Recent editorials from Georgia newspapers:
___
March 18
Savannah Morning News on guns on college campuses:
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: College campuses are supposed to be safe places for learning. They become more dangerous if people are allowed to pack heat along with their books and slipping handguns into classrooms.
Pandering to constituents with an overly-generous view of the Second Amendment, Georgia lawmakers are again pushing a bill that would allow people aged 21 or older to carry firearms onto campus if they are licensed to do so, with some exceptions. If this bill becomes law, students could be forgiven if they began insisting on home schooling in their dorm rooms. Student housing is one of the places guns would still be forbidden. Athletic facilities and preschools, some preschools, at any rate, would also stay gun-free.
HB 280 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday, having been tweaked, and appears headed for a joint meeting to iron out differences.
These guys don’t give up. Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican, ignited a political firestorm last year when he vetoed a similar campus carry bill. We applauded him for sticking to his, well, principles. One of his concerns then was that there was no exemption for preschools. To assuage that, lawmakers this year wrote such wording into HB 280. Sort of.
Under the version that went to committee on Friday, if the campus has more than three buildings that house space for the toddlers, there is no exemption. This makes no sense. Apparently you can have too many preschoolers on campus, but not too many guns. Never too many guns.
We know that murderous shootings on college campuses in recent years have stoked those who believe the answer is to arm more people, responsible people, so they can spring into action should such an attack occur. We’re picturing a melee resulting. And if having more people carrying guns around is such a good idea, why are college presidents and campus police chiefs lined up against it? And why are metal detectors installed at the doors to the state Capitol in Atlanta? State lawmakers are guilty of a double-standard: They believe their workplace should be gun-free, but not college campuses.
If you believe college presidents and police chiefs should have some say so over public safety at their own universities and colleges, urge your legislator not to pass this bill.
And if that doesn’t work, let the governor know you want him to nix this bill, again. He could use the backing.
Online:
https://savannahnow.com
___
March 19
The (Gainesville) Times on a legislative plan to help struggling schools in Georgia:
Georgia voters rejected a proposed amendment to the constitution last fall that would have allowed the state to assume control of struggling schools. So lawmakers literally went back to school, and the drawing board, to craft a Plan B this year.
They seem to have learned most of the lessons from last year’s failed plan that led to its defeat - concerns over duplicate management efforts, grabbing local tax funds to pay for an “opportunity school district” and dealing local school boards out of decision-making.
A proposal in the General Assembly passed the House by a 138-37 vote with bipartisan support, giving it a decent chance of passage in the Senate. It addresses the weaknesses of the previous plan by partnering with school boards to fix struggling schools, giving them a chance to turn things around before the state takes more drastic action.
It would leave local tax dollars untouched, in particular not steering tax revenue toward for-profit charter school companies that contribute heavily to political campaigns. A separate bill aims to address the underlying poverty that causes many schools to fall short, which is vital.
House Bill 338, authored by Dawsonville Republican Rep. Kevin Tanner, would have the state school board appoint an administrator to oversee failing school efforts, an end run around the state superintendent. And deciding which measures to use in evaluating school performance remains a contentious issue.
But taken as a whole, the bill at least keeps the pressure on. Everyone agrees the state can’t sit by idly and let students slip through the cracks without taking action.
In the process of getting the bill passed, a lack of consensus between Gov. Nathan Deal and Superintendent Richard Woods has emerged over policy, which may explain why the governor prefers an appointed czar rather than leave the task to the elected school chief.
It was recently learned Deal sent a letter to Woods bluntly stating the number of failing schools has increased on the superintendent’s watch and wanted to know his plan to address the problem. Woods responded he was waiting to see if last year’s amendment passed before he took action. The exchange was further evidence the education department and the governor’s office aren’t on the same page in crafting school policy.
Such a tug-of-war between governors and superintendents isn’t new. Roy Barnes and Linda Schrenko feuded openly, with the school board caught in the middle. More recently, Deal and former superintendent John Barge clashed on school policy during the governor’s first term, leading Barge to run against him in the next primary.
Such conflicts may be unavoidable. When candidates for governor seek office, school policy is a key element of their campaigns; after all, education takes half of the state budget. Meanwhile, a superintendent hopeful runs his or her own race, often with a different set of priorities. Once in office, those ideas don’t always mesh into a cohesive strategy.
At the federal level, and in 38 of 50 states, the school chief is appointed rather than elected. Georgia is one of nine states that elects a superintendent but allows the governor to appoint the school board. This may be sparking the idea of tinkering with school leadership at both the state and local levels, as evidenced by a proposal in this year’s legislative session.
Last week, a Senate panel rejected a plan by Toccoa Republican Sen. John Wilkinson that would change the nature of choosing local school boards, allowing voters to choose a superintendent who would in turn select the board, rather than the reverse now in place since a 1992 amendment. The debate is over how best to select qualified education professionals to enact policy and manage budgets rather than let politics be the deciding factor.
In most instances, it’s best to leave such decisions up to voters. But when such a system in place doesn’t work well, it’s time to rethink it.
A plan to take the state superintendent post off the ballot was floated a few years ago in the legislature. The plan would allow the school board to appoint the superintendent, and since the board is seated by the governor, could result in a more unified policy team.
The other state constitutional offices also could be appointed, though none involve the level of attention and importance as the school chief. Can voters really know who’s best suited to lead the insurance, labor, state, justice or agriculture departments? Each post comes with specific qualifications that some who seek those offices may not possess, leaving voters to pick winners based on political skills rather than expertise.
Similarly, a school superintendent with experience in education should be a bottom-line requirement. Governors’ terms in office can hinge on school policy, so it isn’t unreasonable for them to seek control of those decisions.
Removing the superintendent post from the ballot would limit voter choices to a point, but that accountability would merely shift to the top of the ballot. If school reforms aren’t successful, the buck stops at the top of the ticket. Otherwise it’s too easy for a governor and superintendent to blame each other for failure, leaving voters to figure out who’s right. And ultimately, the big losers are students who don’t get the attention they deserve while politicians argue.
The bill now in the legislature is a clear upgrade over last year’s amendment, and may be improved as it moves through the Senate. If the legislature can pass a bill that helps struggling districts with the funding, innovation and leadership they need, forges partnerships with local parents and school officials and leaves tax dollars to be spent locally, it’s worthy of a shot. Georgia’s public schools need attention, money and fresh ideas, not the back of our hand or a scheme to rob from public coffers for private gain.
With that done, lawmakers might then again consider whether changing the superintendent from an elected to an appointed post in the future would allow governors to put a unified team in place to improve schools, along with the added responsibility to deliver results.
Online
https://www.gainesvilletimes.com
___
March 19
The Marietta Daily Journal on a school governance proposal:
A majority of state senators are handing Georgians a grenade to lob at our local school systems, blowing up how they are presently run.
These elected officials believe voters should have the option of returning to the good ol’ days when superintendents were elected and school boards were appointed by a grand jury.
Fortunately, the House Education Committee saw reason and voted down the idea on Thursday.
But that doesn’t mean it won’t resurface in the future, and therefore worth a review.
First, a little history.
Georgians approved a constitutional amendment in 1992 backed by Gov. Zell Miller and enacted in 1996 requiring local school boards to be elected and superintendents to be hired by the school board.
Prior to that, the default position in Georgia was an elected superintendent and grand juryappointed school board, or in the case of city school systems, a city councilappointed school board, according to Angela Palm with the Georgia School Boards Association, a group that opposes the Senate’s idea.
There was also the option through local legislation to have an elected school board and boardappointed superintendent. This made for inconsistency across the state as some systems chose the former, some the latter and some a hybrid where both the superintendent and board were elected, something state Rep. Ed Setzler, RAcworth, tells the MDJ he would like to see resurrected.
The trouble with an elected superintendent and school board is it raises the question of who is The Decider, since both were put in office by the voters.
Palm said such scenarios made for highly contentious school systems when the board and superintendent didn’t see eye to eye.
Another problem with an elected superintendent is it requires that person to devote much of their time to the campaign trail, kissing babies and holding fundraisers. That cuts into the valuable time of running the school system.
The state senator pushing this amendment, John Wilkinson, a Toccoa Republican, said if his proposal passes and a school system reverted to the elected superintendent way of governance, candidates for that office must live within the school system’s boundaries. This was also the requirement under the old system where candidates were required to live in the district for two years to qualify for office, Palm said, recalling horror stories in some rural school systems that ended up with only two qualified candidates who would take turns running for the position.
If the idea is to snag a highly qualified professional to run a school system, why would a school district limit itself to a small pool of candidates when it could scan the nation for the best?
Georgia wasn’t the only state to see the folly in electing local superintendents. Only two states use that option - Alabama and Florida, according to John Zauner, executive director of the Georgia School Superintendents Association, a group that also opposes Wilkinson’s resolution.
One needn’t go that far back in history to see what happens when a school superintendent is elected, reminded retired educator Dr. Teresa Plenge, a former chair of the Cobb Board of Education. Just cast your eye over the mess that is the Georgia Department of Education with its elected state school superintendent and governor-appointed school board. Remember Georgia Superintendent Linda Schrenko, who pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering and was sent to prison in 2006? She was followed by Kathy Cox, a woman Plenge described as nice enough but who was completely in over her head. When choices are made through a popularity contest rather than on job qualifications, education is further politicized.
The focus is on adults rather than the students.
Another valid point Plenge raises is that an elected superintendent in Cobb would likely be loyal to the part of the county which placed him or her in office, rewarding that area at the expense of the rest of the county.
As for the birdbrained idea of allowing a grand jury to appoint a school board: a grand jury is composed of citizens who meet in secret. That Georgia’s senators believe it’s wise to hand over taxing power to such a group says all you need to know about Georgia’s senators.
“It’s ripe for corruption,” Plenge said.
Wilkinson told the MDJ this week that he was pushing the bill because he wanted to give local school districts the right to decide whether they wanted to go back to the old way, arguing that there is no difference in student achievement between the two ways of governance. With respect, senator, if there’s no difference, then why change?
The current system, with an elected school board held accountable by the voters that appoints a professional superintendent held accountable by that board, is the best way to govern a school district. It provides checks and balances for the public by having elected board members oversee the policies of the school system. If those policies run counter to the will of the people, the voters can - and do - eject them from office every four years.
The system allows the board to hire a professional to run the daily operations of the school system and ensure that professional is meeting his or her commitments.
State Reps. Sam Teasley, R-Marietta, and Setzler, Cobb’s two lawmakers on the House Education Committee who voted down this destructive legislation, deserve thanks. And the Cobb senators who voted for it - Hunter Hill, R-Smyrna; Bruce Thompson, R-White; Lindsey Tippins, R-west Cobb; and Michael Rhett, D-Marietta - should reconsider their position the next time this bad legislation is raised.
Online:
https://www.mdjonline.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.