Here’s a look at the state’s latest proposal for failing schools and what local leaders think about it

Three months after 60 percent of Georgia’s voters rejected the constitutional amendment that would have empowered the state to take over chronically failing schools, another proposal is being considered.

Now, instead of the proposed Opportunity School District championed by Gov. Nathan Deal, this education reform initiative, called Georgia House Bill 338, is being led by state Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville.

How HB 338 is different

Deal’s proposal would have allowed the governor to appoint an OSD superintendent, separate from the Georgia Department of Education superintendent, who is elected by voters.

The OSD superintendent could have taken over as many as 20 eligible schools each year, controlling no more than 100 such schools at any time, and could have waived Georgia Board of Education rules, reorganized or fired staff and changed school budgets and curriculum. The state also could have converted OSD schools to nonprofit or for-profit charter schools or closed them if they didn’t have full enrollment.

The state would have used the College and Career Ready Performance Index to determine which schools are eligible for takeover. Schools that scored below 60 on the 100-point CCRPI for three straight years could have been included. Those schools would have stayed in the OSD for no less than five years (or, if they were an OSD charter school, for the length of the initial charter’s term) and for no more than 10 years before returning to local control. Opportunity Schools could have been removed from the OSD whenever they were graded above an F in the state’s accountability system for three straight years.

Here are some ways HB 338 is different:

▪ The OSD superintendent, appointed by the governor, could have been somebody without any work experience in education. HB 338 calls for the Georgia Board of Education, whose members are appointed by the governor, to appoint a Chief Turnaround Officer. The CTO would need at least 15 years of work experience in K-12 education and an advanced degree in K-12 education, and to have been a principal or higher in a public school system for at least three years with “extensive experience” in turning around failing schools.

▪ The CTO would recommend Turnaround Coaches, approved by the state school board, to “assist schools that are identified as in the greatest need of assistance.”

▪ The OSD proposal specifically defined which schools would qualify for state takeover. But the draft of HB 338 is vague. It says the schools in greatest need would be “based on the number of years such schools have received an unacceptable rating and any other factors deemed appropriate by the Chief Turnaround Officer.”

▪ After implementing the turnaround plan for two years, a school that hasn’t improved enough, as determined by the CTO, could be subject to the following actions from the CTO: appoint a school master or management team to direct the principal; remove any school personnel; convert the school to a charter; completely reconstitute the school and hire all new staff; allow parents to move their children to another public school in the system; completely restructure the school’s governance; turn the school over to a “successful” system; turn the school over to a private nonprofit entity; or establish “any other interventions or requirements deemed appropriate” by the CTO and the state school board.

▪ If one-half or more of the schools in a local school system receive an “unacceptable” rating for five or more consecutive years, the governor could suspend the local school board members.

3 questions for local superintendents

The Ledger-Enquirer asked the Columbus area school superintendents for their opinions of HB 338, emailing them these three questions:

▪ What do you like about the proposal?

▪ What do you dislike about the proposal?

▪ What else should citizens know about this issue?

Overall, the superintendents consider HB 338 an improved proposal over the OSD. They like the increased emphasis on cooperation between state and local education officials, provisions for more assistance and the potential for an advisory council to include more stakeholders in developing the turnaround rules. But they dislike the draft’s lack of detailed definitions, especially in the “unacceptable” rating and the turnaround model.

Here are their responses:

Muscogee County

Seven of Muscogee County’s 53 schools are considered chronically failing: Baker and Eddy middle schools and Davis, Dorothy Height, Forrest Road, Martin Luther King Jr. and South Columbus elementary schools. The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement defines chronically failing as having a CCRPI score below 60 for the previous three years.

Here are the responses from Muscogee County superintendent David Lewis:

▪ What he liked: “I am pleased to see that the proposed bill appears to provide schools and districts with more time and ancillary state resources to assist schools in addressing the variety of challenges that often impact student achievement in high need schools.”

▪ What he disliked: “To provide a detailed analysis of the bill, further definition and clarity is needed. For example, the proposal refers to an ‘unacceptable’ rating, which is not specified in the proposal. Hopefully, more clarity will be forthcoming through revisions to the bill as it progresses through the legislative process.”

▪ What else citizens should know: “It is important for readers to know that schools are microcosms of society and as such, they are susceptible to those factors that can adversely impact student learning. In addition, it would appear that the proposed state model is a larger scale version of our district reorganization plan implemented during the 2014-15 school year, which has proven successful in providing differentiated support and has improved the performance of many of our challenged schools.”

Harris County

None of Harris County’s seven schools is considered chronically failing.

Here are the responses from Harris County superintendent Jimmy Martin:

▪ What he liked: “I feel something needs to be done to address chronically failing schools. All children deserve the opportunity to receive a quality education. I would like to think no one wants our schools to fail. This proposal appears at face value to be a step in the right direction. By providing intensive assistance and support to failing schools, we can put in place sustainable practices and structures to promote and support student achievement.”

▪ What he disliked: “It’s really too early to jump to any conclusions. What we know about the bill is a move in the right direction. However, there is a lot missing as far as details are concerned. I would really like to see their school turnaround model and how they will go about implementing these practices before I can make a true determination.”

▪ What else citizens should know: “Many of the schools in Georgia who will be impacted by this bill have many obstacles they must overcome. Issues such as funding, poverty, and attracting quality teachers in these schools need to be seriously considered if we ever intend to make any positive sustainable gains in educating Georgia’s children. If we as a society and as educators continue to ignore these issues and continue trying to place blame we will never make the difference our children deserve.”

Chattahoochee County

One of Chattahoochee County’s three schools is considered chronically failing: the middle school.

Here are the responses from Chattahoochee County superintendent David McCurry:

▪ What he liked: “From what I’ve seen up to this point, HB 338 may be a better plan for struggling schools than was the OSD amendment. It appears to be a much less aggressive approach. 338 seems to be more focused on assisting local boards of education with turnaround efforts as opposed to taking control of underperforming schools. In my opinion that’s a positive.”

▪ What he disliked: “One sticking point with the public education community is probably going to be the role of the Chief Turnaround Officer who will oversee turnaround efforts for underperforming schools. Unless I’m mistaken, this individual will not report to the State Superintendent as do all other Georgia DOE employees. Rather, the CTO will report directly to the State Board of Education. Since Governor Deal appoints the state board members, some may perceive this as being no different than an OSD Superintendent.”

▪ What else citizens should know: “Personally, I feel this proposed legislation might have the potential to work. Again, it appears to be presented in more of a cooperative spirit than the previous attempt. I appreciate the fact that there’s wording in the bill to create a Turnaround Advisory Council made up of executive directors from (Georgia School Boards Association), (Georgia School Superintendents Association), (Georgia Parent Teacher Organization), (Professional Association of Georgia Educators) and (Georgia Association of Educators). I’m sure there will be lots of recommended changes in upcoming weeks.”

This story was originally published February 18, 2017 at 12:13 AM with the headline "Here’s a look at the state’s latest proposal for failing schools and what local leaders think about it."