Flipping the script on school choice

Attention! Attention! Please stand by for an important educational announcement!

Effective immediately, the University System of Georgia is instituting a new admissions policy. No longer will Georgia’s public colleges and universities enroll students based on their grades or SAT scores. Rather, all college-bound students in Georgia will attend the campus closest to where they live.

This new “attendance zone” policy will bring to Georgia’s colleges the same standard of excellence found in all of its k-12 schools!

The new policy may be a bit confusing, but we are here to help.

Students around the state will be assigned to the nearest college, university or technical college, regardless of their career interests or academic credentials. It certainly won’t have anything to do with where they want to go; individual choices in education simply don’t make sense.

So, high school graduates in Macon will attend Middle Georgia State College. Those from Richmond County will be assigned to either Georgia Regents University or Augusta Tech — but don’t worry, we’ll make the choice for you. After all, you probably aren’t capable of making such an important decision yourself!

It gets a little tricky in metro Atlanta. If you live in Buckhead you will attend Georgia Tech, but only if you’re between Ga. 400 and I-75. If you’re in Buckhead between 400 and I-85, you’ll be assigned instead to Georgia Perimeter College’s Dunwoody campus. We’re sorry if you wanted to become an electrical engineer, but you can still get an associate’s degree in engineering!

If you live in Decatur or Druid Hills, you won’t be able to attend the University of Georgia. You get Georgia Perimeter College in Clarkston. With the right amount of effort and involvement on your part, we’re sure it will be pretty much the same experience. Almost. Close enough. No? Too bad.

If these school assignments aren’t what you had hoped for, we can only feign sympathy … er, apologize.

You will not be able to enroll at a different college. Nor will you be able to use any state or federal grants or loans at any private colleges, such as Emory University. Instead, we will keep that money. We just know you’ll love our “fix the public schools first” attitude!

We will, however, allow a limited amount of “school choice” for about 1 in 30 students. If you wish, you may apply for a lottery to attend Georgia State University. Please don’t get your hopes up, as seats will be limited and the odds long.

(Oh, and from now on, Georgia State will be funded at about 80 percent as much per pupil as all our other colleges. We’re sure it’ll be great, though!)

If you have questions, we won’t answer them. You can direct them to the folks who sued over such crazy k-12 programs as the state’s charter schools commission and its tuition tax-credit scholarships, or the legislators who try to keep such programs from expanding.

They can tell you all about how patently absurd it is to let students and their parents choose from among a variety of schools and decide what’s best for them.

Reader Comments 0

126 comments
Wascatlady
Wascatlady

Kyle, are you familiar with the program Athens/Clarke County had for school choice?  It was choice for the public schools.  You could apply to go anywhere in the system.  I wonder what happened to that?

somewhat_nifty
somewhat_nifty

Kyle's column from a few weeks/months(?) ago about some charter school actually provided an example of what I mentioned in my last post, even though I think he misinterpreted the true cause/effect taking place.

The problem isn't that we don't know how to improve the schools, the problem is that we are not willing to 1) admit we know the answer  2) spend the money and DO what we KNOW will improve the schools. It is dishonest and misguided to claim one wants the schools to improve, but refuse to accept the solution based on personal ideological hang-ups about "dependency" and "moochers" etc., especially since quailty education will help decrease the creation of even further people in such need

There is nothing that says there cannot be private/business contributions to the solution, and in fact that would be an excellent component of an overall strategy. Want to offer tax credits for large corporations to relocate? Offer them also then, the requirement (you call it "an opportunity") to help overhaul the community they will be part of. They love PR stuff like that.

somewhat_nifty
somewhat_nifty

The biggest predictor of child achievement in school is the economic status of their family. Schools that have a majority of students from the lower economic strata will consistently do poorer than schools where the majority of students are from the upper income levels. Period. Look up study after study and let me know if any of you find something significantly different.

Throwing more money at schools with a lot of poor kids is not the answer. Yes the schools may need a little more money than richer districts to ensure safe , learning-conducive physical facilities, adequate educational resources (text books, computers, etc), and they should get it. But the most effective way to improve student performance in a low-income-district school is to specifically target social services at the families in need in that district.  That may mean free/subsidized daycare services so a stay at home parent can afford to work outside the home, it may mean additional food assistance, housing subsidies, work placement assistance/job training assistance. It isn't cheap, but the bang for the buck in terms of increased student achievement is far greater than 1)more/harder standardized tests, 2)changing principals every 2-3 years, 3) firing all the teachers and hiring new ones, 4) changing the curriculum, 5) giving people vouchers, etc.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@somewhat_nifty The biggest predictor of child achievement in school is the economic status of their family.


And, the biggest predictor of economic prosperity is a good education.   A vicious cycle!  So giving money to and trying to improve economic levels of parents, without educating them first, maybe is not the answer either.



somewhat_nifty
somewhat_nifty

You sort of make my point for me. You hit upon exactly why money should be targeted to the families. Teaching an illiterate parent to read, (and maybe even earn at least a GED if they never graduated from high school) will also help the child(ren) of that parent. They will be modeling the desired behavior, and the children WILL notice.

somewhat_nifty
somewhat_nifty

I wonder how much of that reflects the self-selection process of charter schools. As you know, poverty is a strong predictor of academic achievement , but does not necessarily preclude success. Kids in poverty sent to charter schools by choice of the parent at least suggest there is at least a semblance of a positive learning environment at home.

Imagine comparing two football teams- one where the players are placed on the team by parents with the time, opportunity and interest in seeing their child excel, and another team composed of players picked at random from disinterested families. Might there be some not-so-talented players on the first team, and some individual standouts on the second team? Absolutely. But there is a much better chance of the first team being better.

It would be interesting to study the differences in the home environments of successful vs unsuccessful students living in poverty. I suspect that one would find far more corollation between the negative secondary effects of poverty (parental drug/alcohol abuse, low education level of parents, single parent, unemployed parent, etc) and low achievement, than between charter school vs non-charter school.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@somewhat_nifty "Look up study after study and let me know if any of you find something significantly different."

That is broadly true, but it is also true that some schools are better at addressing this achievement gap than others: https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/UNEMBARGOED%20National%20Charter%20Study%20Press%20Release.pdf

Key line: "(Charter-school students) in poverty, black students, and those who are English language learners (ELL) gain significantly more days of learning each year in both reading and math compared to their traditional public school peers. Performance differences between charter school students and their traditional public school peers were especially strong among black and Hispanic students in poverty and Hispanic students who are ELL in both reading and math."


Citizenal
Citizenal

@somewhat_nifty I think you are more likely to find more correllation between responsible parent(s) and irresponsible.  Since we do not have unlimited funds we need to select the most productive paths first.  The trillions that have been spent in the war on poverty have paid little return so perhaps it is time to try things we know work.  Charter schools we know work almost universally across the board.  Students given school choice outperform so perhaps we should give all students choice.  


A better approach I feel. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Kyle, maybe off topic but  this spin that Georgia education has been run by the same people forever drivel, is exposed by this from Wikipedia on Speaker Thomas Murphy.  The Dems were certainly in charge of education until Murphy was replaced.


Fiercely partisan, Murphy described himself as a "yellow dog" Democrat, or one who would rather vote for a yellow dog than vote for a Republican.[3] U.S. Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Georgia) put it bluntly: "Tom Murphy wasn't fair, he wasn't bipartisan and he didn't light up a room with his smile." [4] In 1991 and 2001 Murphy presided over the reapportionment process which redrew congressional and legislative lines.[5] The resulting district maps were criticized for gerrymandering, which significantly favored Democrats.[5] Murphy acted to redraw the congressional seats of high-profile Republicans Newt Gingrich (1991), and Bob Barr (2001), in what was viewed as typical of his "hardball" application of political power.[5] Gingrich remarked that "The Speaker, by raising money and gerrymandering, has sincerely dedicated a part of his career to wiping me out."[3]


Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@RafeHollister They were all Conservatives.


The Conservative Democrats just became Conservative Republicans over the last 20 years or so.


Tom Murphy or not that is exactly what happened.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@HeadleyLamar It's been so entertaining to watch the liberals around here over the past year or so.

First, it was all about how bad things have gotten in Georgia since the GOP took over.

Then people began pointing out that a) the current trend lines began before 2003 and b) certain things, such as public education, have never been in very good shape.

So now the party line is that those old Democrats were all conservatives, at least after the civil rights movement.

I wonder what the line will be once people start noticing that things were better in the '90s than in the '80s, better in the '80s than in the '70s, and so on.

The problems we face as a state are much more complicated than the "turn Georgia blue" folks are willing to admit. You could say something similar about the Georgia GOP. But they're not the ones constantly rewriting history to fit the party line du jour.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@HeadleyLamar Keep repeating that, maybe someone else will buy it.  I have lived in Georgia all my life. there were conservative Democrats that never converted and still do not approve of the GOP, even though their own party has moved far, far away from them.  Go back through the list of Dems that ruled Georgia up until 2002 or so, and find one that has changed parties, Joe Frank Harris, Mark Taylor, Zell Miller, Pierre Howard, David Poythress, etc., all still Dems.





RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Someone said there is no interest in charter schools in South GA, which is totally false.  Check out Downey's column last week on the success of Pataula Charter Schools.  There is so much demand down there, a group is trying to start another one, 30 miles away. 


The problem down there is money and access to suitable facilities.  The county boards are absolutely opposed to any loss of money.  Counties have consolidated two or three to form one public high school in some instances.  You think education is poor in metro public schools, try it down there, where you may have to commute 40-50 miles each way on a bus.  The choice of qualified teachers is slim as the population is sparse.  They need charters as much as the Metro area.

Dusty2
Dusty2

Kyle,


I can see that you are angry about schools.  But your information about college  admissions does not sound accurate.  You did not supply any references or tell us when such plans were made.


You seem to be tying  this to the charter school debate. Seems entirely different to me.  The choice of higher education cannot be tied to location.  "Grade"School" demanded by law for everyone has to have some regional/local  direction.


Until I learn more about the "requirements" of higher education, I can only remain puzzled  over  your commentary.  

Dusty2
Dusty2

An analogy?  I don't see the likeness in the two things compared.  Both refer to education but in far distant ways and at different levels.


Oh well. An analogy!!  So be it! .




      .@InTheMiddle2 @Dusty2

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

Oh, let's go the other direction, shall we? 


You can go to any school K-12 you want to, provided you pay the cost of tuition.  


You want help paying for that? Sure!  Here is some loan information so you can go into deep debt. 


OH, you can't afford a loan?  Are you SURE you're a good parent?  Come on! Sacrifice!!!!


Your regular school has been neglected by the state, so it's underfunded and struggling, but there is a way out!  Just PAY PAY PAY for a private education. There is a waiting list, so even if you get the money, it does not guarantee a place in class. Scholarships can help a very few people, but it seems to help if you donate to that scholarship fund. Once in the school, if your kid makes a ruckus, they'll be back in the local school.  


Just ignore any attempts to fix the struggling schools. They don't want to change.  Just pay for your kid to get a private education.  That's the ticket! 


LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@Kyle_Wingfield @LogicalDude Would that mean multiple elementary schools and multiple middle-schools and multiple high schools in each district? 


Or just more charter schools, magnet schools, or private schools? 


"more than one actual option" could mean different classes from the regular curriculum in the same school, so I support that concept.   I don't see a huge expense (in new half-sized school buildings (third size, quarter size?) to expand school choice to 2 to 3 or 4 choices for each and every district) to be a feasible solution.   


Giving options in curricula at the same school is much more feasible. 

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@LogicalDude "There are better incremental steps that can be taken than just the "school choice" voucher system."

Your error is conflating "school choice" with "vouchers." Vouchers are one type of school-choice program.

And I, too, am for improving things for more than just 1% of kids. If I had my way, every single kid would have more than one actual option.

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@Kyle_Wingfield @LogicalDude Exactly.  School choice is already here. 


Introducing a few charter schools or magnet schools will not change the fact that the "poor" schools with the majority of children need to be improved. 


I'm for improving schools overall to help all students, not just help less than 1% of students.    How about charter wings in current schools?  How about focused classes in existing schools?   There are better incremental steps that can be taken than just the "school choice" voucher system. 


Changing current schools needs to start internally at the existing schools.  Putting a solution in place to help less than 1% of students does not give incentives to current schools to change anything. 

Citizenal
Citizenal

@LogicalDude @Kyle_Wingfield The issue with choice is holding schools accountable for results.  Good performing schools will get students and revenue while poor performing schools will get less students and less money.  


The issue here is that teachers in poor performing schools will lose their jobs and the unions just cannot allow that.  Better performing schools will only hire teachers that demonstrate they can deliver.


There are plenty of schools in extreme poverty in our country and others that have stellar performance with little correlation to parental prosperity - though there is correlation to parental responsibility and involvement.


Giving more money to schools will NOT automatically make them better.  Natural selection (read choice) will.

332-206
332-206

Democrats are running state education? Who knew?

dontstereotypemeyo
dontstereotypemeyo

Conservatives need to offer more on education than merely the various choice schemes. Applying Milton Friedman theory to the government really sets conservative hearts aflutter, and so does the opportunity to needle the left-liberals by A) weakening the teacher's unions and B) proclaiming the interests of the poor and minorities. But honestly, 1) school choice is only going to help a small, almost random group of people and 2) the kids who could benefit from better instruction and resources are not exclusively poor and/or minority ones. As a  matter of fact, I would argue that in Georgia, the low number of magnet and similar schools (especially outside the metro Atlanta area, but there are not nearly as many such schools even in metro Atlanta as there should be) means that affluent, high achieving kids are even more neglected by policymakers than their disadvantaged counterparts. The attitude seems to be that merely giving them a Hope scholarship to go to college is enough. 


And for the wide swath of kids who fall between "high income/high achieving" and "disadvantaged" ... nothing is offered to speak of really. Those are the kids who would most benefit from a strong vocational curriculum that would allow them to avoid having to spend 4-6 years in college (and its associated debt) only to enter a career path that doesn't require a college degreee in the first place. The preoccupation with school choice is just more "the free market will solve all ills if only it is given the chance" thinking that has paralyzed the GOP for decades now. This is not to say, of course, that the Democrat's welfare state approach is better ...

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@dontstereotypemeyo Magnet schools are a type of school choice. Don't buy the lie that only private schools or even charter schools represent a choice.

Oh, and it won't be true that school choice will only help "a small, almost random group of people" if we have more of it.

Citizenal
Citizenal

@Kyle_Wingfield @dontstereotypemeyo Obviously private and charter schools are not the only path to choice.  It does, however, make sense, when we can see the performance per $ curve so much stronger, that we include them.  I am assuming here that what we really care about is the student's performance and opportunity and not all the PC and political and union crap.   They have plenty of examples of students from poor families who have excelled in their care (when they get a chance to go there).

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

I am still waiting for someone to explain why the way our k-12 systems are built is actually a good thing. So far the closest we've gotten to that is something like a fatalistic, "this is the way it has to be" excuse.

LilBarryBailout
LilBarryBailout

It's a great thing! Who wouldn't want a captive audience for their product and taxpayer money funneled into your business by government mandate?

Oh, you meant good for the children, didn't you?

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@Kyle_Wingfield I believe it has something to do with 'local control'. Counties (and some cities) are small enough political subdivisions that it is perceived that county school systems are small enough to supposedly manage the system. Sometimes they get too large, apparently. 


Seems that a lot of reform wants to keep the 'local control' - parents aren't going to send their kids to schools that are far away, but wants more of a statewide funding model - or at least the money the county gets from all sources follow the student. 

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@Kyle_Wingfield  Kyle, fundamentally we keep looking for solutions in the wrong area. The problems we face in education is not the schools. With very little exception, find me a failed kid and you can almost always trace it back to the parents. Too many want to continue to avoid accountability and figure the best way to wash their hands of responsibility is to shout for more money. Why do charter schools succeed? because the parents actually care, that's why.

TicTacs
TicTacs

Move to the district of the school you like,  it really is simple, but there may be a cost ....

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Jefferson1776 Yep, that's right. You single mothers working two jobs a day, just go ahead and move into the best district in Buckhead! What's stopping you? Hey, there may be a cost, but if you really loved your kids you would just pay it!

And you say I don't care about the poor ...

Raja44
Raja44

@Kyle_Wingfield @Jefferson1776  There are low cost housing options in the Buckhead area.  Look at all of the low income and minority students in APS' North Atlanta High cluster.  Same thing for the Grady high cluster.  If you want to go to the schools in those areas, just move there and go, lots of low income people already are.

Raja44
Raja44

@Kyle_Wingfield @Raja44  There are definitely low cost housing options in all of those areas -- definitely in Lin and Spark, and a little less so in Morningside, Brandon, and Jackson -- but there are low cost apartments and rentals in all of them.  No one is being kept out of those schools because they just can't possibly find housing they can afford in them. 

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Raja44 Are you seriously arguing that anyone who wants to be in one of these zones can afford to be there? I can't imagine that you are, but I thought I might be misunderstanding you.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Raja44 "Look at all of the low income and minority students in APS' North Atlanta High cluster.  Same thing for the Grady high cluster."

But they generally are not in the Mary Lin, Morningside, SPark, Brandon and Jackson parts of those districts.

Raja44
Raja44

@Kyle_Wingfield @Raja44  You aren't familiar with those areas are you?  There are multiple low cost rentals on my street in Lin right now that low income people live in and send their kids to Lin.  Same is true for the other areas.  These are urban neighborhoods with all sorts of options.  Yes, these areas are gentrified, or continuing to gentrify, so the nicer properties are getting more expensive, but there's still plenty of lower cost rental stuff sprinkled around and in various pockets.  if you want to go to any APS school, I assure you that low cost housing exists in that school's attendance zone.  Same for DeKalb.  This ain't Manhattan.

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@Jefferson1776 It's not that simple. And to think it is denies reality, which is part of the problem with many so called solutions.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Raja44 I lived in the Morningside district 12 years ago, the Lin district 5 years ago and live near (but not in) the best Buckhead districts now -- and house-hunted in all of them 5 years ago. So I would say I am rather familiar with them.

Here's a question: If all a low-income family has to do to get into one of these schools is move to one of these eminently affordable options you say there are, why aren't there more low-income families in these districts? Lin has about 13% of its students classified as "economically disadvantaged" by the state; SPark about 14%. Each school has less than 30 kids so classified out of more than 200.

Raja44
Raja44

@Kyle_Wingfield @Raja44  House hunting for a decent house to buy in those areas is tough, no doubt.  But that's not what we're talking about -- we're talking about whether it's possible to be low income and live in those areas to go to those schools if you really want to, and the answer to that is yes.  Looking at free and reduced lunch rates in recent years, Lin is 10-14% frel, meaning approx. 60-85 students at Lin are frel; Spark: 15%-18% and 70-90 total students frel; Morningside: 8% and 60-65 total students frel; Brandon: 12-13% and 125-150 total students frel; Jackson: 7-8% and 60-80 total students frel.  That means there is a total of 375-470 free and reduced lunch students attend these schools, which means that 375-470 students and their families found housing they could afford in these school attendance zones.  Of course the free and reduced lunch rates are a lot higher at the middle schools and high schools (North Atlanta and Grady) in these areas.


My point is that is it can be done, lots of people are doing it, so just move there and go if you want to.  That choice does exist.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Raja44 And yet, Drew charter and the KIPP schools have much larger FRL enrollments -- in percentages and absolute numbers. I'd say that's a far better, and more realistic, way to offer choice to those families.

Raja44
Raja44

@Kyle_Wingfield @Raja44  Yes, KIPP and Drew have higher rates of FREL students because they are located in areas where more FREL students live.  But that doesn't mean those students at KIPP and Drew couldn't move and go to Lin or Morningside or wherever they want in APS. And there's no one stopping anyone from opening up more KIPPs or Drews anywhere they want -- in south Atlanta, south DeKalb, Morningside, Buckhead or wherever.  Lots of choices already exist and no one is stopping more choices from becoming available.  APS and DeKalb already have 32 charter schools between them, and they aren't turning any applications down. 


So why is the solution to our educational ills, to getting out of close to 50th place, to offer more "choice"?  Sounds like an ideological red herring to me. 

TicTacs
TicTacs

@Kyle_Wingfield @Jefferson1776  I'm not talking to the poor , I'm talking to you.  Is this not about you ?

Raja44
Raja44

@Kyle_Wingfield @Raja44  Ok, then I trust you'll make that disclaimer clear in your future pieces on school choice (of which I'm sure there are many more to come) -- you can say: "Disclaimer: This article does NOT pertain to APS and DeKalb Schools because I acknowledge there are already 32 charter schools in those districts, and no one is stopping anyone from opening up additional charter schools in those districts.  Plus, there are lots of good non-charter schools in those districts, like Jackson, Brandon, Morningside, Spark, Lin, Fernbank, and others, that anyone, even low income people, can move to and attend.  So there really is plenty of choice already in APS and DeKalb and so this article about us needing more school choice definitely does NOT apply to them."


As I pointed out before, no one appears to be stopping anyone from opening up any new charter schools anywhere in the state, so this disclaimer, or at least part of it, may apply to more than just APS and DeKalb.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Raja44 "more than" is not the same as "not." You have a bad habit of taking what I write and turning it into something it isn't. People who do that frequently tend not to have their comments approved, because I don't always have all day to spend correcting them.

DawgDadII
DawgDadII

Kyle, Kyle, Kyle. I am a very conservative person, perhaps with a libertarian bent, and I have to tell you your article is patently absurd. K-12 is a MANDATE, college is a CHOICE by definition. For K-12 there are core State-mandated educational standards and attendance requirements that are NOT a consumer choice. Now, how you deliver on that mandate is very much open for debate, but for K-12 proximity to the students place of residence is a MUCH more important factor than it is for college, and the district funding model drives geographical boundaries. Duh.


Have fun with voters and taxpayers and property owners trying to weaken the role of school districts and local control.


Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@DawgDadII "Now, how you deliver on that mandate is very much open for debate ..."

Yes, very much so. So much so that more choices might well bring about different and better methods of delivery. No?

"... but for K-12 proximity to the students place of residence is a MUCH more important factor than it is for college ..."

True, but in places that have some choice, we can see many examples of parents, even low-income parents, who overcome problems of geography. We also see charter schools that, while not providing transportation to all, reserve some funds to help with transportation for low-income kids.

"... and the district funding model drives geographical boundaries."

That's true for locally levied taxes, but why should state taxes respect those boundaries? If you move from Atlanta to Cartersville, your state money follows you. If you move from a traditional public school in Atlanta to a charter school in Atlanta, your state money follows you. (Your local money does, too, if it's a locally approved charter.)

So, we already have all the things you seem to object to. We just don't have them in very large quantities. 

MHSmith
MHSmith

@DawgDadII 

"but for K-12 proximity to the students place of residence is a MUCH more important factor than it is for college, and the district funding model drives geographical boundaries."

Place of residency can be big very a disadvantage in funding and scholastic opportunities, when it traps a child into a failing school or school system or a poor teaching faculty that will hold a bright young person back from learning all they can otherwise achieve. School choice gives freedom to the entrapped child who parents cannot afford to up-an-move into an affluent section/school district. 

By the way, the first rule of a Conservatism is to enhance "individual liberty" wherever or whenever possible NOT to support or increase government's power over a person's individual liberties whenever or wherever possible.   



 

Jazzpman
Jazzpman

I guess all the silliness is because the Republican's have the Georgia School System at the bottom of the US in terms of a good education ?

Would Republican's then have the SAME answer as they have in UN-Employment, because they are at the bottom of the barrel in the nation there as well ?

LilBarryBailout
LilBarryBailout

@Jazzpman

And what is the Democrat Party's answer to Georgia's school performance?

Let me take a wild guess--more money.

Fine.  What will we spend it on?  If paying teachers more results in better performance, then the teachers we have should be fired for not doing their job to the best of their ability now.

DawgDadII
DawgDadII

@Jazzpman  My daughter went to school in Cherokee County and graduated from UGA. How  does that reflect "bottom of the US in terms of a good education ?" Not. People make choices. Many people make bad or sub-optimal choices.

MHSmith
MHSmith

@Jazzpman 

The Democrat's silliness had  the Georgia School System at the bottom of the US in terms of a good education for nearly a 100 years before the Republicans took over.

Just sayin'

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@MHSmith @Jazzpman A pretty dumb point


Conservatives have always ran this state. Whether they had a D or R is pretty pointless.


The same conservative Democrats that ran this state are now the conservative Republicans running it now.