Georgia Governor's Opportunity School District

Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal  proposed creation of an Opportunity School District (OSD) in early 2015. The OSD would authorize the state to control "chronically failing public schools and rescue children languishing in them" according to press releases. In a March 2015 Frequently Asked Questions, the Governor's Office stated this about the structure of the school district:

The OSD is an organizational unit of the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA),established and administered by the superintendent of the Opportunity School District (OSD) for the purpose of providing oversight and operation of failing schools assigned to the OSD.

The Governor shall appoint a superintendent of the OSD, to be confirmed by the Senate. TheOSD superintendent shall be a direct report to the Governor.

These schools subject to potential control by the OSD include many Atlanta Public Schools, DeKalb County Schools (metro Atlanta), Fulton County Schools (metro Atlanta), Bibb County Schools (Macon, GA), Chatham County Schools (Savannah, GA), Dougherty Country Schools (Albany, GA), Muscogee County Schools (Columbus, GA), and Richmond County Schools (Augusta), including several others. In an interactive map, see the potentially impacted schools across the state of Georgia here: http://www.ajc.com/map-ga-schools-failing/  

To read more about the criteria that would trigger inclusion in the OSD, see the FAQs.

Atlanta Education Guide is Out...

Atlanta's chief business news source, The Atlanta Business Chronicle, has released its full page, stand-alone section on the metro Atlanta schools. It includes key information for elementary, middle, and high schools alike... with performance data from Georgia's Milestones assessment to teacher and student counts to enrollment and tuition numbers for some of the area's "independent" (read private) schools, charter schools, and colleges/universities.

Looks like I'm in for some good leisurely reading...

U.S. Department of Education orders districts to fix funding disparities

In an official "Dear Colleague Letter" released this week, the U.S. Department of Education basically instructed school districts to have similar academic course offerings for its students, regardless of race, color, origin, etc. The Letter is issued by the Office of Civil Rights, which enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance).

Chronic and widespread racial disparities in access to rigorous courses, academic programs, and extracurricular activities; stable workforces of effective teachers, leaders, and support staff; safe and appropriate school buildings and facilities; and modern technology and high-quality instructional materials further hinder the education of
students of color today. (Page 2).  

 As concrete examples, the letter cites:

But schools serving more students of color are less likely to offer advanced courses and gifted and talented programs than schools serving mostly white populations, and students of color are less likely than their white peers to be enrolled in those courses and programs within schools that have those offerings. For example, almost one in five black high school students attend a high school that does not offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses, a higher proportion than any other racial group. Students with limited-English-proficiency (English language learners) are also underrepresented in AP courses according to data from the 2011-12 school year. In that year, English language learners represented five percent of high school students, but only two percent of the students enrolled in an AP course.11 Similarly, of the high schools serving the most black and Latino students in the 2011-12 school year, only 74 percent offered Algebra II and only 66 percent offered chemistry. Comparable high-level opportunities were provided much more often in schools serving the fewest black and Latino students, where 83 percent offered Algebra II courses and 78 percent offered chemistry. (Page 3.)

On the facilities of schools:

The physical spaces where our children are educated are also important resources that influence the learning and development of all students, yet many of our Nation’s schools have fallen into disrepair. Too often, school districts with higher enrollments of students of color invest thousands of dollars less per student in their facilities than those districts with predominantly white enrollments. (Page 4.)

On teacher pay within the same school district:

. . . [D]isparities may be indicative of broader discriminatory policies or practices that, even if facially neutral, disadvantage students of color. For example, teachers in high schools serving the highest percentage of black and Latino students during the 2011-12 school year were paid on average $1,913 less per year than their colleagues in other schools within the same district that serve the lowest percentage of black and Latino students. (Page 5.)

The Letter also recognizes that snap-shot data may not tell the whole story.

The provision of equal opportunities may require more or less funding depending on the location of the school, the condition of existing facilities, and the particular needs of students such as English language learners and students with disabilities. For example, older facilities generally require more money for annual maintenance than do newer facilities. Similarly, greater annual per-pupil library expenditures for one school may reflect an effort to correct years of underfunding of a library collection. Funding disparities that benefit students of a particular race, color, or national origin may also permissibly occur when districts are attempting to remedy past discrimination. (Page 10.)

---

I encourage you to read more to find your own gems.

-e

DeKalb County (Atlanta) ranks 15th on School Choice -- Ahead of Boston and Charlotte and Cobb Co. (outside Atlanta) School Districts

A Brookings study released in Q1 2014, purportedly ranks school districts based School Choice, measured by 13 different categories of policy and practice.  Some of the 13 categories include virtual schools (and the % of students enrolled), availability of alternative schools (such as magnets, vouchers, affordable private, and tax credit scholarships), whether there is a policy of restructuring or closing schools, whether there is a common application to enroll, performance data, comparable standards and assessments, and transportation.  The purpose of the study is to "to create public awareness of the differences among districts in their support of school choice."  

A conversation about measurables aside (everyone knows that what you measure often dictates what you find), Brookings ranks the top 107 school districts -- with only New Orleans schools and NYC schools getting overall "A" or "A-" grades and school districts like Atlanta - Fulton County, Clayton County (south of Atlanta) and Shelby County, TN receiving grades of "F."  

DeKalb County (Atlanta) comes out passing with a "C+" at rank number 15.

Article found here:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/ecci_2013

-E

Bing! asks for support for ad-free searches

K-12 students are children and youth inundated by information everyday.  Some of that information -- and probably more than we'd realize -- is marketing of products, services, and entertainment.  To that end, Bing! has launched an initiative to provide ad-free searching to schools to reduce some of this exposure to students in learning environments.

If you support this effort, go here. 

Winners! This Round of Race to the Top Goes to ...

Houston (TX), Clarksdale (MS), Clarendon Co. (SC), Kentucky Valley (KY), Springdale (AK).

According to yesterday's news in Edweek:

• Clarendon County School District Two, a consortium of four rural districts in central South Carolina that describes itself as "very diverse." It encompasses districts with both rural and urban poverty, districts with a high percentage of minority students, and districts with a burgeoning population of English-learners. Winnings: $25 million.
• Clarksdale Municipal School District in the Mississippi Delta, a mostly black district with 3,350 students. Winnings: $10 million.
• Kentucky Valley Educational Cooperative, a consortium of 18 rural districts, that narrowly missed winning last time around. Winnings: $30 million.
• Springdale School District in the northwest corner of Arkansas. This district near the Tyson Foods headquarters enrolls 20,500 students, including many English-learners. Interestingly, the city of Springdale has one of the largest populations of Marshall Islands immigrants in the country. Winnings: $25.9 million.
• Houston is a 200,000-student urban district and two-time Broad Prize winner.

I am happy to resources going to the South and rural places where they are certainly needed.  Now, to track the applications from these winners...

Research from Boston Public Schools: Student Achievement Scores over Art/Science Offerings

A recent report from a Harvard Kennedy School researcher analyzed parents' school preferences for Kindergarten, Sixth Grade, and Ninth Grade to determine which factors made the most differences.  In his new paper, the researcher, Edward Glaser, found:

"parents favor closer schools and schools with higher levels of academic achievement (as measured by the MCAS test). It also finds that certain school structures -- K1 (over K2 only) schools and K-8 (over K-5) schools – are preferred. . . .
Overall school size, computer facilities, and gyms did not have a significant impact. Art, music, and science lab facilities had minimal or no impact."

For the abstract and more on the paper, see here: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=9043&type=WPN 

August Trial Date for (first of many) APS Cheating Scandal Legal Proceedings

A judge has set a trial date for this August 2013 for the state to present its case against a defendant-former executive.  These charges are separate from the conspiracy case that envelopes most of the Atlanta Public Schools Cheating Scandal legal proceedings that are certain to come later.  As reported, this trial is for actions of intimidating witnesses.

Watch for yourself (courtesy of local news affiliate WSB):

DeKalb County Schools (Atlanta) -- Over 400 Applicants down to about One Dozen

When the State School Board decided that six members of the DeKalb County School Board (Atlanta, Ga) would lose their seats due to mismanagement, over 400 applications were received to fill those positions.  I wrote about it here and here.

News just in today?  A special committee tasked to recommend candidates to fill those seats should widdle that list down by the end of the day to about one dozen, or 2 for each seat, to be presented to the Governor.  Here's the article from the local WSBtv affiliate.

DeKalb County School Board Members OUT -- Governor Removes 'Em

Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia removed members of the DeKalb County School Board last week.  The news went national: Huffington Post.  I wrote about my thoughts in several previous posts: Another Atlanta district is on suspension -- UGH!

My thoughts haven't much changed-- it's an embarrassment.

According to Georgia news, Georgia governors have done this often.

The state's last three governors—Roy Barnes, Sonny Perdue and now Deal—have suspended or removed from office members of local boards of education in Spalding, Clayton, Warren and Miller counties when those districts' accreditation was threatened, in part, by dysfunctional behavior on the part of their boards. -- The Daily Report.

 Further, supposedly more than 400 people have applied to fill the school board vacancies. 

APS "Top-Lawyer" moves to Michigan

Reporting of the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal has mostly subsided.  I am probably in the minority of people with long memories on this and a desire to still know what's going on.

That said, today's reporting in the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) speaks of APS's "Top-Lawyer" ("top" being the woman-in-charge) moving to Michigan to take up a similar post.

And, part of the first reporting (see paragraph #2) includes her paycut -- from Atlanta Public Schools salary of $211,000 to Grand Rapids Public Schools salary of $115,000.  I'm not particularly sure why this being reported first struck me.  But it did.

The article goes on to report "She was Hall’s chief of staff for about 10 years before Davis appointed her to the interim general counsel position when he took over in July 2011."  Moreover, Superintendent Davis "barred" her from being involved in the cheating scandal stuff once he came on.

And, as I just indicated at the onset -- there have been no indictments.  None.  

"No one has been indicted, and Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard has declined to comment on the investigation."

Another Atlanta district is on suspension -- UGH!

A few years ago in 2008, the  Southern Association of Colleges and Schools ("SACS") pulled the accreditation of a metro Atlanta school district, Clayton County.  (I wrote about the governance problems in an a co-authored article, "Getting on Board:  How to Make School Districts Represent Students.") Today, it put that same district on "notice" that it still faced major problems with governance. See here.

AND

To add to the community's frustration, another metro Atlanta school district -- neighboring DeKalb County-- has been put on probation.  Yep.  As of today, the school board of DeKalb earned the district a disgraceful mark because of its financial mismanagement.

And, who can forget the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal -- a topic which has consumed many of my posts.

That makes 3 districts of the 6 school systems that many would say form the heart of Atlanta (i.e. Fulton Co, DeKalb Co., Clayton Co., Cobb Co., Gwinnett Co. Atlanta Public Schools).

Clayton County
Atlanta Public Schools
DeKalb County

Begs the question:  what the hell is going on?

School District responsible for Bullying -- Ordered to pay $1 million to student's family

Not appropriately responding to bullying could cost school districts, BIG TIME.

The case is Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District, 10-3604-cv. 

It was heard in the Second Circuit of the the United States Courts of Appeals-- specifically, in the Southern District of New York.  For all the non-lawyers/law students, the case basically says that the federal court of appeals over the federal district court for the Southern District of New York agreed with the final judgment in the trial court.  A jury heard the facts of the case against the Pine Plains Central School District and awarded the student who brought the case, and was bullied for three years with documented complaints, $1 million.

Pages 3- 15 of the Opinion detail the facts.  It lays out the evidence that from a young man's freshman year though his senior year, he was repeatedly bullied because of his race at a school where officials did not do enough. The District argued that its responses to the bullying were reasonable and that the trial court awarded the student too much money as damages.

The Second Circuit disagreed with the school district.

On whether the district was responsible, the Court held that, as a matter of law, the school district could be, and was determined to be (by a jury), responsible for the continuation of the bullying.  It used a legal standard called the "deliberate indifference standard."  Basically, before the school district could be liable for third-party conduct of the bully-ers, the court needed to be satisfied that (1) the school district had substantial control over "both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs," (2) there was severe and discriminatory harassment, (3) the school district had actual knowledge of the conduct, and (4) the district displayed deliberate indifference to the conduct. See pages 22-23.

On the issue of damages, a federal law,Title VI, "provides a private right of damages against a school district for student-to-student harassment if the school district was deliberately indifferent to the known harassment."  See page 42.  The Court noted that the "ongoing and objective offensiveness of the student-on-student harassment" could support an award for $1 million.  See page 48.

Read the case.  Read the facts.  Think about your child, or any child that you love.  Pay up district.  Pay up.

More on Superintendent Davis -- His Community Impact

Aside from the comments found in my earlier post, there's another perspective out there too -- about the positive community impact that Superintendent Davis's administration has made.  Here's how one of my neighbors put it in a public email thread to us all:

 OK- so maybe you think, I don't have kids in school, this really doesn't
matter [sic] to me.

You could not be more wrong:
-Take a look at your property tax bill: app. 45% is the APS school tax,
plus bonded indebtedness
-Property values are *directly* related to the desireability of local
schools: go a ahead and re-paint and put in granite counter-tops, but if
you want to be able to sell quickly and for a fair price, fix the schools.
-Crime/public safety are also directly related to the schools: good
schools keep after truants, a major source of mischief and mayhem, plus
they give their students marketable skills, so instead of being a drag on
society, they contribute to it.

Davis can be prickly, but he takes a dispassionate look at problems, and
that is something that is rare in schools systems, because politics ranks
so highly with most involved at the executive level. He doesn't care: he
came out of retirement to do this job, and while APS pays him well, he made
his money during a long, varied and successful career.

Surely the community gets a say, right?

More after the break...

Not Voting on Superintendent Davis's Contract Matters

The Atlanta school board is refusing to vote on whether Superintendent Davis' contract will be renewed.

Here's why it matters:

Superintendent Davis and former-Superintendent Hall were brought in during similar public expectations.  Both Dr. Hall and Mr. Davis were asked to improve APS from the low status many perceived it to have. However, as a necessity, much of Superintendent Davis’s initial efforts have been in direct response to shortcoming of the immediate past administration under Superintendent Hall.  Namely, the previous administration had ambitious plans for success without realistic corrections for failure. The Hall administration accepted the positive trends in ways that the Davis administration is now scrutinizing. Where Superintendent Hall put in place initiatives to spur educators to reach the height of performance, Superintendent Davis is enacting initiatives to discourage educators from dipping below performance expectations. Namely, Mr. Davis addressed five areas immediately upon assuming full superintendent responsibilities: (1) combating cheating, (2) rehabilitating the district, (3) restoring students, (4) employing administrative leave, and (5) applying relevant professional, employment, and criminal penalties. These strategies are likely considered to be sound approaches for managing education systems in the context of responding to crisis, but alone they are not likely to transform the district from operating as it had under Superintendent Hall.

          ...

[Superintendent Davis took] positive steps by cleaning up the environments that incentivized cheating behavior in the first place, and he is consulting with experts to put in place professionally sound organizational strategies. What is concerning, though, is that many thought that Superintendent Hall was doing similar things at the time she was managing the district—borrowing reforms and initiatives that the education community thought were effective.  After speaking with former APS employees [during my thesis research], there may be reason to believe that simply changing superintendents and tightening administrative policies may not on their own lead to sustainable solutions. Said more strongly, it is unclear that these new policies will actually result in environments where educators and decision-makers will actually be able to police their own environments.

--excerpted from my Master's Thesis, CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN EDUCATION:
USING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE TO CREATE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS AFTER A SCHOOL DISTRICT CHEATING SCANDAL

So what am I trying to say?

I'm trying to say that Superintendent Davis may have been just what the doctor ordered to restore order in Atlanta Public Schools.  However, it is doubtful that he is what is needed to push APS to become a district that thrives on its own successes and evaluates its own shortcomings.  For all his well-deserved praise and accomplishments (seriously, no sarcasm), it's fair to say that Superintendent Davis never expected himself to be APS's long-term superintendent.

Nor should we.

But that doesn't mean that his contract must end THIS year.  There is a strong case for keeping him on long enough so that the search for a new APS superintendent isn't rushed.  Renewing Superintendent Davis' contract for another year may provide an opportunity for a meaningful administrative transition and introduction of the new leader to Atlanta's community.  It may signal a maturity and stability that APS has lacked.

You see, APS does not just need someone to stop the bleeding and prescribe the medicine-- APS needs a long-term caretaker.  Someone who helps the district regain its strength and envision new opportunities.  And, most importantly, APS needs new administration’s policies grounded in an APS specific context.

So, am I for or against Davis?

Because I am interested in the long-term stability and PROSPERITY of Atlanta Public Schools, I must be for Superintendent Davis -- he had undeniably done GOOD for the district.  I am ALSO for a predecessor to take the reigns, after an appropriate transition, and build upon the stability Davis has brought.

Anyone know any names of potential candidates that have come up in the superintendent search?

Voters in Georgia Passed the Charter Schools Amendment, and then the Hype was Gone

Voters in Georgia Passed the Charter Schools Amendment, and then the Hype was Gone

One of the initiatives on the voting ballot this November was a proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Georgia.  The Amendment, aptly named the "Charter Schools Amendment," read as follows:

 - 1 - 

Provides for improving student achievement and parental involvement through more public charter school options.

"Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?"

Of course, many complained about indirect and ambiguous language.  Aside from the obvious critique that "improving student achievement and parental involvement" is being directly linked to "public charter options" (I've seen the research-- in some cases this assertion is true and in others it is not so accurate), the language also fails to distinguish the new addition to the Georgia Constitution-- that the state (or a state board of representatives) would be authorized to approve public charter schools separate from (or perhaps in an appellate capacity) local approval processes.  Now, the state authority to approve charter schools that would operate in local districts is what all the hoopla was about.  So, let's cut to that.

Georgia voters approved the Amendment with results of approximately 58% to 42% (or 58.5% to 41.5% depending on who you consult).


Those that Vote "Nay"
National education voices, like that of Diane Ravich suggested that the measure would ultimately "gut local control."

Other local, Metro-Atlanta columnists agreed that a NO vote on the Charter Amendment was deserved for at least 10 reasons.  See also this article on the 8 Myths of the Proposed Charter Amendment.  Persuasively for some, even the editorial board of the major state newspaper published a piece urging a NO vote.

Those that Vote "Yay"
The Vice President of the Georgia Charter Schools Association had this to say.  Further, there were even reports that President Obama supposedly supported the Amendment (which would fall in line with the President's education "Blueprint" plan (old and new) that has been a mantle piece for some time).

And the Rest...
Still other journalists tried to distill the issues for voters.  Even in my hometown of Athens, Georgia, which I lovingly remember as having an activist/involved education population, there were open forums and discussions on both sides of the issue.

More than Just Georgia
According to the New York Times, here's more on the political breakdown:

• "Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmart’s founder, Sam Walton, has contributed to campaigns supporting the measure"
• "several companies that manage charter schools, including K12 Inc., Charter Schools USA and National Heritage Academies" supported
• "committees supporting the ballot measure have collected 15 times as much as groups opposing the measure, according to public filings."

 A Mixed Bag
Many tried to cast Amendment 1 as a partisan issue, but I believe it is a bit more complicated than attaching an "R" or "D" label.  (I acknowledge that Republicans were supposedly responsible for the language of the Amendment.).  Evidence shows that some Democrats joined Republicans in support of the Amendment.

"conservatives who typically champion decentralized government are giving the amendment full-throated support. Meanwhile, some Tea Party members have joined Democratic legislators, including State Senators Jason Carter and Vincent D. Fort, in opposing the measure. The state’s school superintendent, John D. Barge, a Republican, has come out against it as well." (NYT)

Further, as the creation of Democrats for Education Reform attests, the policies of U.S. education splice creed, regionalism, and background.  I could continue with the examples, but I think you get the point.


So what's my point?
Well, my point is that there was all this political speech-- ads for a YES vote, ads for a NO vote all over the airwaves on this issue.  Even among my friends, there were chatty talks about "the future of public education in Georgia."  But now?  Radio silence.  I hear not one chirp, besides the articles that I am digging up for this blog post, about what the passage of the Amendment means for Georgia charter schools-- and Georgia schools more broadly.

And, I would like to hear more.  I'll keep you tuned.

Politics as a Barrier to Fairness in Educational Outcomes for Our Children

The following is a response to a course presentation on the Achievement Gap.

Until Dai Ellis spoke up, it seemed that the students and speakers were going to continue to mosey around the big elephant in the room that is responsible for stifling the progress of closing racial achievement gaps for our nation’s most vulnerable children.  Professor Roland Fryer told a narrative of how he’d presented several decisionmakers with his “vaccine” of five “common sense” interventions and how each turned him down, even though they had been initially interested in his achievement gap research because it had potential benefits for their communities.  And Professor Tom Payzant followed Fryer’s presentation by adding that parents and community members ought to be engaged in the process of turning around the lowest performing schools in order for reform efforts to be authentic to the communities with the most to benefit or loose from the interventions.  The former Boston Public Schools Superintendent also cautioned reformers to think about creative ways to replicate charter management organizations without also replicating the bureaucratic ills begotten to many school systems.  But until Mr. Ellis, CEO of Excel Academy “no excuses” charter schools network, advanced his two talking points ((1) “ideology kills” and (2) scaling up charter success is possible), the class conversation seemed mainly about the problem of the achievement gap and proffered solutions coming from research and practice.  The conversation would have never moved to the real takeaway lesson for the evening:  individuals from various backgrounds can become change-agents for the education systems in their communities.  The counterintuitive politics of education reform has made it increasingly difficult to deliver solutions that make our student outcomes more fair.

What is the comparability loophole?

ESEA Reauthorization is the coming attraction in Congress this fall.  If she were selling tickets, people would be lining up around the block just to see if she will make an appearance.  Some are betting that she will.  Most are skeptical -- at best -- if she will even be permitted to take the stage.  Back in 2007, when she was supposed to star in the blockbuster hit of "Changing No Child Left Behind," she was no where to be found.  Well, correction, she started to get off the ground, maybe even made it to the dressing room to get revised, but never fully showed herself as a finished product.  And now that she has this unrealiable track record, many in Congress (namely House Republicans) insist that they will put together their own show -- in smaller magnitude -- that will carry the same punch.

One of the many, many [read numerous] proposals on what should be included when (if) ESEA reauthorization happens this fall is to fix the "comparability loophole."  The comparability loophole describes the way federal money is delivered to schools serving large amounts (or percentages) of low-income families' children.  Boiled down, this means that in order to get federal funds, a school district must (among other fiscal requirements) spend as much of their own monies (state and local) on schools with high concentrations of low-income students as it does on schools within the same districts that have low concentrations of low-income students.  This is known as the "comparability" fiscal requirement.  It stems from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I provision.  (ESEA is the base bill that has been reauthorized several times, most recently known as No Child Left Behind.)

More after the break...

Philadelphia's Arlene Ackerman is Out. But Why?

Booting up my computer this morning, I again saw headlines of the Philadelphia education leader that is no more -- Arlene Ackerman.  Admittedly, I have not followed her administration, the policies, or the press.  I do know, however, that some organizations in the civil rights community welcomed her presences in Philadelphia and were optimistic of what she would do there.  So, I though to ask someone more familiar with Philadelphia about it.  Here's a few lines from my anonymous source:

"Over time, the theatrics surrounding her management style and personality became the story, not what she actually accomplished or attempted to for students.  Due to our schools governance structure, having allies and good relationships is very important.  She didn't seem to do too well with creating the right allies."

So it seems the press clippings jive with what Phillies felt on the ground.  But what about her education policies?  How were those received?

"My sense is that most folks wouldn't quabble with her actual agenda."

Hmm.  So are there any important take-a-ways as Ackerman leaves?

"Seems more like a case for 'if you want to be big city superintendent, you gotta be a politician too.'"

Lesson learned.  Resume the forward-charge.

Click here to read Words from Ackerman

Notice to Parents (especially those in APS schools): School Choice is Law

In doing some research, I came across the following provision within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended and authorized as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  This provision concerns school choice for parents and families that attend a Title I school if the school is categorized as a school in need of improvement. 

Perhaps this helps some families, especially given the volitile state of some Title I schools in Atlanta Public School System.  Check first to see if the school is on the "needs improvement" list.  If so, these federal requirements should apply.  The information shared below is from the Congressional Research Service and was presented to the U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce committee in June of 2011. (Internal citations omitted.)  For reference, AYP is Adequate Yearly Progress and LEA is local educational agency (like a school district).

After not making AYP for two consecutive years, a Title I-A school is identified for school improvement.  Being designated for school improvement carries with it the requirement to develop or revise a school  plan designed to result in the improvement of the school. LEAs are required to provide schools within their jurisdictions with technical assistance in the design and implementation of school improvement plans. Schools identified for improvement must use at least 10% of their Title I-A funding for professional development. All students attending Title I-A schools identified for school improvement also must be offered public school choice—the opportunity to transfer to another public school within the same LEA.

Under public school choice, students must be afforded the opportunity to choose from among two or more schools, located within the same LEA, that have not been identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and that also have not been identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs are required to provide students who transfer to different schools with transportation and must give priority in choosing schools to the lowest-achieving children from low-income families. LEAs may not use lack of capacity as a reason for denying students the opportunity to transfer to a school of choice. In instances where there are no eligible schools in the student’s LEA, LEAs are encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements with surrounding LEAs to enable students to transfer to an eligible public school.

Emily Barbour, Jody Feder, and Rebecca Skinner, CRS 7-5700, Secretary of Education’s Waiver Authority with Respect to Title I-A Provisions Included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congressional Research Services (June 28, 2011) at 8-9, http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/June_28_2011_CRS_report.pdf.