Facing Difficulties Due to Criminal Background

by Kimberly Sawatka | Jun 5, 2023

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

Facing Difficulties Due to Criminal Background

A bipartisan group of lawmakers made their case for school choice in Georgia, saying parents should have the opportunity to choose better schools for their children.

During this year’s session, Georgia lawmakers killed Senate Bill 233, the Georgia Promise Scholarship Act, a measure to create state-funded education savings accounts. Nearly all Democrats and a few Republicans voted against the measure.

It called for taxpayers to cover the cost of scholarships up to $6,500 per student per school year. The proposal would have allowed the families to use the money to defray “qualified” education costs, such as private school tuition.

Last week, the Georgia Center for Opportunity lamented Georgia lawmakers’ missed chance to expand educational opportunities for Peach State students with the failure of SB 233.

Read the full article here

Georgia Democrat calls for lawmakers to pass school choice bill

by Buzz Brockway | Jun 2, 2023

Georgia Democrat calls for lawmakers to pass school choice bill

A bipartisan group of lawmakers made their case for school choice in Georgia, saying parents should have the opportunity to choose better schools for their children.

Last week, the Georgia Center for Opportunity lamented Georgia lawmakers’ missed chance to expand educational opportunities for Peach State students with the failure of SB 233.

Read the full article here

Add South Carolina and Indiana to the list of states enacting nearly universal educational opportunity

by David Bass | Jun 2, 2023

Add South Carolina and Indiana to the list of states enacting nearly universal educational opportunity

Key Points

Indiana passed a scholarship program that will allow any family below 400% of the amount required to qualify for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program to access education scholarships.
South Carolina expanded their scholarship program with similar guidelines to those in Indiana.
Georgia failed to pass a transformative education scholarship program that would have positively impacted the lowest performing communities in the state.

The year isn’t even halfway over, and six states have already enacted laws that create universal educational access for all students in 2023.

In total, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, and now South Carolina and Indiana have enacted either universal—or nearly universal—educational opportunity this year. That’s on top of Arizona and West Virginia, which did so in 2021 or 2022.

Each state has its own version of a scholarship or educational savings account that the state funds for children’s needs outside of traditional public school. For example, these types of accounts send a portion of each student’s public school dollars to allow the child to attend a private school of their family’s choice. In some cases, families who choose to homeschool their children can use the funds for educational expenses.

Indiana

Indiana is the most recent state to join that list. That state’s scholarship program will now be available to any family below 400% of the amount required to qualify for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program. That translates to a salary of around $222,000 a year for a family of four.

Previously, requirements were in place that further limited the program, such as it only being open to families with students previously enrolled in a public school or to children in the foster care system. Under the new law, only an estimated 3.5% of Indiana’s families won’t qualify for this option.

The Georgia Center for Opportunity led a state-wide campaign to educate parents and legislators on the positive impact that choice brings to public education.

South Carolina

Meanwhile, South Carolina governor Henry McMaster recently signed a bill into law that eventually expands that state’s scholarship program to families at or below 200% of F&R priced lunch as well. The program is more limited in scope than Indiana’s. It will only be available to 5,000 students the first year, 10,000 the second year, and 15,000 students the third year.

South Carolina’s program allows for the establishment of Educational Scholarship Trust Funds. Funds deposited in these accounts can be used not only for expanded school choice, but may also be used for special needs therapies, such as physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. Tutors and transportation may also be included for families caring for special needs students.

So, what happened in Georgia?

If the Georgia Legislative Session had passed Senate Bill 233, also known as the Georgia Promise Scholarship Act, it would have put $6,500 per student back into parents’ pockets so they could fund the best educational approaches for their children. The funds would have been eligible for use as private school tuition and public school alternatives, such as homeschooling.

According to the Georgia Department of Education, families who qualified would have had students enrolled into the lower 25% of schools in Georgia. This amounted to roughly 400,000 students.

SB 233 was a strong bill, passing the Senate with unanimous Republican support and going on to the House. Despite receiving no support from Senate Democrats, it’s excellent news that the bill made it so far through legislative proceedings.

The House vote proved to be tougher, with bipartisan representatives voting against it. Rep. Mesha Mainor of Atlanta was the lone Democrat in the House to vote in favor. On its final day of session, SB 233 was only six votes short of the 91 it needed to pass.

The good news is that the Georgia Promise Scholarship Act is eligible for reconsideration during the 2024 legislative session.

Looking to what’s next

Public schools are not the problem. We love and support public schools—they will remain the right and best choice for the vast majority of Georgia families. But we can love, support, and move public schools forward while expanding education into new areas.

Public education is a foundational and vital part of the success of American society, but an increasing number of families are looking toward alternatives—and their choices are just as valid. We must work to deliver quality education to all students, which means finding ways to support families who take a different schooling path. While many will access their education through public schools, not all kids are a perfect fit for that system, and they cannot be left behind.

Are Work Requirements Good or Bad?

by Corey Burres | Jun 1, 2023

Are Work Requirements Good or Bad?

Key Points

The arguments around work requirements ignore the purpose of how our safety net services should work.
The public, in general, agree with the argument for work requirements because they see the system as a temporary solution.
We must reform the system so that we move people into opportunity and thriving.

As the federal government debates the debt ceiling and attempts to bring spending under control, one recurring topic is work requirements for adults on government benefits and safety net services. The argument is that implementing work requirements will encourage more people to leave welfare programs, which in turn would decrease spending on one of the biggest expenses in the federal budget.

However, the debate about work requirements should not, in my opinion, be connected to fiscal accountability. Instead, it should be linked to the central purpose of these services and the people needing them.

A look at work requirements

To understand these challenges we need to look at the differing opinions on work requirements. On one side you hear the argument that not requiring work for benefits like SNAP and Medicaid is a disincentive to work for those on benefits. In other words, people are staying on benefits longer than necessary because there is no benefit to getting off, and in many cases, it is more costly to get off.

On the other side, the argument requiring work is simply a way to save money which ultimately hurts the poor. The argument is people in need of food support and healthcare will not be able to work and thus will be forced off of services without work.

Both of these arguments ignore the full experience of those on safety net services. Therefore, I want to challenge us to set aside political talking points and have a real discussion on the issue. These arguments are fraught with finger-pointing and people assigning motivations to each other. The discussion around work requirements is important because it challenges us to ask, “What is the purpose of our welfare system?”

With The Alliance for Opportunity, we are crafting policies that will create a clear path to get off safety net services and into opportunity in Georgia.

Work requirements aren’t a bad idea

At the Georgia Center for Opportunity, we generally agree with the idea of work requirements, but not for the reasons political pundits throw around. We are not trying to “weed out bad actors” or trying to reduce government expenditures. Those outcomes may come to pass but they cannot and should not be the intent of such measures.

While there is a politicized debate currently raging, the idea of requiring work to continue to receive benefits is not new. FDR’s New Deal, the framework for our current safety net system, pushed for a system that helped those unable to work like children or disabled individuals. The expansion of such a system to cover the unemployed came later in the process and was designed to be a stopgap between employment.

As the system expanded even further, it became apparent the support should include systems to get people back into work—this led to job training and education programs.

That is where we are today and ultimately how we should be looking at the safety net system for those able to work. The system must be designed to ask, “How can we help you get back on your feet and be self-sustainable?” Not because you are only valuable if you work, but because you are a valuable member of society. This view of membership is probably why work requirements are very popular among the US population. We value and understand the importance of work.

The research on the value of work is expansive. It leads to positive outcomes for families, improved personal mental health, and deeper community value. It is what we should want for people. It is what we should build our services to provide people, not a paycheck but an opportunity.

The arguments against work requirements

The issue becomes more complex when you recognize the valid arguments against work requirements. One of these is that work requirements don’t increase work rates—they simply cut people off of needed services.

The argument is that these requirements add another stress level to people just trying to survive. This creates yet another hurdle for those already struggling to navigate a complex process. The result is people find a different means to survive or they simply give up. Obviously, no one wants to add to people’s burdens.

Rather than arguing against work requirements, these challenges highlight the flaws in our current system. The system is poorly designed and does not lead to the outcomes we want for people.

Work requirements are a good policy in a bad system

Policymakers are notoriously inept when it comes to policy reforms. Half-measures have resulted in a system that is not focused on outcomes. If the system were structured to reduce complexity and alleviate stress for those seeking job support, then a work requirement could be the positive encouragement it should be.

This is one reason we are working with other state think tanks on a One Door Model that would transform our safety net services and create a clear, supportive, and accessible path to work.

These types of policies are critical to ensure that we are helping those in need. They are also critical to ensure that we deliver dignity and hope as an outcome.

Schedule An Interview

About The Author

Corey Burres

VP of Communication and Marketing

Corey Burres is the director the award-winning education documentary Flunked. He served as a consultant with many state think tanks around the country to help them utilize marketing and story telling to improve public policy. He is active in the foster care community and working to help build a better community around him.