The Charter Crossroad

Editor's note: The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the writer and do not necessary reflect those of Peachtree Corners-Berkeley Lake Patch. If you have an opposing view to the one expressed here, send your opinion to the Patch editor. Please include your phone number so we may contact you. We are delighted to offer both sides of this very important issue to Patch readers.

By Amreeta Regmi

The State manifested its expansion of authority over public school education on February 22, with the passing of the House Resolution (HR) 1662. This bill approved constitutional amendment to reinstate State’s power in controlling charter schools.

The approval raised two contentious control issues. First, the controlling of decisions by the State to create charter schools over local school Board’s objections; second, controlling of local funding intended for local schools and diverting resources elsewhere. However, within the backdrop of the debacle, the further approval of HR 1662 by the Senate also seems imminent.

 The Senate ran its own parallel course. The Senate Education Committee, with Resolution 853, also proposed a tweaked up version of their own constitutional amendment to restore the State’s power in approving charter schools.

If the HR 1662 predicament moves through the Senate, the final decision will remain with the voters with the November ballot for the referendum approval or disapproval of the constitutional amendment, allowing State’s control of local resources and decision-making regarding charter schools.

Presently, the academic performance results from charter schools have not demonstrated differently than the State average. Whether voters have children of school going age or not, facts surrounding a ballot question affect all. As always, local issues intrinsically connected to local resources influence decision-making, particularly with taxes and expertise, and in the case of the charter debate, influencing also the ballot box count.

Charter schools are ‘special’ schools, neither public nor private, even though technically called public. Charter schools are funded using local tax dollars. Very soon, these schools are likely to be state controlled institutions operating under the auspicious of the charter petitioner.

As such, the ‘hybrid’ nature of being ‘special’ attracts attention of numerous education institutions and associations that typically have a stake in governing resources at the local level.

To name several of these institutions, the quagmire of ‘charter schools’ has involved the Supreme Court, House of Representatives, the Senate, Central Educational Center, Georgia School Superintendents Association, Georgia Charter School Association, House Education Committee, Georgia Charter Schools Commission, State Department of Education, County Schools, County Superintendents, School Boards, Senate Education Committee and Georgia Federation of Teachers.

The number of players involved in the charter tug-of-war could result in the attorney’s delight, as already seen from Gwinnett County and other districts filing suit, which was unable to stall the process.

The mix of players also indicates that indeed, ‘charter schools’ are a pretty special category. So far, under-represented voices in the debate are perhaps those of the students and parents. At the crux of all, underlie four critical issues: education reform, decision-making, funding and credible partnership.

Charter schools may create competition and improve access to those students wanting a quality education in an environment other than ‘public’ or ‘private’. It may also provide parents with alternative options and choices in seeking for equitable access to education.

However, in order to create this competition and access, four different points need closer attention.

First, school reform: put emphasis of achieving the common goal of high quality education and innovation, foremost, by prioritizing public schools systems.

Second, decision-making: include the respective district school board in decision-making of charter school approvals. The local school board has informed perspective and professional knowledge of the mixes of school systems required at the local level.

Third, matching funds: charter schools sources funding locally by diverting resources generated through local taxes. In the spirit of a true partnership, the State has to provide incentives to educators and public schools by matching funds in support of charter schools.

Fourth, transparent and accountable partnerships: a coalition of strong and committed local partnership, with the school board, students and parents is required while supporting parallel institution with contested and limited resources. Without this local partnership, the State’s effort may remain futile in harnessing the required trust at the local level and in achieving intended outcome for school reform.

Amreeta Regmi holds a MBA from Brenau University and Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences from Wageningen University. She is a returning resident to Peachtree Corners, after living in South and South-East Asia for 15 years.