by Eric Cochling | Apr 3, 2014
In the wake of the recently concluded legislative session, I found myself at a local charter school discussing school choice with a group of parents, teachers, and administrators.
While upbeat in many ways, the conversation was heavy with a feeling of barely-restrained desperation. It was in the air and occasionally expressed by a frown, joined with a shake of the head.
The school’s staff explained the wonderful academic success of their students, nearly all minorities and all female, despite the statistical odds stacked against this school and others like it. At the same time they lamented how the treatment of charter schools in Georgia, which are public schools open to all students, results in their receiving much less funding per student than traditional public schools and forcing them to bear substantial additional costs.
Fewer dollars and higher costs mean that charters often must forego offering classes that are taken for granted in most public schools. Fewer dollars and higher costs mean students go without other, seemingly normal, parts of school life, like a playground, a sports field, recreation equipment, etc.
How much less funding? By my calculation, it amounts to nearly 20 percent less per student per year for state-approved charter schools. It’s that much less, yet charters – by definition – are held to a higher standard of academic achievement than traditional public schools. Unlike traditional public schools that linger forever regardless of their instructional performance or the academic success of their students, charter schools actually close for failure to meet targets. Despite the disparity in how they’re treated, charters typically perform well.
What about those additional costs? The big one for charters is the cost of renting or buying a school building, a cost that traditional public schools do not have to shoulder that can run into the many tens of thousands of dollars each month. Behind teacher pay, this is one of a charter school’s largest expenses.
For the parents in the room who were all unsatisfied with their local, traditional public schools, the issue was a lack of real alternatives. While Georgia can boast that it has some educational options, including charter schools and some private school scholarship programs, the reality is that those options are unavailable to most families.
Why? The answer is that charter schools are not present in every community and those in operation only have enough seats available for a small percentage of the state’s 1.8 million students. In a similar fashion, private school scholarships are severely limited by funding caps (this year, the cap on the tax credit scholarship was reached in the first 22 days of the year) or, by design, target only a very small group of students. The result is that waiting lists for these schools and programs often far exceed the actual number of students they are able to serve.
So what does this have to do with the legislative session, you might ask?
Well, if you were to just look at legislation that actually passed this session, you would be right to conclude that our legislature has little to do with or concern for the school choice needs of families in Georgia. You’d likely conclude that because, quite literally, nothing much happened to expand choice or to right the inequities in current education choice programs.
Now, if you followed the session from the beginning and paid close attention, you would know that the legislature had the opportunity to make serious strides in reforming the system and expanding choice, including adding more scholarships for private choice, allowing charter schools to use vacant public school buildings, and allowing charter schools to quickly replicate without unnecessary bureaucratic hoop-jumping, among others.
Yet, each opportunity ultimately withered on the vine. The unusually intense power struggle between house and senate Republicans, coupled with the active efforts of at least one committee chairman to kill school choice legislation, meant that nothing very meaningful survived to see the Governor’s pen.
So the children who desperately need a lifeline tossed to them are left to flounder another year in a system they didn’t choose and can’t leave. The powers-that-be and the protectors of the status quo win another round.
Who knew a prison could be so effectively
erected using only a zip code?
Some say that reform was mostly stopped this year because of election year politics; and we hear from some elected officials that next year will be different. After all, they say, we can’t do anything controversial in an election year; we can’t afford to anger the wrong constituency.
But wait, bills related to gun rights and abortion were hardly uncontroversial, yet they passed. Favors were called in and political capital was spent to insure their success. So being “controversial” couldn’t be the excuse….right?
Could it be, instead, that the parents of children most in need of rescue from failing schools vote neither often enough to warrant the risk, nor in the “right” way when they do? A skeptic – this skeptic – might answer “yes.” It’s difficult to come to any other conclusion. Of course, it doesn’t help that these same families are not typically campaign donors either.
It takes real courage to stand up to entrenched thinking in public education and I’m thankful for those few, brave elected officials who have done so, because they are truly standing up for our children. They recognize that few things in life offer an escape from poverty and a path to self-sufficiency as effectively as a quality education. But, what’s more, they understand that elections, holding office, and wielding power are not simply ends in themselves.
Here’s to hoping they receive reinforcements very soon because the children of Georgia can’t afford to continue to wait.
by Eric Cochling | Mar 5, 2014
Should you have questions or comments about the content of this update, please email Brian Abernathy
Monday, March 3, marked “Crossover Day” at the Georgia State Capitol. On this day, a bill must crossover from the House to the Senate or vice-versa if it is to remain viable this session. Crossover Day typically goes until midnight and involves lots of lobbying, drama, and intensive floor debates. While the Senate finished their work early this year, the House stayed in session until 11:30. Below is a summary of some of the more newsworthy bills and their fate*:
*Please note that vote totals are indicated after the bill number. The first number is the total votes cast in favor of a bill (Y=yea), the second is the total votes cast against a bill (N=nay).
House Bills That Passed Crossover Day:
- HB 702: 138Y – 37N – This bill allows for privately funded monuments containing the Ten Commandments, a portion of the Declaration of Independence, and a portion of the Georgia Constitution to be placed on the grounds of the State Capitol.
- HB 707: 115Y – 59N – This bill prevents the State Insurance Commissioner from enforcing provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), local and state agencies and governments from spending money attached to the ACA, and prevents the University of Georgia from operating the navigator program that assists people who are seeking coverage under the ACA.
- HB 766: 163Y – 1N – The “Work Based Learning” Act would permit schools – in collaboration with the Department of Labor and the Technical College System of Georgia – to award secondary credit for approved off campus work to students age 16 and over.
- HB 772: 107Y – 66N – This bill requires that adult applicants for and recipients of food stamps or benefits under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) submit to drug testing if a state caseworker from the Department of Family and Children Services determines that there is a “reasonable suspicion” of drug abuse. Eligibility of children under both programs is not affected by this legislation.
- HB 875: 119Y – 56N – This bill allows land owners/lessees the final decision as to whether properly licensed citizens may carry concealed firearms on their premises, potentially significantly expanding the places a licensed individual could carry a firearm to include churches, bars, and certain government buildings where security is not provided. It also allows for school boards to designate a school employee to be armed.
- HB 885: 171Y – 4N – This bill allows for the usage of medical cannabis derivatives for the treatment of patients who suffer from severe seizure disorders and encourages research on additional medical uses of cannabis.
- HB 886: 164Y – 3N – This bill would require the governing body of Charter Schools to hold a minimum of two public hearings to review their budget before its adoption each year.
- HB 990: 118Y – 57N – This bill would require legislative approval for any future expansion of Medicaid in Georgia.
- HB 1080: 173Y – 3N – This bill would allow for the placement of a privately funded monument dedicated to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to be placed on the grounds of the State Capitol.
Senate Bills That Passed Crossover Day:
- SB 98: 35Y – 18N – Prevents coverage for abortions under qualified health plans offered within the state, including any exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
- SB 167: 34Y – 16N – This bill calls for the creation of an advisory council to review Common Core Standards and propose changes that are “in the best interest of students, their parents, teachers, and taxpayers.”
- SB 281: 40Y – 13N – This bill mandates that state employees and teachers be offered a high-deductible insurance option in the State Health Benefit Plan.
- SB 350: 31Y – 18N – This bill would begin a process of privatizing child welfare services through contracts with community-based providers.
- SB 365: 53Y – 0N – This bill focuses on lowering barriers to employment for those returning from prison. The legislation contains many of the recommendations from our Prisoner Reentry Working Group.
- SR 783: 38Y – 13N – This resolution allows voters the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to eliminate the state property tax levy through an amendment to the state constitution.
Bills That Did Not Crossover:
- SB 404: This bill would deny the ability of non-legal immigrants who have been granted “deferred action” status or permission to temporarily work for humanitarian reasons the ability to receive a Georgia Driver’s License.
- HB 759: As GCO has already discussed, the Tax Credit Scholarship program in Georgia is in high demand. HB 759 would have increased the tax-credit cap to $100 million.
- SB 191 & HB 309 – Neither form of “Ava’s Law”, which would have required medical insurance coverage for treatment of Autism, made it through crossover day.
- HB 524 – This bill would have made it easier for adopted individuals to access their original birth certificates and the information about birth parents they contain.
Bills that are continuing to fight for implementation:
- HB 771 never saw a vote on the House Floor, but supporters are still working see its efforts attached to another piece of legislation this year. The bill would lift the statute of limitations related to civil damages brought by victims of childhood sexual abuse.
- Senate Resolution 7 would provide Georgians with an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to separate the Georgia Ethics Commission from the office of the Governor.
- House Resolution 486 would permit local municipalities created after 2005 to form city school systems.
____________________________ Thanks to Eric Cochling, our VP of Policy Advancement, Jamie Lord, our director of government affairs, and Jacob Stubbs, our legislative intern and John Jay Fellowship alumnus for their able contributions to this update.
by Eric Cochling | Mar 5, 2014
Background
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Employment Division v. Smith to uphold a ban on the use of peyote under Oregon law, despite the fact that the law prevented the use of peyote in religious ceremonies of certain Indian tribes. Prior to the Smith case, the Court had regularly ruled that the government could only infringe upon one’s free exercise of religion – including practices like those in Smith – if there was a compelling state interest, a standard that offered the most protection possible to religious liberty under the Court’s jurisprudence.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court found in Smith that that the use of the “compelling state interest” test would result in an absurd result, essentially meaning that each person’s religious practices could immunize them from following otherwise settled law. Following Smith, the standard of review was seemingly lowered, which gave the government more leeway to regulate religious expression.
Realizing the implications of the Smith decision, a bipartisan coalition of congressmen developed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1997. This bill had many prominent supporters, including the current Vice-President, Joe Biden. The federal RFRA re-instated the compelling state interest test in free exercise cases by classifying religious expression as a category protected under a court’s “strict scrutiny” analysis of any allegedly infringing law. However, the US Supreme Court later ruled that the federal RFRA only applied to the federal government, which resulted in many states passing RFRA-like bills to insure religious liberty protections applied to state laws. Currently, there are many states with RFRAs on the books and many states where court rulings have created similar protections.
The Georgia Legislation:
Rep. Teasley presented HB 1023 before the Fleming Subcommittee of the House Judiciary (Civil), stating that he was bringing this bill for consideration following Employment Division v. Smith. As he described his reasons for bringing the bill, Rep. Teasley gave much of the background that can be found above.
According to Rep. Teasley, this bill provides that there must be a “compelling state interest” for a state to burden the free exercise of religion. A supporter of the bill in his testimony commented that the Smith case removed “strict scrutiny” as the standard for protecting religious expression. In essence, Rep. Teasley’s bill reapplies the strict scrutiny test to cases concerning religion, which is the same way that the federal RFRA operates.
Similarly, Sen. McKoon’s bill, SB 377, applies a “rigorous compelling interests” test to cases involving infringement upon the free exercise of religion. Sen. McKoon noted that he believes that this bill will help cut down on lawsuits against the government while helping protect the rights of religious people.
Concerns With HB 1023/SB 377:
One of the biggest concerns noted in committee testimony concerned civil rights. Many objectors to the bill questioned whether or not the bill allowed for, essentially, a religious exemption to having to abide by civil rights legislation. Supporters of the bill referenced the US Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the same test that is supported by these two RFRA-like bills—the “compelling state interests” test—denied Bob Jones University its classification as a non-profit entity because of its ban on interracial dating and violations of civil rights.
Another concern raised about the bill is its protection of non-traditional religions, like Rastafarianism. Supporters claim that only those religious practices which the state has a compelling state interest to stop (and the law is narrowly tailored to accomplish its legitimate ends) can be infringed upon. In layman’s terms, this means that these two bills—HB 1023 and SB 377—will protect a variety of religious expression, including many varieties with which the people passing the bill do not agree. Indeed, in a point of personal privilege on the senate floor on Wednesday, Sen. McKoon commented, “This bill protects many expressions of religion with which I would disagree.” He then commented that he believes that this fact further testifies to the importance and likely effectiveness of the legislation.
The LGBTQ community has also raised concerns with the bill, claiming that it will further blur the distinction between religious and non-religious discrimination. Rep. Simone Bell gave a very personal testimony against the bill in the Fleming Subcommittee, drawing on her experience as a member of the LGBTQ community and the discrimination she has experienced. While she noted that she is in support of religious freedom, Rep. Bell made it very clear that she wants to protect against further discrimination and does not support the bill as it is currently written. Supporters of the bill have responded to this claim much in the same way that they have concerning the question of civil rights, noting that religious adherents – who include bakers, photographers, florists, and others – have faced fines for not providing services for same-sex wedding and commitment ceremonies to which they had religious objections. In essence, supporters assert, religious adherents are being forced to violate their own consciences by becoming participants in something to which they fundamentally object.
Finally, other groups have noted their opposition to the bill because they believe that the language goes beyond the protections guaranteed by the federal RFRA. In order to address this specific concern, Rep. Teasley offered amendments that imported the federal RFRA’s language into his bill wherever it may have offered more protection than the federal bill does.
Current Status:
Following the very public veto of a similar bill in the state of Arizona, both HB 1023 and SB 377 were tabled in their respective committees. Delta Airlines recently expressed their disagreement to this policy. Commenting on the removal of SB 377 from the Senate Rules calendar, Sen. McKoon told the Huffington Post, “I was told it’s still an open question as to whether it will be added to the calendar. […] So your guess is probably as good as mine as to whether they’re ultimately going to allow a floor vote on it. But as it stands today, it is not going to be considered on Monday.” As of “Crossover Day,” SB 377 was not presented on the Senate Floor and will not pass during this legislative term.
by Eric Cochling | Feb 10, 2014
A bill to privatize most of the state’s child welfare services was introduced this week by Senator Unterman (R-Buford). The legislation, Senate Bill 350, would require the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) to develop a plan by January of 2015 by which is would contract with a limited number of regional lead agencies to provide the vast majority of child welfare services that are now, at least in part, offered by the state. The program would be phased in over the course of two years.
While lead agencies would be allowed to provide up to 35 percent of the services needed within a region, the law would require that they contract with other local agencies to provide the majority of services.
Contracts between the state and lead agencies would be for five years with DFCS having the ability to extend the contract for an additional three years. While DFCS would no longer be a direct service provider, it would remain responsibility for providing oversight of the contracted agencies.
As an incentive to agencies to find suitable permanent placements for children in their care, the law would fund agencies with per-child payments for a maximum of six months. After six months agencies would be required to pick up the tab for children that remain in their care. Likewise, agencies would not be eligible for per child payments for any child returning to the agency within 12 months of a permanent placement.
The reform is modeled after similar efforts in Florida and more than a dozen other states over the last couple of decades and has been driven by Georgia’s continued failures to adequately serve the children in its care.
While privatization is supported by many state leaders, including the Governor and Lt. Governor, opponents to the change say that it is being done too quickly and without considering ways to reform the system without privatization.
Evidence from Florida and other states shows that privatization can have beneficial effects, including improved safety for the children in care and a reduction in the number of children in state custody.
Yesterday, the legislation was favorably voted out of the Healthcare Delivery Subcommittee of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. A stakeholder meeting was expected to be held today.
by Eric Cochling | Jan 27, 2014
Just this past week, Georgia’s Tax Credit Scholarship program reached its cap of allowable donation commitments (currently, $58 million) in well under a month. That’s the earliest the cap has been reached in the program’s history, three and a half months earlier than last year, when the cap was reached on May 9th.
Add to the early cap the fact that Student Scholarship Organizations (SSO’s), those groups tasked with distributing tax credit scholarships, nearly universally report long waiting lists of students seeking a scholarship and it becomes clear that the program is in high demand.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that a school choice program in Georgia is overrun with interest.
Charter schools have long experienced high demand, with lotteries becoming necessary to decide which children are selected among the many who want to attend. Of course, parents are expressing their desire for additional choices in other ways, including sacrificing to send their children to private schools and, in an ever growing trend, teaching their children at home.
Given Georgia’s record on educational achievement, it’s really no wonder parents and their kids are looking for something better. That said, the desire for choice often has as much to do about wanting to escape an unsuitable school environment as with academic achievement.
That’s exactly why we’re hosting a rally at the Capitol tomorrow to celebrate National School Choice Week. While we are happy about the progress Georgia has made in increasing education options in recent years, less than 1 percent of Georgia’s more than 1.6 million students has been able to access Georgia’s school choice options.
Our tax credit program cap of $58 million annually may seem like a lot but compared to other states, it’s just a beginning of what’s needed to meet the demand. Florida’s program, for example, is currently capped at $286 million annually and grows each year automatically while Louisiana’s program has no cap at all.
Not only are Georgia’s current school choice programs limited, but for the 57% of Georgia students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, options are limited yet again because – unlike wealthier families – they are often unable to move to a district with better public schools.
The net result is that if the local public school isn’t suitable for them, they have nowhere else to turn.
With many billions of dollars spent in Georgia each year on public education, there is no excuse for a child being trapped in any particular school. We should demand more for Georgia’s children.
Page 5 of 6« First«...23456»
