the November 2016 ballot passes