By AMY RILEY
One Citizen's Perspective

Now that the governor's A+ Education Reform Act, HB 1187, has met its first challenge and sailed through the Georgia House of Representatives this past week, it is imperative that citizens take a long, hard look at what this bill means both to the state and to Fayette county.

I salute GOP House members Kathy Cox and Lynn Westmoreland for standing firm and voting NO to a bill which is sure to change the face of public education in Georgia in ways that few have truly realized, and before all is finished, fewer still may applaud. We can only hope that the Georgia Senate will amend HB 1187 to offset some of the likely pitfalls, and that what was railroaded through the House will take a more responsible pace in the Senate.

One of the hidden harms in HB 1187 is in the provision for a reduction in student-teacher ratios. While most agree that smaller class size translates to greater classroom success, the bill makes no provision for the additional classrooms.

In Fayette, where many schools are already beyond capacity, and the school system lacks the funds to construct new schools, where will we fabricate the extra space?

When questioned about this dilemma several weeks ago, the governor's office suggested that districts partition classrooms and place two teachers with up to 34 students. Now there's an idea sure to wreak havoc on classroom instruction.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, representing portions of Fayette and Coweta counties, expressed concern that the teacher to student ratio mandate might restrict the use of paraprofessionals because of a glitch in the funding equation which would only count teachers, not parapros, in the reduction of classroom size.

Those who volunteer in local elementary schools know that placing a parapro with a teacher in a relatively small class is a wonderfully successful way to individualize academic instruction and enhance learning. An added benefit is that parapros provide one-on-one tutoring in an outstanding program of early intervention for reading and/or math skills in grades K-2 while their assigned class is engaged in `specials,' such as music, technology, art, and P.E.

Greg Hecht, a Democrat and one of Fayette's state senators, said that he, too, “does not like the provision [in HB 1187] that might limit paraprofessionals.”

Another problem facing larger, wealthier districts is the threat of a net loss in funding due to changes in the funding formula.

Equalization, which distributes money at a higher percentage to districts with lesser tax digests to ensure that no child will be deprived of a quality education by virtue of where he or she lives, will probably result in lost revenue for Fayette county.

Jim Stephens, Director of Finance for the Fayette school system believes that the reduction in the fiscal bottom line for Fayette between equalization and recomputation of the local “fair share” formula (which would have occurred anyway) “could be substantial,” though absolute figures cannot yet be calculated.

Echoing Stephens' concern, Westmoreland sought to clarify what HB 1187 would mean to Fayette and Coweta counties in terms of funding, and was told by the state Department of Education that Fayette would lose around $20 million and Coweta $10 million. However, a second call by Westmoreland to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, projected a gain of $900,000 for Fayette and $2.5 million for Coweta.

Westmoreland cited this discrepancy as his “number one reason for voting against HB 1187.” He hopes to glean some actual figures during the Senate debate of the bill.

State Superintendent of Education Linda Schrenko was expected to hold a meeting with superintendents of Georgia's school districts this week to outline “what this is really going to cost [each] school system,” according to Stuart Bennett, Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction in Fayette, who laments that this bill seems to address “everything but instructional issues.”

Other critics are concerned about the use of testing as the sole measure of accountability.

While I agree that nationally normed tests are an invaluable tool in gauging the state's educational performance, we shouldn't have the cart pulling the horse. Overemphasizing test performance will create a climate of teaching to the test. A great deal of instructional time will be spent prepping children which may diminish teaching of core subjects within a strictly academic context.

Furthermore, the “reform” tests will be state commissioned tests used only in Georgia. They will yield no comparative data on how well our children are performing on a national level. For this reason, we should maintain our use of nationally normed tests, which will result in even more time spent testing.

How serious is this problem? Ask parents in other “reform” states. Last week, an Oregon newspaper ran a story about parents who were attempting to organize a statewide boycott of their accountability tests to try to force the state to back away from the performance (outcomes) mentality in favor of a more instructional emphasis.

As I stated last week, I have concerns over the battle to end teacher tenure, but not for reasons most people might think. I admit, I find it odd myself, as a “parent activist,” to be advocating tenure for teachers, but as I said then, this bill makes for some strange alliances.

If it were any other time, and not associated with such a sweeping (as in too much hidden agenda being swept under the rug) reform bill, I would probably have favored a more fair market approach to job security, too.

I believe that ending teacher tenure will have an overall negative result on education in Georgia, one which outweighs any gain made by making it easier to fire an ineffective or incompetent teacher.

In teaching, experience and desire to impart knowledge to the next generation is everything. Tying pay increases, and even the job itself, to the performance of one's students sounds good in theory, but in reality, there are far too many factors at play.

Even the greatest of teachers in a poverty-stricken district know that while they might have the child for six or so hours a day, they have no control over socioeconomic factors a child might be facing away from school which may be hindering learning.

The end result will be a loss of teachers who are simply too burned out to carry the load anymore. The loss of job security will cause less to enter the field and more to leave after only short stints. Georgia will see a higher rate of turnover and thus lose one of the most valuable tools in the educational arsenal — experience.

Even more alarming is the thought that Georgia teachers might turn to the National Educators Association (NEA) for unionization and collectively bargained contracts. Then we'll have a real crisis in education.

I think that Gov. Barnes' whole tenure debacle was nothing but a political ruse to gain Republican votes and distract Georgians from the real meat of yet another mass centralization of power into his office.

Many would rather see an amendment to provide vouchers to children and parents in underperforming schools to be used for private schools or higher performing public schools. This will be a big argument in the Georgia Senate throughout the next week.

In a Sunday AJC article, Drew Allbritten, Georgia Association of Educators (GAE) executive director, was credited with saying that he suspects that Gov. Barnes “sold out” teachers to the business community to help his 2002 reelection. And just what does the business community get in return? A chance to train the future workforce to suit their own corporate needs through a cheap labor pool of secondary school level apprenticeships. Tell that to the 6000 people losing their jobs at Coca-Cola.

I have not even mentioned concerns about politically motivated school councils and state funding for licensed nurses in all schools with no clear definition of what “critical medical services” will be encompassed.

According to the language in HB 1187, that will be defined by the Department of Education. In some reform states, similar funding has been used to establish school-based clinics which then bill Medicare for services to non-insured, low-income children. In still others, state funded school clinics have been used to dispense birth control and other referrals without parental consent.

No one has indicated that to be the case here, but then nothing was indicated at all. I find that suspicious.

I believe that Georgia was on the way to consistent improvement already under the leadership of Linda Schrenko. Her emphasis on strong, core academic skills, early intervention for emerging and remedial readers, and making public comparisons of individual schools and districts were making strides in meeting the needs of Georgia's students.

Now we are facing top-down management of our schools. Local control is being alarmingly revoked, unconstitutionally so, many believe. What Barnes has touted as a necessary shot in the arm may be a shot in the foot.

Eight to 10 years from now, will we still believe that this “looks good, sounds good, pushes all the right buttons” bill was such a great idea?

Let the spin begin.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page