Decatur City Manager Answers Your Annexation Questions
Decatur Metro | October 2, 2012 | 9:39 amA few weeks back, we opened the floor to questions regarding the potential annexation of multiple commercial and residential neighborhoods surrounding the city of Decatur. It took us longer than it should have to compile and send the questions over to Decatur City Manager Peggy Merriss, but eventually we got it done and yesterday received replies back to all of the submitted questions.
See below. Questions are bold and underlined. The city manager’s answers follow. According to the City Manger, these Q&As will also be added to the annexation FAQ located on the city’s website.
Where is the city in the annexation process right now? What are the next steps?
- September – November, 2012: Information and feedback meetings scheduled & background information refined.
- October 22, 2012: Public Meeting at Decatur City Hall; 6:00pm-8:00pm.
- November 6, 2012: Petition Deadline.
- December 3, 2012: Final City Commission work session and public hearing.
- December 17, 2012: City Commission receives recommendation. Considers adoption of an annexation resolution.
If the City Commission adopts a plan, then:
- January – April, 2013: General Assembly considers and adopts legislation incorporating the annexation request, including authorizing a referendum.
If the General Assembly adopts the legislation and the Governor signs it, then:
- November 5, 2013: Referendum is held.
If the referendum passes in the affirmative, then:
-
December 15, 2013: Annexation is effective.
- June 1, 2014: First Installment tax bills are due.
- August, 2014: School year begins.
Why is the city currently accepting petitions for annexation?
In 2008 the City Commission looked at an annexation plan but decided that available data, including the 2000 census was outdated and decided to defer further consideration until after 2010 census data was published so that decision making could be better informed.
The 2010 Strategic Plan as Part of GOAL 9: EXPAND AND DIVERSIFY THE CITY’S REVENUE BASE, Task 9B states: “Explore annexation opportunities in partnership with the City Schools of Decatur that expand the property tax base and enhance school operations.”
The objectives of the current annexation study are to influence and control development at key gateways; expand and stabilize the property tax base; respond to interest from property owners; and, consolidate partial parcels.
Both the City Schools of Decatur and the City have committees analyzing the draft annexation plan to determine whether or not it meets the goals of the 2010 Strategic Plan.
What is the hierarchy of the objectives? For instance, is “Expanding the tax base” the most important objective, or are they all equal?
No hierarchy has been developed.
What are City’s reasons for considering [annexing] UMCH [United Methodist Children’s Home]?
In the past, the UMCH has been interested in being annexed. Their current interest level has not been established.
How many of these parcels are being considered solely because of inquiries from property owners? And how many are being considered for monetary reasons?
Please refer to the link to the on the City’s website shown below for a view of the maps.
http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=660
Areas A and B are a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Areas B-1, C-1 and D are primarily residential.
I see the city has projected possible school attendance to 23% for the proposed annexed parcels. Is this based on current school attendance for families in Decatur, and has the city done any other projections that factor in a greater number of students?
The 2010 census data shows the percentage of population under 18 residing in areas included in the draft annexation plan varies from 10% – 19%, for a total of 265 persons. The current percentage of under 18 population in the City of Decatur is 23%. A projected number of 400 students 10 years after annexation was used based on a 23% utilization rate in the annexed areas.
City Schools has a committee refining school population estimates as part of their analysis of the draft plan.
How many of our tuition families live in the areas being considered for annexation; and, 9. How many courtesy students live in areas being considered for annexation?
I do not know. City Schools has a committee refining school population estimates as part of their analysis of the draft plan.
Will the folks in the residential corridors next to the commercial properties have a vote?
Any registered voter residing in an annexation area would be eligible to vote in the referendum.
Who exactly gets a say-so by property? * Owner occupied or rental single family residence- All registered voters living there? * Duplexes, Apartments, and Assisted Living & Seniors Home- Do their residents who’ll likely be affected by increased rents get to vote too or are these regarded as commercial properties?
If “say-so,” means who can vote in the referendum, any registered voter in an area included for annexation in the legislation can participate.
My voting district would be split between annex areas and non-annex areas. How would people be notified of the vote and where would the voting be held?
If an area is annexed, voting districts for DeKalb County Commissioners, Georgia General Assembly members and federal elected officials do not change. Annexed areas would be assigned to City Commission districts. It is anticipated that the referendum would be held on a scheduled election date.
And if ownership of a house is split between two owners, do they both get to vote?
As long as both owners are registered voters, both could vote.
As a current city resident, how will annexation impact my tax bill?
One of the objectives is to expand and stabilize the property tax base and the goal in the 2010 Strategic Plan is to expand and diversify the property tax base so one of the purposes of considering annexation would be to provide long-term opportunities to reduce or keep the tax rate stable.
“What are City’s reasons for considering [annexing] UMCH [United Methodist Children’s Home]?
In the past, the UMCH has been interested in being annexed. Their current interest level has not been established.”
This isn’t an answer. We know UMCH has previsously expressed interest for annexation. But, what is CoD’s basis for considereing UMCH? Many have already asked it here, so I will say it again – what’s in it for us? How does annexing UMCH furher the goal of “expanding the tax base”? We have enough churches, parks, etc., so how is adding another exempt parcel “diversifying the tax base”?
And I am not trying to restart an old discussion/argument. People have raised a legitimate concern, and, quiet frankly, deserve better than the given non-answer.
But, I am glad to see that the city used Decatur’s rate for the under 18 population instead of the existing one for the proposed annexation targets.
Actually, I think this is an answer. To me it says, UMCH is part of the consideration set because they’ve expressed interest in the past. I think the tendency thus far has been to take this map for more than what it represents at this point. This initial map was an “all in the pot” sorta thing. Anything and everything that has been considered got highlighted – though I suppose even more neighborhoods will be added after the petition deadline comes and goes. Many of us took it as a “here’s what we’re probably going to annex” sorta thing. From everything I’ve heard, including the replies to these questions, that’s not what this map represents at this point in time.
That said, the answer to your follow up questions are still outstanding and should be asked and answered at some point in the future, if it’s true that UMCH even is still in favor of annexation. I just don’t think we’re there yet.
The question I’d like more of a response to is the one about “motivations”. But I don’t think that city staff can say more than what’s written above. We may need to go to the commission for an answer to that.
That’s a sensible answer, and it may make sense for the city’s own purposes to just “kitchen sink” all the annexation candidates. However, the initial power point was pretty detailed in that it calculated the tax revenues, school student projection totals, shool costs/tax costs, and other items per parcel, including the UCMH property.
Why do all this analysis just because a parcel owner “expressed an interest in the past” without knowing whether they even have an interest now? Why not make a phone call to the UMCH to see before doing all this work? This just dosen’t make sense.
I have heard there are some other “non-listed” reasons for some wanting to annex the property, be they philanthropical or strategic. If so, people have a right to know what these are.
I agree completely that eventually we need to move past the ‘kitchen sick’ phase and onto a fiscal analysis phase. Then we can all discuss “the numbers” in relation to all the other, already known reasons to annex/not to annex. CSD has a committee working on an analysis of the expense of annexation as we speak. However, the deadlines are a little tight. I’m hoping there will be enough time between the CSD committee report, CSD approval/disapproval vote, and the city commission’s vote that we all get to express our thoughts on the subject. I will be working toward that end.
Since the deadline is so tight, doesn’t it make sense to slow down and target early 2014 for the necessary legislation with an effective date of 2015 for the annexed parcels? This doesn’t seem like the kind of thing we want to rush. If we haven’t found the time to call UMCH and ask if they are still interested, how are we going to have enough time to fully evaluate the proposal if they say yes?
Kitchen sick? Has J_T been over lately?
I hate when I have no idea what something means and I can’t tell if I should say thank you or fu*k you
“However, the initial power point was pretty detailed in that it calculated the tax revenues, school student projection totals, shool costs/tax costs, and other items per parcel, including the UCMH property.”
That power point back in August was pretty detailed in calculating tax revenues and student projections, that’s true. But on the expense side there was a list of expense items with no calculations or estimates of how much those expenses would be; and therefore no bottom line on the financial/tax impact. To judge from that answer to the last question listed, we still don’t have those estimates.
CSD is providing an initial estimate of the financial impact for the schools on its new annexation blog. According to the material there, the impact is negative, and leads to either program/staff cuts or a tax raise.
According to the CSD blog moderator (who may be incorrect), the Mayor has indicated that this is an “all or nothing” proposition.
This can’t be right and it surprises me that CSD or its task force would take what may or may not represent a consensus comment, and an ambiguous one at that, as a marching order.
If it’s all or nothing, what was the point of breaking the study areas into seven zones? Why not just one, big all-or-nothing zone?
Maybe DM can get a clarification.
Clarification from whom? City of CSD?
I guess either from the Mayor to clarify the referenced remark or from CSD as to what their specific charge was.
The mayor flatly denies that he gave an “all or nothing” directive to CSD. I’ll follow up with CSD to clarify the “specific charge”.
I’ve never heard anything about a directive. That’s not what either DawgFan or the CSD blog says. Was that the way you posed the question or the way he answered it? Odd. Where did this stuff about a “specific charge” come from, Scott? CSD took this upon themselves.
I assume the point made on the CSD blog is coming from the Mayor’s comments at the August work session. The question came up about annexing some areas and not others and the Mayor said quite plainly that for political and other reasons I can’t recall, the commission was going to have to vote on all of it together. The question is whether that remains the case.
“vote on all of it together” — If I only heard that, I would assume it meant the commission would vote on all of the proposed areas at the same time, i.e., not make a decision on some and leave others in the wind. I would not think it meant “all yes or all no” — the different areas have different issues (pro and con) and are being explored for a variety of reasons.
I asked for clarification on what the charge was because, on the CSD blog, KC Boyce indicated that he was under the impression that the commission would be cherry-picking specific annexation areas based on all this performance research (rather than pursuing/rejecting all areas together) and the response from the moderator was that the Mayor had said it was “all or nothing.” That seemed to imply that CSD was only looking at an all-or-nothing scenario, which would not provide the data necessary if KC’s assumption was the correct one.
We’ve heard from the Mayor. If CSD has not been provided a charge of any kind (I thought the city and schools were coordinating on this in some way), it would be helpful to hear (or be pointed to) the scope of what the task force has been asked to prepare.
What did we hear from the mayor? I’ve heard (in August) that all the areas must be considered together and can’t be broken up; and as reported by DM that he gave no directive to CSD. Those statements don’t contradict one another. The question that’s come up here is whether the areas can be split up. The last official word from the mayor is no they can’t, but things change so maybe his view on this has changed. It’s a good question.
The CSD committee, understand, is ongoing. It’s work isn’t finished. It was given a map by the City and told that the areas for political reasons couldn’t be split up and it’s first order of business was assessing that map, and you’re starting to see the results of that initial work. At the same time, the City has been soliciting petitions with a deadline with a deadline in November, so I don’t think anyone is expecting the current map is set in stone. But there’s also a reasonable expectation that this map was thought through before it was proposed and that the changes wouldn’t be radical. But who knows? Again, it’s a good question, and we should have a clear answer.
I don’t think the current map has been “thought through” yet. I think, like you and I, everyone’s waiting on the fiscal data before making a decision. I think that’s where the potential misunderstanding is occurring. I’m following up with CSD about their “all or nothing” statement.
I think we need a real answer too, and my hunch is that the real reason is out there but is not being communicated at this time. Lots of folks have “expressed interest” in being annexed but are not being considered.
Who’s not being considered?
I think Forrest Hills has expressed interest and was also considered in the prior plan a few years ago (I want to say ’07?), but not this time.
As a resident in unincorporated DeKalb Decatur with a 30030 zip – I can speak for myself and I’ve heard from 3-4 others on our street – Craigie Avenue. We do have STRONG interest in annexation. Personally, we feel like we’re in “no man’s land” because it’s true. In the past, we were part of a consideration zone and there was expressed interest. I believe Forrest Hills did, too. I asked Peggy Merriss if we would be considered again – and she said no because the line of delineation is to the west of Katie Kerr – and we are to the east of that. I do wish Decatur would consider others in 30030 because we don’t stand a chance of ever being annexed into Avondale Estates.
Check out the lower right side of the map, there is a bite missing. Midway Woods was considered last time, now just a small section. So much for tidying up the borders.
+1 – I see no value in a non-profit home with zero tax base and a big burden on our school system
Queue incoming “!OPHAN HATER!” rant in 3-2-1 . . .
Orphan Fest 2013.
City Schools of Decatur should not be subjected at this point to a new influx of students. The system has already found itself surprised by a rapid increase in student numbers. There are trailers (I mean “learning cottages”) at College Heights, Oakhurst, and Winnona Park. Student numbers have grown faster than projections, or at least at the very highest level of estimates, over the past years, and those projections are likely to prove to be on the low side in future years, because there are a number of new developments (see: Overlook Bluff, Park Overlook, etc.) as well as new houses sprouting in every vacant lot. These will all be inhabited by school age kids. I strongly oppose residential annexation in the near term. Give our school system a few years to sort things out and adjust to the high student numbers it is already experiencing. CSD is on a great trajectory, and if we want the momentum to continue, we need as much stability as possible over the next years.
I am with you 100%
I’m with Bike.
I just found out my daughter’s 5th grade class has 29 students!! They added a few since the start of school.
Any other 4th/5th’ers out there have similar numbers in their class.
I’ll be sending an email to the admin, but 29!?!?
29 as opposed to how many? What was the expectation or goal for number of students in the class?
Maybe we are spoiled by Oakhurst, but my younger daughter has 22, and we’ve never had more than 25.
I seem to remember there is a max limit in the school charter (or max goal maybe), but I’d actually have to find it, which I will before I complain.
29 kids in a class is excessive IMO, and tends to make the classroom less of a teaching atmoshpere, than a crowd control exercise.
25 is the magic number IMHO for elementary school (above level of kindergarten which should be held to 20 IMHO, WITH a parapro). Exactly why is hard for me to remember. At the time of the 2004 school closings, we were promised that class sizes would be held at 25 students or less just like before (immediately didn’t happen at the 4/5 Academy). Teachers at the 4/5 level seem to sigh more when the class size is over 25. I’d say that class sizes of 26 to 27 students have been common at the 4/5 for several years. 29 seems excessive and unusual. If there’s no other way to handle it, a full-time parapro or excellent student teacher should be assigned to the class. Not part-time. Part-time classroom help is way less than adequate.
Of course, the state now allows some ridiculous number like 30 or 35 students in a classroom, maybe with a waiver of some sort. But there’s a reason Georgia fights with Alabama and Mississippi for last place in education.
Kindergarten is already above 20 with a parapro. My son’s class is at 24. Like most of the kids in the class, he’s learning quickly, but I suspect the kids at the high and low end of the spectrum aren’t doing as well.
I’m deeply worried about putting MORE kids in when the classes are already getting large. I can’t for the life of me understand why Decatur is going down this road.
Anyone else want to make an effort to petition our city government to stop residential annexation?
Yes, Liz W. I’d totally be interested in that. And I’m pretty sure most of the parents at Winnona Park and Oakhurst would also sign on. We really don’t need it. Let’s make sure Decatur Schools are totally thriving before adding another challenge.
Another “yes” for the no residential annexation petition, please.
I’m not sure why the city is considering residential annexation at all. I understand the city’s stated goal of diversifying and expanding revenue. But why? This might sound incredibly naive. But what is the status of the city’s finances? Are we going broke? Do we expect to in the near future? Or even the distant future?
I’m sorry, city. I love you. But your school projections were so off over the past several years, I’m afraid that it is going to take a lot of convincing before your citizens are ready to swallow another influx of people.
The reason they’re exploring it is… because we told them to. The City Manager spells out pretty clearly where the directive is — Task 9B (of the Strategic Plan) states: “Explore annexation opportunities in partnership with the City Schools of Decatur that expand the property tax base and enhance school operations.”
That’s all the city is doing. Exploring. We can’t assess the value (or lack of value) inherent in the various scenarios unless we take this step. I guess I’m equally confused. Are there people who are against us educating ourselves as to our options?
If we told them to explore annexation, aren’t we equally entitled to tell them to stop? Isn’t that exactly what such a petition is for?
This isn’t 2010 and we have experienced significant growth in the schools in the last few months alone, and the citizens can decide that the concerns created by this spike in school enrollment justify not annexing any residential property at this time.
Liz W, I think a better approach would be for a petition the city to place a moratorium on residential annexation for a couple of years. If nothing else, this would allow us time to determine if the school population growth will continue at its current rates and better understand the effects of it. Let the city do all the studies it wants so long as it doesn’t take any actions to annex any residential property. As I stated above, the very tight time frame of the current proposal concerns me.
We absolutely can tell them to stop. I just don’t see the value in doing so before we have the comparative data we asked them, together with CSD, to get.
I’m in to help
I’m amazed that anyone is picking a number as a reasonable number of students in a classroom, or an unreasonable number.
Arriba said that “29 kids in a class is excessive IMO, and tends to make the classroom less of a teaching atmoshpere [sic], than a crowd control exercise.”
I’ve taught classes as big as 31, and as small as 7. The class of 31 was delightful, while the class of 7 was a challenge because they each had so many difficulties. The age of students, their performance levels, and the subject matter are just a few of the many factors that determine whether a classroom is functioning well. I’m not sure what Arriba means by “crowd control exercise,” but that has never been anyone’s focus at the schools where I have taught.
At Home in Decatur said, “But there’s a reason Georgia fights with Alabama and Mississippi for last place in education.” I’ll take that with a grain of salt, but that is definitely hyperbole. Aside from some newspapers and other outlets trying to make up news, there is no authentic ranking of education quality by state. Everyone who goes to school to be certified to teach learns that standardized test scores are not intended as ways to rank school districts, counties, states, etc. It seems that this is quickly forgotten by spokespeople and the aforementioned journalists.
Completely agree that the composition of the class is as relevant as the teacher:student ratio. But I think most of these posts about class size assume “all other things being equal”. There’s not much we can do about composition of the class. The students are whoever comes to school. Two factors that are both highly influential and manipulable are teacher quality and class size.
Re comparisons to other infamous Southern states: I don’t put a lot of stock in composite test scores either. But doesn’t it mean something when every darn educational measure points in the same direction, year after year? Don’t we have to look at what’s going on? I know we have to consider confounding factors but not to the point that we discount the educational weaknesses. In fact, confounding factors like poverty and family stress ought to make education one of our highest priorities; instead, it’s almost as though Georgia says “Well we have so many poor folks and problems that there’s no point in spending good money on public education.” I wish the composite test scores that are touted were adjusted for confounding factors like the economy, socioeconomic status, family stress–I have a feeling they would make us and our neighboring states look even worse. This is NOT a slam on teachers but on the entire educational ecosystem here, private and public.
I thought it was a given that smaller student to teacher ratios were a desired goal for most schools – heck, even colleges post their average student:teacher ratio as a way to distinguish themselves.
I can see by a quick Google search, that this, like almost everything in our society these days, is up for discussion.
Without conducting my own research, I cannot see how increasing a workload on a teacher by 10 or 20% would not be detrimental to the students and the teaching enviroment. If all things being equal (resources/pay/etc.) if my workload went up by 20% next year, I know my quality on my current workload would suffer some.
So, as with everything, there is another side to an argument. But I would rather have smaller sized classrooms, with quality teachers. And for the reasons stated in the Wiki article on CSR:
“At present, of the few studies finding statistically significant benefits from class size reduction show: A) more positive teacher-student interactions leading to less time spent on discipline,[9] B) the increased use of balanced instructional methods including higher degrees of individualization,[10] C) closer personal relationships for teachers with students and families,[11] D) a decrease in the effects of economic and social inequalities,[12] E) increase student achievement,[2] F) and lead to the establishment of a stronger foundation for lifelong learning beginning in the primary grades.[8]”
Until I see specific data that show that class size doesn’t matter, I’m going to trust the common sense notion that 20 students is a better class size than 25 students which is better than 30, all other things being equal. If nothing else, our high-performing teachers are happier with reasonable class sizes. I’m sure some kids can learn just fine when thrown into a class of 35 kids. And Abe Lincoln read borrowed books by the light of the hearth in a log cabin. But if we are trying to go from good to great in 2012, and do our best for all children in Decatur not just the ones who would do well anywhere, things like class size, teacher quality, effective remediation, are going to be key.
I saw on Facebook that CSD has started a blog about annexation.
http://www.csdecatur.net/AnnexationBlog
Thanks, Hmm! A quick glance suggests that the annexation projections are not favorable to cash flow and resources. Here are four bullet points about the financial impact:
1. Annexation accelerates the eventual need for construction (e.g., additional buildings, renovations).
2. Annexation causes CSD to need additional revenue.
3. False: just removing paying tuition students will alleiate this challenge.
4. Annexation causes a cash flow challenge at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year.
This is coming from the CSD’s own task force and makes clear that concerns are justified. Annexation would be bad for CSD’s students at least in the short run, and, it seems, the long run doesn’t look that great either.
Thanks Hmmm. I’ll make sure this gets its own post tomorrow. CSD staff just alerted me to it as well.
Yeah…about that. It looks like the post about the negative implications assumes that all of the proposed annexed areas are, in fact, annexed. I just posted a comment on their blog, but I’d like to see the breakdown by potential annexation area.
I would assume that residential annexation has a negative financial & student load impact on CSD, but that commercial (e.g., area A and maybe B) could be beneficial. I’d like that kind of granular analysis rather than an all-or-nothing report in order to form a considered opinion.
I don’t see where comments are being posted?
They’re moderated. Looks like none have been approved.
I do find it disheartening that CSD can’t just allow an open conversation. I appreciate & support their effort to promote transparency on their blog, but I think Decaturites are adult enough to have an open conversation about this without slinging vitriol (right, DM?).
I am curious to see if they will be fairly liberal in which comments they allow or whether they will only allow comments to steer the conversation in one direction or another. I asked a straightforward question, but I am still awaiting moderation. Maybe they just received 9000 comments since DM posted a link and are busy, but if they moderate every comment before posting it, the blog won’t exactly allow for open discussion.
I think we have to remember this is a CSD blog. That means there are about 1000 little comedians out there with access to computers who might want spam up the school’s blog for the fun of it.
Not to mention the issue of students getting access…..
I just want to thank Peggy Merriss for answering the questions to the best of her ability. I really doubt we would have gotten this level of response on other topics from a Dekalb County representative.
That depends on how favorable the request is to their bottom line. I’ve built in DeKalb and have friends build in Decatur. DeKalb is much more responsive. So it the Parks Dept.
I’m all for careful analysis, community input, and caution. I’m still recovering from the past excess of school closings. On the other hand, I’m not sure the Children’s Home is the biggest potential problem. We need to know how many children truly would be added by that facility on average. The site has its advantages. It’s been used for sports, plays, and other events by Decatur residents and CSD students. We only have so many fields and public meeting spaces in Decatur. Bringing in areas that will quickly become yuppified, gentrified, and fertile, without adding sufficient revenue or public benefit, seems a bigger potential issue.
On the other hand, I’m all for solvency. So we need careful analysis, community input, and caution.
I was wondering if the city was eyeing it as another school property.
I have no knowledge of the UMCH charter, but it is a facility that the CSD could end up using in some capacity with minimal capital outlays.
This is just speculation, and may be far off.
Maybe not that far off. What will CSD do when the time comes to replace the main HS building?
Sounds like a job for… GoodGrowthDecatur!
Has the city’s position with regard to the tax impact on current residents changed?
From above:
“… so one of the purposes of considering annexation would be to provide long-term opportunities to reduce or keep the tax rate stable.”
From the City’s website Annexation FAQ section:
“The City Commission has indicated that they are only interested in pursuing annexation if it ultimately lowers property taxes.”
Questions:
Do these two statements appear different to anyone else?
Is it correct to assume that the city’s position has changed and that we can anticipate an increase in property taxes over the near term?
How is the City determining the long term financial implication of annexation?
No2decatur.com A few neighbors in Midway Woods are again trying to attach all of midway woods.
70% of our neighborhood is either single, sr citizen or have no kids. No other reason to annex unless you have kids. A few with kids told the city “we” were interested.
According to Peggy Merris the current Area D annexation used current AND petitions from 2008 in their decision to consider interest. That is why we are petitioning against!
Still see nothing on Mellrich. This is in the City of Atlanta right now. I assume that water table protection has something to do with it — it slopes downhill toward a culvert that Decatur has paved…but what else
Can we get some input from CSD on how we should vote on November 4 regarding the charter referendum? Which vote will best serve the interests of the CSD school system?
I think most folks would say that the interests of all local school systems are best suited by a “No” vote.
I don’t think that CSD can wade into this type of political issue, but Jay Bookman wrote a good article about the implications of the vote – http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/10/01/state-created-charters-sidestep-public-schools/
State PTA opposes the amendment, as does the Republican State School Superintendent.
Cannonball, check out what is happening in Bobby Jindal’s all charter all the time Louisiana.
I am going out on a limb and saying that I think the referendum is part of a larger movement to solve the problems of public education by sidestepping them rather than confronting and solving them. The wording of the referendum is deceptive IMHO and I hate that.
I am not against all charter schools. There’s some beautiful ones, e.g. the nearby Museum School and International School. The good ones offer choice, true parent and community engagement, and keep public schools on their toes. But I am suspicious of state-supported charter schools which reflect a hidden agenda and commercial charter schools that are about profit more than students and the community.
Amen.