This bill would amend Chapter 2 of Title 20 of the O.C.G.A.to provide flexibility, beginning in school year 2015-2016, for systems assigned to three categories and would provide grants, rules and regulations and other matters. It would replace all current elements for flexibility outlined in the law [IE²] and replace those elements with the following:

1.      Category 1 School System or “strategic school system” is a system that

a.       Has a system rating of less than 80, unless such rating threshold is increased by the SBOE;

b.      Does not meet the criteria of a Category2 system and has not elected to become a Category 3 system.

2.      Category 2 School System or “high performing school system” is one that:

A.    Has a system rating greater than 80, unless such rating threshold is increased by the SBOE; and

B.     (i) Has at least 90 % of its schools with a rating greater than or equal to 80, or for systems with fewer than ten schools, no more than one school with a rating less than 80, unless the rating threshold is increased by the SBOE; or

(ii) Demonstrates significant growth through a CCRPI growth score.

3.      Category 3 School System or “charter system”

The CCRPI would serve as the basis for the ratings set by the OSA, but initially they would be based on the higher of:

1.       a two-year average of CCRPI scores of each school in a system, then in 2015 the most recent CCRPI for a system based on the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 CCPRI for individual schools and averaged to determine the system rating; or

2.      The most recent CCRPI for the school system.

Subsequent ratings would be based on the higher of:

1.      A three-year average of CCRPI for the system, based on the previous there years’ CCPRI for individual schools and averaged to determine the system rating; or

2.      The most recent CCRPI for the system.

A Category 1 or Category 2 system could elect at any time to become a Category 3 system with a successful system charter application. Systems currently in an IE² contract with the state would be able to continue until it expires or until June 30, 2015, if the SBOE grants an extension. Consequences for noncompliance would not be imposed until the end of the five-year term of the contract, and even then the SBOE would take into consideration the upcoming placements of the system into one of the categories. Otherwise, those systems would be subject to the Categories outlined in this act upon expiration, or any such system could elect to convert to the Categories outlined above if approved by the SBOE.

Flexibility for each of the Categories would be as follows:

1.      Category 1 Systems:

a.       They could request increased flexibility and accountability by submitting a waiver request and a strategic plan to the SBOE that:

                                                                          i.       Tells how the waivers will enable the system to make progress toward specific goals related to student achievement outcomes;

                                                                        ii.      Includes performance goals, measures and benchmarks; and

                                                                      iii.      Could include differing flexibility and accountability for schools or groups of schools within the system if approved by the SBOE;

b.      They could remain subject to all education laws, rules, regulations and policies, including accountability requirements.

c.       They would be subject to strong oversight and monitoring from the DOE to ensure progress;:

                                                                          i.      Implementation of the strategic plan;

                                                                        ii.      Appropriate use of the increased flexibility; and

                                                                      iii.      Improved local capacity.

d.      The SBOE would approve or deny the proposed flexibility; but if denied, the LBOE would work with the DOE for revisions to its plan and re-submit;

e.       The flexibility plan would be good for three years regardless of subsequent ratings, unless:

                                                                          i.      The plan is not followed, and flexibility could be revoked, but DOE monitoring would continue; or

                                                                        ii.      The system becomes eligible for a Category 2 system.

f.       If the SBOE determines that the plan includes high standards of achievement, they could grant flexibility in:

                                                                          i.      Class size requirements

                                                                        ii.      Expenditure controls and categorical allotment requirements (except nurses);

                                                                      iii.      Certification requirements; and

                                                                      iv.      Salary schedule requirements.

2.      Category 2 Systems:

a.       They would be automatically exempt from all Title 20 provisions, except those omitted in Code Section20-2-84.2.

b.      They would be exempt for three years, regardless if they remain eligible for Category 2 status, but at the end of the period, they would be subject to categorization by their current ratings.

All Category 1 and Category 2 (and Category 3/Charter) systems would still be subject to the list of laws and policies currently required of charter schools or systems. They would also be subject to periodic verification and inspection by the SBOE and the OSA. Nothing would change for systems or schools currently under a charter or state contract, and all grants and federal reports or monitoring requirements would continue.

The SBOE could establish one or more grant programs, subject to funding, that could provide innovation grants and grants to mentor Category 1 systems. They could also identify and make recommendations for additional accountability measures for under-performing schools to the Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and chairpersons of the respective Education Committees by December 31, 2013.

The Governor would designate a staff member to mediate between the SBOE and a LBOE if they cannot agree on waivers. That designee would report annually to the General Assembly on such matters.

The SBOE would establish rules and regulations to implement the law. They could approve other waivers for each Category, but it would have to be for special circumstances. Systems with waivers already in effect in 2015 would be able to continue them, but would have to include them in their new waiver requests.

Charter Systems would be designated Category 3 Systems on and after July 1, 2015.