I support new charter schools. I am checking some charter schools' blogs. some of them are highly successful. Here is an example : http://www.conceptschools.info/the-success/ That's why I support the new charter schools.

I'm against it because I believe in local control in this instance to avoid financial problems. If the state pushes it, the state has to add to the funds of the county. However, I don't consider that likely.

However, Charter schools that have already gotten past the drawing board should still be opened to undo the damage that has been done.

So far four Smyrna-Vinings Patch Facebook followers have expressed their support for HR 1162. Here's what one parent had to say, "Yes -- school choice is a great thing! We need more of it, not less!"

Do you agree?

No...Dr. Barge said it best. I think charters and school in general needs to remain in local control. In fact get rid of the department of education in DC and return the money to local counties.
We certainly do not need another board not accountable to people who elected them making decisions on how to spend our hard earned money.

I support charter schools and increased parental choice.

Rent the film WAITING FOR SUPERMAN to learn how the teachers' union campaign against choice harms all of us truly concerned about education.

Also, do a Google search on "NEA" and "donations" and you'll see the National Education Association is little more than a cash-cow for Democrats—and for every liberal-left pressure group in the news!

I have a real,problem with for profit charters...not local charters and I believe in using vouchers for parental choice, especially with so many failing schools. I just. Do not think at this time we need more bureaucracy funded by the state....with no accountability to the tax payers.

When local control consists of control czars it does not always work out best for the children

I will not vote for the charter school amendment. If you want local control, you don't want charter schools that will be focused on profits and not on education. Consider sustainability: What happens when the schools aren't "profitable enough"? Do they close up shop? Our public school system is a mess, most recently thanks to No Child Left Behind, but it's a mess we can handle without running off in all directions looking for solutions. Corporations, like politicians, will promise the moon but delivery on those promises often falls short of projections.

Do our local educational board truely have control. Do they truly represent the voice of the people. I think the community fills disinfranchised with our local board. What's wrong with making all our schools charter schools? Do our local board have the authority to do that? I don't believe in building an other building and running from our problems. Most of the time our problems only follows us. Let's correct what's wrong in the buildings we already have.

No. The state is free to start all the charter schools it wants. This allows the state to start a charter school and bill the expenses to a county that has already rejected the school.

Fact of the matter is, more charter schools are needed because <i>that's where innovative ideas will come from.</i>

The teachers' union bosses in Washington and New York are fighting other battles that have much more to do with UNION REVENUES than kids. Again, rent the film WAITING FOR SUPERMAN.

The solution to this problem is some where in the middle. This is a strange topic because it has strange bed fellows. For groups that believe in states rights but don't believe in county rights seems strange to me. If this proposal works as envisioned, let's imagine four years down the road. Will we have charter school next to every public school? Will this be efficient for our tax dollar? Instead of us paying for the heating and air for one building we are paying for heating and air two buildings. I perceive there will be a shortage of money at some point. Will the private companies make up the short fall by making our kids where advertisement on their uniforms? Does more choices means more expensive? It seems to me that the more money you have the more choices you have. If you have more money, you can choose private, public, or charter. If you have more money you can choose East, West, or South Cobb. If you have more money you can choose BMW, Lexus, or Range Rover. This issue is simple... hold you local school board accountable. If charter is the answer, make all your current public school, charter schools. Ask your local board to support the equitable empowerment of parents and community in their local schools the way charter and private do. The numbers will not add up in the long run and after the state commision don't meet your needs you will want to go federal I guess.

Connie Jackson, President of Cobb County Association of Educators, said this on the South Cobb Patch Facebook page:
"No, I have no problem with charter schools, they are an option parents should have. I DO have a problem with allowing the state to appoint a board that will not answer to the people, usurp local school board control, and take money away from public schools who need it. We already have a method for approving charter schools , this is a power play by the state government, plain and simple."

Beth, all members of Georgia Association of Educators are required to also belong to the National Education Association—which brags right on its own website that it's the largest union in the country.

Google "NEA" and "union" to see this yourself.

And remember, there is more to unions than just workplace militancy. Belonging to the NEA costs each and every GAE member (CCAE in Cobb) an extra $168 yearly.

A process already exists to create quality charter schools. It involves decisions made at the local level, with a locally elected board of education. If the local board denies a charter school then a process already exists through state law to allow a charter school not approved by its local board of education to petition to the State Board of Education to operate as a school. HR 1162 just creates a new bureaucracy that will be funded by pulling even more funds directly from public schools. These charter schools will be approved by a commission made up of political appointees, be allowed to skirt local control, and funnel millions to for-profit education management companies. This will not create high quality charter schools, it will only further erode Georgia's already abysmal financial support of public education.

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Charter-Schools/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-New-Petitioners.aspx
The new ammendment is actually in the school board's favor. Here's why
Charter Schools work much like a voucher program. If a local school board approves it, the charter school gets state and local funds. If the local school board does not approve the charter school and the state does, then the local school board gets to keep all the local funds and does not have to use it to educate the students who attend the charter school. More money+Less students=more spent per student.
The state approved charter school only gets the amount of money the state has designated for the specific students who attend the charter school. None of the local or federal money goes to the state approved charter school. The local school board gets to keep it. Automatically the amount of money spent per pupil increases for the local school board.
The state approved charter school would have to operate on just the state funding which is determined by FTE counts in the public schools. Taxes would not be raised. Charter school funds would just be lowered.
Charter schools ARE public schools. By law they cannot pick and choose which students to accept. They have to either have a lottery or take students first come first served much like pre-k spots are filled. They cannot charge tuition or pick and choose students.
More choice is always good.

When you look at the fact that districts with successful charter schools, appear to get vindictive when “money”, over educating takes front and center, we harm our children in the worst possible way. Some people argue about big government, but they don’t stop to look at big central offices of school districts. Others negate the fact, that if a school district is doing great, there is rarely a need for charter schools. Charter schools are needed, not out of luxury but out of necessity. When school district is not able to meet the obligation to educate, all options should be on the table. Some say that they are against charter schools being sanctioned by the state, because education management companies could line the pockets of politicians. Good argument, but we forget that they could more easily line the pockets of board members in local school districts. In reality, a state approved charter schools will only happen when the local districts deny them without merit. It is similar to an appeal process, whereby the petitioner is not being taken seriously by the local school district. Think of this scenario. Parents and concerned community stakeholders in a failing school district come together and construct a great “concept school” (that is research based) for their community. They, as a community, then move forward to initiate the idea with their districts board and their local board says NO! What is the recourse in this scenario? If you vote no, there is none.

Above all, an argument I that I believe is missing from this discussion is this. If the state department was to authorize a charter school, and no one attended the charter school, it would close. So what is the real harm with voting yes? State governments do not automatically fund charter schools when they open. Charter schools have to be attended, and then the money will flow to that charter school in approximately 60-90 days thereafter (FTE). Voting no, will ultimately silence parents and community stakeholders who want better for their school community. One might say, “They could work within the system to demand that change”. The answer to that is they already have, and where we are in education is a result of it.