This school takeover amendment - the "Opportunity School District" - do you think it's a state takeover / slippery slope, or a well meaning probationary plan to improve school performance? Sales pitch from Deal: https://gov.georgia.gov/opportunity-school-district-proposal Opposition: http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/09/20/school-takeover-opponents-step-up-their-pitch-to-georgia-conservatives/ Ballot text:
The real problem is that it is the thin edge of the wedge. The state gets authority to take over failing schools. Everyone is for strong schools, so it passes. The state allocates to itself the authority to define and determine when a school is "failing". So, it is clearly possible, and given the penchant for bureaucrats to expand their fiefdoms whenever possible likely, that more and more schools will fall under that designation as the criteria are slowly changed from something wholly reasonable to something completely unrecognizable.
I asked someone and was told it allows the State to place a Political Officer in control of each school / district, requiring the local district to pay for it (whether they want "help" or not). The Political Officer is a policy fixer sent by the State. Translations: "Greater flexibility" means gathering up of power / authorit'ah "State accountability" means State, not local, exercise of that power / authorit'ah "Fix failing schools" means compel compliance, the "teeth" of that power / authorit'ah "Increasing community involvement" means as many new Political Officers as possible as soon as possible "To allow the State to intervene" means "empower State bureaucrats to insert noses locally". IIRC the School System is independently empowered by the State Constitution, which is why an amendment is required. I have to wonder... ... maybe there was a reason for it? Maybe we shouldn't be so hasty to abandon that power balance no matter how pretty or "reasonable" the ballot wording sounds? Even if the local district, parents and tax payers do not want it? "Assume the supervision . . ." is the "takeover" and compelled compliance under the new Political Officers. I'm guessing this includes the power of the Political Officer to open up those endless Federal funds through compelled implementation of necessary policy at the school(s). Would this include compelled installation of "core common" too? How about "desirable" and "undesirable" curricula? If some Senator in DC thinks it would be a good idea for all the students to sing Kumbaya three hours a day with milk and cookies and offered a few million per school if they do it, would the Political Officer say that is what's needed to fix the test scores?
My initial thought was that since the state's largest teacher's union was against it, that probably meant it was a good idea and I should support it. You have changed my opinion.
I too am usually against ANYTHING that the NEA (or similar union) advocates for, but this whole thing stinks and Deal stinks. For the most part, if Deal thinks it is a good deal, then it ain't. I voted NO to this amendment. Leave it to the local boards to deal with it.
Vote no. They want to micromanage teachers. You'll see a mass exodus of teachers then standards will be lowered to fill those teaching slots.
Mass exodus of teaches? Really? Summer's off. 2-3 weeks at Christmas. 1week at Thanksgiving. No weekends. Best retirement program in the US according to several reviews. Education degrees that prepare you to do nothing else. Lockstep pay raises based on time served plus increases for advanced degrees plus occasional COLA increases. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose but a teacher exodus.
Yeah...I don't think so. The only teachers that are leaving (or would leave) are the ones that are *actually* qualified and to head to greener pastures (such as leaving DeKalb for Cobb). Teachers pretty much pigeon hole themselves into that career since they aren't going to much else with a teaching certificate.
I had initially thought to vote yes, but I've also changed my mind. This is classic camel's nose under the tent in extending state control centrally over local governments. Interesting take here, on the deceptive wording of the ballot question to make it sound like a good idea. : http://www.macon.com/news/local/education/article98728612.html
I would argue that just about every amendment on the ballot is worded for passage. I am not sure how that happens, but it sure seems like that is the case. Look at the wording on the Judicial Oversite Committee...which is a damn joke as it stands today.
Exactly right. I'm STILL researching that amendment, to see if I can figure out what my position is on it. It smells, for sure, the convoluted way it's crafted. My inclination is to vote "no" on crappily stated amendments.