Tag Archives: Elections

What other states have had charter school referendums?

Thanks to Jim Galloway, we learned that charter school proponents say “No other state has had a positive outcome for a charter-positive ballot initiative.” OK, what other states have had any sort of charter school referendums? Such ballot initiatives have at least been tried in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington.

BallotPedia records some state charter school referendums.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, charter school proponents couldn’t even get enough signatures to put a pro-charter school referendum on the ballot this year.

The measure would have removed limits on number of charter schools, their funding, and enrollment. Other changes would have been made in laws that governed charter schools, including requiring approval of qualified applications for charter schools to be in districts where there was low student performance.

Michigan

In Michigan, a referendum to ban for-profit charter schools may be on the ballot in November:

Continue reading →

Support for charter school referendum falling?

A recent poll shows markedly lower support Georgia Charter School Polls for the November charter school referendum than polls in March and July, which were already down from January. At this rate, the charter school referendum can lose as badly in November as T-SPLOST did in July. Maybe people are catching on that diverting local taxes to control by a state appointed body is a bad idea, especially this time when the money would end up going to private profit.

Georgia Family Council wrote, presumably in January, Poll Shows Support for Charter School Changes,

On January 24, the Georgia Charter School Association and My School, My Choice Georgia held a news conference on Capitol Hill to release the results of a new study regarding public school choice….

The new numbers showed that 52 percent of voters are dissatisfied with the public system as it currently stands. A whopping 72 percent feel that a group other than local school boards should be able to authorize charter schools, the basis for HB 881. Moreover, Georgia voters tend to support a “money follows the child” approach to charter school funding.

So there’s a baseline for January for what proponents of charter schools claimed: 72% support for something very like the charter school referendum that ended up on the November ballot.

Or not. That writeup includes a link to georgiaschoolchoice.com, but that domain is no longer registered. This is probably it over on the snazzy new gacharters.org website. The gacharters.org writeup doesn’t mention 72%, and does say:

Continue reading →

Charter school preamble biased like T-SPLOST?

T-SPLOST proponents are up to their old tricks again, starting with the preamble to the charter school referendum. And Bert “Little Goose” Brantley, formerly of Lowndes County, defends that wording.

Paul Crawley wrote for 11alive.com September 12 2012, Is Charter Schools Amendment wording biased?

Here we go again, apparently another ballot issue with questions about whether it’s worded fairly.

First, it was the July 31st transportation sales tax issue, known as T-SPLOST, which Georgia voters rejected overwhelmingly.

Opponents howled when they found out the ballot preamble wording promised to “create jobs” and “relieve traffic congestion”.

Now, opponents of a November ballot question are also crying foul.

They’re upset over the preamble wording for the Charter School Commission Amendment.

It reads, “Provides for improving student achievement and parental involvement through more public charter school options.”

How can the preamble say that?

Continue reading →

“No other state has had a positive outcome for a charter-positive ballot initiative” —former T-SPLOST proponents now pushing charter schools

The same people who pushed the failed T-SPLOST tax referendum on the July primary ballot are now pushing the charter school referendum on the November general election ballot. Four of their leaders are the same specific individuals, including one from right here in Lowndes County. They’re pushing something they admit has failed in every other state. Let’s not be the first to fall for it.

According to the Georgia Charter Schools Association (GCSA),

No other state has had a positive outcome for a charter-positive ballot initiative

So even one of the major proponents of charter schools admits no other state’s voters have thought they were a good idea. Their slides lay out a pair of statewide major money campaigns to push the referendum anyway.

We know about this because these slides fell into the hands of the AJC, and Jim Galloway published them today, saying:

Continue reading →

Resigning from Planning Commission; suggest appoint Jody Hall —John Page @ LCC 2012-09-11

John Page, recent winner of the Republican Primary for Lowndes County Commission District 5, spoke as a citizen wishing to be heard in yesterday’s Commission meeting. He said he was resigning from his appointed post on the Planning Commission effective 31 December 2012 because he sees it as a conflict with his upcoming elected position as a County Commissioner, plus he said he does not have time to do both. (Since there is no Democratic or other candidate for District 5, Page will be the Commissioner.) Page recommended his primary runoff opponent Jody Hall as his replacement on the Planning Commission.

Update 2012-09-20: Fixed video embedding.
Here’s the video:

Resigning from Planning Commission; suggest appoint Jody Hall —John Page
Regular Session, Lowndes County Commission (LCC),
Video by Gretchen Quarterman for Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE), Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 11 September 2012.

I commend John Page for both of his decisions, and for announcing all this in a public meeting in front of a video camera. Maybe as a County Commissioner he will support transparency. And I commend Jody Hall for being willing to serve on the Planning Commission. Maybe as a Planning Commissioner he will support transparency.

-jsq

Charter school bait and switch

Proponents of the state-forced charter school constitutional amendment Mr. Moneybags on the November ballot have a website that is full of bait and switch. Most of it is about what they claim are the benefits of charter schools. But that’s not what the referendum is about. Local school boards can already authorize charter schools, and many of them have. The referendum would change the Georgia Constitution to authorize an appointed state board to force charter schools on local elected school boards that don’t want them, granting more money per student than in public schools, with the difference to be made up from local property and sales taxes. The most substantive thing I have found on the proponents’ website says that last is not so, but unconvincingly.

Tony Roberts, President of Georgia Charter Schools Association wrote to All Charter School Leaders and Board Members 7 August 2012, Response to Letter from Herb Garrett of Georgia Superintendents Association,

Tony Roberts One final, but important point, local school superintendents and board members were adamantly against any local dollars going to charter schools that were denied by a local school board. The final version of HB 797 was negotiated to ensure that was the case — the language is written right there into the law. So, to recap, they insist on no local money going to state-approved charters, and then get upset about the state money going to charters.

Curiously, he doesn’t cite that purported language. The closest thing I can find in HB 797 is a paragraph I already quoted:

Continue reading →

Public schools to be treated less favorably than state-dictated charter schools?

Do you want to pay more local taxes for state-dictated and state-run charter schools? Ellis Black (R-174) In HB 797, one of the state laws we’re being asked to ratify with the charter school referendum on the ballot in November, in addition to the magic accounting rules that would grant charter schools much more money per student than public schools, it would create a state-wide charter school board that will take away all oversight from the local school board for any charter schools the state imposes on any locality. Yet it does not provide additional state funding for the extra money per student for charter schools, and it does explicitly address assessed valuation of local taxes.

The state takes all control over local chartered schools from the local school board in section 2A(7), last paragraph:

Amy Carter (R-175) The local board shall not be responsible for the fiscal management, accounting, or oversight of the state chartered special school.

Yet the state provides no additional funding for the additional money per student for charter schools:

Jason Shaw (R-176) 2A(5) No deduction shall be made to any state funding which a local school system is otherwise authorized to receive pursuant to this chapter as a direct result or consequence of the enrollment in a state charter school of a specific student or students who reside in the geographical area of the local school system.

(6) Funding for state chartered special schools pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to appropriations by the General Assembly and such schools shall be treated consistently with all other public schools in this state, pursuant to the respective statutory funding formulas and grants.

The bill also inserts each of those paragraphs again elsewhere, in case the point wasn’t clear enough.

So where is the extra money to come from? Here’s a hint:

Continue reading →

Change the Atomic Energy Act? How about change the Georgia Electric Territorial Act?

In reaction to the NRC denying a nuclear permit for Calvert Cliffs, some nuclear backers suggest changing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit majority foreign ownership of nuclear reactors. What will they suggest next? Asking Iran to invest in U.S. nukes?

Steve Skutnik wrote for http://theenergycollective.com 5 September 2012, A cost-free way to open up nuclear investment,

If this seems entirely backward in a world of global production and investment, that’s because it is. The current regulation is an artifact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which first authorized private ownership of nuclear facilities. (Prior to this—per the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, all nuclear technology was considered a state secret, during the short time in which the U.S. enjoyed a monopoly on the technology.)

Is there any real compelling reason for restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in nuclear facilities to exist at a time when the U.S. holding a monopoly on the technology has long since passed? Issues of safety here of course are irrelevant—the facilities would be licensed and regulated by the NRC, just as any other nuclear facility is now. About the only salient objection is the political one—i.e., the implications of a foreign entity maintaining controlling ownership in key infrastructure. (Although it’s hard to see anyone getting particularly upset about the reverse—U.S. entities owning a controlling stake in infrastructure in other nations.)

Yeah, sure, strict regulation will deal with that, just like it prevents fracking from setting drinking water on fire, or BP from poisoning the Gulf. The new NRC head is maybe well-meaning, but it’s the same NRC that gave Vogtle 1 a clean bill just before it had to shut down and the same NRC that’s ignoring cancer in Shell Bluff.

Oh, by the way, the article gets to the main point eventually:

Continue reading →

Duke Dump ALEC @ DNC 2012-09-05

150,000+ People Demand Duke Dump ALEC --Whit Jones Leaving another event, I saw this on the street in Charlotte. Whit Jones said they’d just had a demonstration demanding Duke Energy dump ALEC. Also that he had encountered Duke CEO Jim Rogers and asked him when Duke would dump ALEC. Rogers was uncommittal. Here’s Jones’ blogged account of that encounter:

In short, I asked Duke’s CEO Jim Rogers if he would listen to the over 100,000 people who are calling on him to have Duke Dump ALEC and stop funding voter repression. He responded that “he’d be listening,” and when I pressed him for a commitment to drop ALEC he said “I’m not going to give you [a commitment right now] but you can trust that I’m paying attention to what you’re saying, and you’ll know in due time.”

Here’s video of the event.

Continue reading →

NRC rejects nuke permit for EDF in Maryland

French nuclear operator Électricité de France (EDF) was denied a license last week for the proposed Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor in Maryland, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits majority foreign ownership of nuclear plants. EDF now has 60 days to find a U.S. partner, or give up the project. Who could the possible suitors be? Hint: think southeast.

The handwriting was on the wall two years ago when Constellation Energy pulled out of the project. Jim Polson and Alan Katz wrote for Bloomberg 10 October 2010, Constellation Drops Nuclear Plant, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans,

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.

The cost of the U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’ joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement yesterday. The statement said the next step is up to EDF. Enlarge image U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Constellation’s decision may make it more likely that the U.S. utility will exercise a put option forcing EDF to buy as much as $2 billion of Constellation’s non-nuclear power plants, said Ingo Becker, head of utilities sector research at Kepler Capital Markets.

“EDF very clearly said if they exercise the put, this thing is over,” Becker said. “Constellation may have just turned around the calendar and pulled out of the new build before exercising the put, anticipating EDF’s reaction.”

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Meanwhile, Southern Company is still trying to reduce what it has to pay for its $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee.

Back in Maryland, the news got worse for the nuke last year. EDF asked for the state’s help, but didn’t get the answer it wanted. Scott Dance wrote for Baltimore Business Journal 16 December 2011, EDF: Constellation-Exelon settlement hurts Maryland nuclear industry,

Continue reading →