by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Nov 4, 2015
While commonly referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card,” the National Assessment of Educational Progress or “NAEP” assesses student knowledge in “math, reading, and other subjects” and has been “viewed as a credible national measure of academic progress.” Last week’s release of NAEP test scores reflect a dismal outlook for Georgia students.
Peggy Carr, acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, said that the national scores were not encouraging and represent an unexpected downturn.
The percentage of Georgia fourth graders reading at a proficient level fell one point from 2013 to 33 percent. Making sure students improve their reading efficiency is a must. If a child is struggling with reading by the time they reach the fourth grade, their ability to learn new concepts and subjects is hindered, and they fall behind in other key areas where reasoning and logic are required.
For eighth grade students, the percentage of students scoring at a proficient level decreased to 30 percent from 32 percent in 2011. Students in the eighth grade must be able to read and comprehend different “works of fiction and nonfiction,” analyze information from different mediums and be able to interpret their findings and present them in a clear report.
For mathematics, fourth grade is when students are not just learning concepts, but are learning to problem-solve. The number of fourth graders who scored proficient in mathematics fell four points to 34 percent in 2015. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that “state education officials were particularly concerned about the four-point drop in fourth-grade math, and planned to refocus efforts on getting students better prepared in ‘foundational’ work.”
Eighth grade mathematic proficiency also decreased in 2015 to 28 percent (from 29 percent in 2013).
Georgia’s proficiency scores put the state on par with Arkansas and South Carolina, with only a point or two difference between the states. Most Southeastern states scored below the national average with the exception of Florida, which scored above the national average in both fourth and eighth grade reading. Florida is also home to the most robust school choice program options in the nation, allowing parent to choose the best learning environment for their children.
For several years Georgia students have fallen short of the national average education scores. Students are falling behind and parents need additional options and resources to put their children in the education environment that best fits their learning needs. Georgia currently has some limited choice programs, but expanding choice – through ESAs or other school choice programs – is the only way to put Georgia students first.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Oct 27, 2015
James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, once said, “To the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.” The results of stable families throughout the years have been the foundation of our country’s formation. Unfortunately today, as the economy is worsening, social and cultural norms are crumbling, and political parties are finding it more difficult to find common ground on multiple issues, many can point to the destruction of the family as the culprit.
Since society rests on a foundation that is rooted in healthy relationships, it is imperative that healthy families be championed. To reiterate this point, recently while speaking at the 2015 Conservative Policy Summit, hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America, Senator Mike Lee stated, “The family is the first and most important institution of our society – and the foundation of American exceptionalism.”
Evidence proves that children benefit from living in a stable home with both of their parents. Children that grow up in a two-parent household perform better than children who grow up in a single parent home. Children raised by a single parent are more likely to have lower educational achievement, increased drug use, and more emotional troubles.
One reason children benefit from living with their married parents is because of the greater financial stability. There is a strong correlation between marriage and financial well-being, and according to a 2012 study by the Heritage Foundation, “In Georgia, married couples with children are 78 percent less likely to be poor than non-married families with the same level of education.”
But, another important reason to promote healthy families is to provide the children with the nurturing that is needed from a mother and father in the same home. A report produced by Princeton University and Brookings Institution found that in addition to the link with child poverty, the increases in couples postponing marriage, cohabiting, divorcing, and having children outside of marriage “appear to be depriving children of such documented benefits of marriage as better physical and emotional health and greater socioeconomic attachment.”
A 2008 study estimated that American taxpayers pay $112 billion every year due to the social costs of family fragmentation. Georgia’s divorce rate of 11.4 percent in 2012 was higher than the marriage rate of 6.5 percent.
In order to combat these trends, Georgia Center for Opportunity is launching a Healthy Families Initiative. This community-based initiative focuses on finding ways to encourage healthy relationships, strong marriages, and stable families. Since many individuals lack the skills needed to have a lasting relationship, the initiative will emphasize relationship education. It will also include a public campaign to communicate the importance of marriage.
Family is the institution best suited to help individuals move from dependency to self-sufficiency, so by increasing the number of healthy and stable families, we’re also increasing the likelihood that individuals will succeed in living independent lives.
If you would like to learn more about how marriage impacts economic opportunity and what can be done to change the trends, you can join GCO on December 1st for a discussion with Dr. Brad Wilcox (Senior Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia).
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Oct 13, 2015
In March of 2015 state Rep. Ron Stephens (R- Savannah) introduced legislation that would allow six casinos into Georgia’s borders. While the legislation did not gain traction in the 2015 session, there is a renewed and aggressive effort by casino interests to bring gambling to Georgia through a ballot – by changing the Georgia State Constitution, which currently bars nearly all gambling.
Some believe that by having its own casinos Georgia will recover money currently going out of state. They also project that 3,500 jobs will be created and significant new revenue will be provided for the HOPE scholarship. At face value, this seems like a win-win for Georgia; however, the economic costs that accompany gambling will do more harm than the new jobs and HOPE funding will do good.
Gambling addictions create problems for individuals, their families and, by extension, society at large. Many people in Georgia are already being affected by the economic and social challenges that are brought on with gambling. With several casinos within driving distance, many have chosen to go out of state to gamble with their money. Some have returned to Georgia with a gambling addiction. According to the Georgia Council on Problem Gambling, “The hidden social and economic costs of gambling addiction in Georgia is $1,200 annually per gambler, while problem gambling costs the state $715 per gambler. Total costs: over $357 million annually.” This is the price tag on gambling already plaguing the state and that’s before Georgia even has its own casinos.
Bankruptcy is common among gambling addicts, with a national average of 20-30 percent of addicts filing for bankruptcy. According to the National Bankruptcy Research Center in July of 2013, Georgia had the second highest amount of people filing for bankruptcy. By allowing casinos to come into the state, more people will fall victim to a gambling addiction, which will increase their odds of filing for bankruptcy. The Georgia Council on Problem Gambling found that each bankruptcy filing costs creditors an average $39,000.
The impact to families of problem gambling can be catastrophic. Approximately 90 percent of pathological gamblers use family savings to continue their addiction. The Georgia Council on Problem Gambling found “over 60 percent of pathological gamblers reported borrowing money from friends/relatives to avoid credit problems; while 20 percent borrowed money from loan sharks.” Money problems are notorious for adding stress to families; gambling addiction magnifies and exacerbates this source of conflict in families. Not surprising, then, is the fact that families face a greater risk of suffering from a divorce when one of the spouses has a gambling addiction. While non-gamblers have a divorce rate of 18.2 percent, the divorce rate for pathological gamblers is a staggering 53.5 percent.
While the promises of jobs and HOPE scholarship funding sound appealing, the costs of bringing casinos to Georgia – in terms of the human suffering they will cause – far outweigh any potential benefit they will have.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Sep 29, 2015
A few weeks ago, Wired magazine editor Joe Pugliese told readers a story that should sound familiar to anyone who followed the careers of computer icons Bill Gates and Steve Jobs: Pugliese almost didn’t finish college because life outside the classroom was more interesting.
“By the time I was 20 I had found full-time work as a designer, and I was serially ditching class in favor of time at the office,” Pugliese wrote in the September issue. “Prerequisites and lecture halls seemed like a distraction from the place where I knew I was learning the most—the real word.”
Today, students across the globe can learn in more ways than we can count, from books to YouTube videos to free online classes hosted by Harvard and MIT to computers installed on the sidewalk (even Wired magazine has partnered with the University of Southern California to create a graduate program). To better prepare every child for a successful future, parents, lawmakers, and educators need a new definition for what it means to learn. And one classroom might not be enough for a student.
Had Pugliese’s teachers recognized he was bored, clearly they would have tried to make their lessons more useful for the “real world.” No educator wants his students to be unprepared for life. Horace Mann inscribed the mission of generations of educators when he called education the “great equalizer of the conditions of men,” a phrase U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan would repeat some 150 years later.
Yet how can education fulfill this noble treatise if schools can’t keep students in the classroom, or the very least, interested in the classroom?
Today, public education’s challenge is not just to limit the number of students dropping out of school, though that is critical. The percentage of students dropping out has been nearly cut in half since 1990, from 12 percent to 7 percent.
The implications of this decrease are profound. For example, black men of working-age (20 to 34) without a high school diploma are more likely to be in prison than employed, according to Pew research. A diploma may have far-reaching effects for these men.
But just attending school or even finishing high school isn’t enough. Students need to be challenged and inspired by learning experiences that meet their needs so that they can have a chance at the American Dream.
Education savings accounts provide parents and their children with the flexibility to choose from multiple learning options at the same time. As this blog has explained, education savings accounts, now law in five states, are bank accounts complete with debit cards that allow families to buy educational products and services for their children.
In Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Nevada, eligible families have more educational options than just their child’s assigned public school. The state deposits funding in each account, and families can pay for personal tutors, textbooks and curricular materials like science kits, online classes, private school tuition, and college classes. Families can even save money from year to year.
In Arizona, the Howard family uses Nathan’s account to pay for tutoring services and private school tuition. The Visser family educates Jordan at home, swiping his education savings account card with different vendors in order to combine therapy services and educational instruction. The McMurray family uses the accounts to participate in extracurricular activities offered by a public school. Research finds that more than one-third of accountholders use their education savings account for multiple learning options.
This is the future of learning. For some students, it may just be a new school. Or a tutor to help them keep up with their classmates. For others, it could mean enrolling in classes offered on the other side of the world or using an iPad—with a data plan—to learn math with an app.
Education savings accounts allow for one or all of these options. Every Georgia child should have access to the future of learning.
Jonathan Butcher is education director at the Goldwater Institute and senior fellow with the Beacon Center of Tennessee.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Sep 21, 2015
Recently, a broad coalition of groups sent a letter to President Obama urging him to require the Attorney General to “review and reconsider” a “flawed” Office of Legal Counsel memo—issued in 2007 (i.e., during the Bush Administration)—that argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provided the basis for exempting faith-based organizations that contracted with the government from legal requirements that forbid taking religion into account in certain hiring decisions. The letter asserts that the memo relies on “flawed legal analysis” and offers a “broad and erroneous,” indeed “dangerous,” “interpretation of RFRA,” “permitting the grantee to discriminate in hiring with taxpayer funds without regard to the government’s compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination.”
This is just the latest skirmish in a long-running battle. Here’s a snippet of something I wrote about it ten years ago:
One of the central bones of legislative contention, evident once again in the recent House debate over the Workforce Investment Act, is connected with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, which exempts faith-based organizations from legal strictures against religious discrimination. Churches and other faith-based organizations are, in other words, permitted to take religion into account when they hire employees, a provision upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court in the 1987 case Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos.
Opponents of the [Bush Administration’s] faith-based initiative cry foul when this legal exemption is explicitly extended to government contractors, as it was in the original [1996] charitable choice legislation, and as it has been proposed in several recent pieces of legislation. They want no part, they say, of government-funded religious discrimination, regardless of what religious groups are permitted to do on their own dimes.
The arguments, or rather slogans, of those opposed to the religious hiring rights of faith-based government contractors haven’t really changed. Taking religion into account is, they insist, discrimination, made worse by the fact that those engaging in it are taking government dollars.
The current version of the dispute involves the way in which the OLC memo deploys the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on behalf—of all things—the religious liberty of government contractors. RFRA—passed overwhelmingly during the Clinton Administration but recently by and large abandoned by those on the political Left—requires that laws and regulations that limit religious freedom be justified by a compelling state interest and represent the least restrictive means to attain that interest. It is supposed to provide individuals and organizations a basis for claiming an exemption on generally applicable laws that burden their religious liberty. Most frequently such claims would be made in court and weighed by a judge. The OLC memo represents an administrative, rather than a judicial, determination that even laws that explicitly prohibit government contractors from hiring in accordance with religious criteria—not discriminating against people, but hiring those who support the mission of the organization (a right, by the way, that would seem uncontroversial in almost any other setting)—have to accommodate the religious freedom of the contractors.
You might ask how an Administration could defy the express will of Congress if it passes a law that forbids taking religion into account when hiring for participation in a particular government-funded program. The answer to this question begins with the following consideration: unless the law explicitly repudiates RFRA, the executive is charged with enforcing both laws and reading them in a way that renders them, so far as possible, consistent with one another. So the executive must first ask, in accordance with RFRA, whether the burden on religious freedom represented by the hiring prohibition represents a compelling state interest. The most obvious answer is that, since there are plenty of laws that actually acknowledge the religious hiring rights of government contractors, denying those rights in this instance can’t be a compelling state interest. In other words, RFRA trumps the prohibition in the law.
What’s more, I think that this conclusion is not only good law, but also good policy. Let me summarize the argument I made at greater length ten years ago. A diverse country is best served, not by a uniform, monolithic, and homogeneous social service sector, but by an array of organizations that represent genuinely different approaches to addressing our social problems. A healthy civil society is a diverse civil society. Government should respect and foster that diversity rather than diminish it. The demand that “government not fund discrimination”—usually connected with a demand that government expand its programs for the needy—is for all intents and purposes a demand that government secularize society, that nongovernmental organizations be simple extensions of their government sponsors. This isn’t good for the needy or for the society at large.
Let’s hope that the Obama Administration continues to ignore the importuning of those whose crabbed view of religious liberty would increasingly diminish the role of religion in society.
