by Kimberly Sawatka | Nov 4, 2014
Over the past year, Georgia Center for Opportunity has hosted a series of luncheons aimed at encouraging local educators and business leaders to think outside of the traditional education reform box. Past keynote speakers have shared ways educators can work within their schools to become “cage-busting” leaders, and how business professionals can form coalitions to support quality education.
In this same vein, GCO recently had the pleasure to host Sajan George, the founder and CEO of Matchbook Learning. Sajan not only introduced the unique Matchbook blended-learning model, but he also shared ways his “turnaround” methodology can be applied to even the most underperforming schools in Georgia.
What is different about Matchbook Learning?
For students at a Matchbook school, grades are virtually irrelevant. Instead, the emphasis is placed on instructional levels of learning. Rather than go through curriculums associated with the grade they are in (i.e., 3rd grade), students begin lessons based on their skill level, which may be higher or lower than the actual grade they are in (e.g., they may be at a 1st or 4th grade level). Students advance from their individual starting points based on their ability to master a skill at a pace that is independent of other students’ progress in the classroom. This concept is commonly referred to as competency-based education.
By using online learning platforms, Matchbook Learning has created a revolutionary learning system that does not just treat the symptoms of failing schools, but addresses the root cause of failure. Far too often schools focus on one-size-fits all instruction and traditional seat-time to improve student outcomes. However, what is truly needed is the ability to customize learning paths to meet students where they are. This system has already proven its ability to propel struggling students to new heights academically by not overwhelming them with instruction far beyond their ability and by allowing them to progress at their own pace.
What is special about Matchbook Learning is that is does not just give struggling students the autonomy to work independently, it also frees up teachers to work with students on a more engaged level. Through the online platform, teachers always know where their students are in their learning and can arrange their classes with ease to provide more help to students who need it.
Matchbook has already scaled turnaround success in classrooms, schools, and school systems in places like Detroit, MI and Newark, NJ.
Can the Matchbook model turnaround Georgia?
To apply these turnaround methods in Georgia, Sajan noted that a more innovative vision of education is needed across the state. One possible starting point, however, could be Gov. Deal’s proposed recovery schools districts. Looking to the Matchbook Learning system as a best practice for these would-be state charter schools could provide the much needed guidance to transform low-performing schools into student-centered learning environments.
Through collaboration with innovators such as Sajan George, Georgia Center for Opportunity continues to remove barriers to quality education by promoting solutions that have been proven to work. Considering models like that of Matchbook Learning are a much needed step in the right direction for giving Georgia a real chance to prosper.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jun 18, 2014
courtesy photos-public-domain.com
This week, the Center for Education Reform released its Education Tax Credit Rankings and Scorecard, which evaluates the fourteen tax credit funded scholarship programs across the country.
Georgia’s program, which was created in 2008, received a “B”.
The Georgia program scores well in many of the categories like program design and eligibility requirements. However, we fall out of the top of the rankings because the total program is capped at $58 million annually–which might sound like a lot of money but actually only represents 0.14% of the overall state budget. The program is so popular, the $58 million cap was reached this year in just three weeks. Nearly all of the Student Scholarship Organizations who distribute the scholarships to students have waiting lists.
By contrast, the Florida program, which received an “A”, allocates $286 million in tax credits to fund scholarships that allow almost 60,000 students to attend a school that better meets their individual needs.
Arizona, the other state receiving an “A” grade, does not limit the total dollar value of individual donations and caps corporate donations at $36 million annually. There are more than 42,000 students on tax credit scholarships in Arizona.
Georgia’s program serves about 13,000 students who have moved from a traditional public school to a private school using scholarships funded by individuals and corporations who receive a tax credit for their donations. That represents a mere .007% of Georgia’s 1.7 million public school students.
Because every child is different, we need a variety of options at our disposal when it comes to education. Tax credit scholarships are just one of many ways we can ensure that all Georgia children have access to a quality school. And given our grade in the report card, perhaps we still have more to learn from other states that continue to give even more families the flexibility to meet the educational needs of their children.
To learn more about Georgia’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program and other school choice options in the state, see our 2014 School Choice Handbook.
by Kimberly Sawatka | Jun 17, 2014
While no English word truly captures the full meaning of the Greek word Arete, its simplest translation is excellence. It is the divine essence of the word, however, that Derek Monjure had in mind when he founded Arete Scholars Fund Inc. As a Student Scholarship Organization (SSO), Arete is dedicated to helping low-income families access quality education at private schools in Georgia. The Breakthrough Fellows and GCO team members recently had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Monjure and Arete’s Director of Communications Buck Alford to learn more about Georgia’s tax credit scholarship program and their role as SSO operators.
For those unfamiliar with Georgia’s tax credit scholarship, the program allows corporations to donate up to 75% of their state income liability to a state approved SSO. Additionally, families are able to contribute up to $2,500. In return, both corporate and individual contributors receive a tax credit for the same amount of their donation. SSOs then use the raised funds to grant scholarships of as much as $8,983 a school year. This money goes directly to families and is used towards placing their child in the partnering private school of their choice. On average, Arete awards scholarships of $4,ooo-$5,000 to the families they serve.
The tax credit scholarship program has been a great opportunity for the more than 15,000 students who have been fortunate enough to receive scholarships. However, many more opportunities exist to eliminate the barriers that bar even more of Georgia’s children from this same benefit. One such opportunity is to raise the overall tax credit program cap, or perhaps remove it all together. The 2014 contribution cap of $58 million was reached in just three weeks. In one regard, this signifies the popularity of the program and desire of Georgians to contribute to quality education. In a less positive regard, reaching the cap so quickly has already affected the SSOs, families, and students whose donors missed the cut off. For Arete, and many other SSOs,
Despite the challenges, the spirit and energy of Arete Scholars remains focused on providing the financial means necessary for students to pursue a level of academic excellence that they would otherwise be unable to access. The organization has even begun expanding its operations into other states, starting with Louisiana. Though Mr. Monjure is quick to say his work is simply transactional, it is clear from his passion that his mission is actually rooted in a higher calling.
by Eric Cochling | May 5, 2014
A little over a week ago, I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at Georgia Gwinnett College to a group of students, including some future educators, students from the school’s honors program, and a few professors, who had been reading about the impact of school choice in America and in other parts of the world.
In my remarks, I noted that Brown was successful in eliminating official, legal enforcement of segregation and paved the way for integrated schools and gains in minority student achievement. Today, we don’t find government officials claiming a legal right to physically block a child’s entrance to a school because of his or her race. By that measure, Brown hit its mark.
Instead, in 2014, what we witness is a very different kind of school segregation driven largely by the zip code in which a child lives, which is largely a function of income.
Today, children are not so much being locked out of schools they would like to attend, as much as they are being locked into schools they wouldn’t choose if given an option.
This is especially true for lower and middle-income families who likely do not earn enough to move to a district with great schools or afford the cost of private tuition.
This is where school choice is able to help.
Given control over their education dollars (over $9,000 per year per student on average in Georgia), parents and their children would have the ability to select the school best suited for their needs, whether public, private, virtual or otherwise. Since each family would be given, essentially, the same base level of purchasing power, segregation based on income (enforced now by our zip code system) would be much less of a barrier.
For areas of the state, especially in more rural communities, where the local public school may be the only option right now, giving parents control of those education dollars would likely mean entrepreneurs would soon find ways to make additional options available, as each class of students (assuming an average of 23 children) would bring with them over $200,000 of funding each year. You can pay a teacher very well and buy a lot of materials with that kind of money.
Americans value choice in all areas of life and instinctively understand that the choices we make with our money drive improvements in the products we buy, whether the product is the food we eat, the houses we live in, or the cars we drive. The same thing could be true relative to the education our children receive.
The system will improve if we are allowed to vote with our wallets. It most likely will not until then.
For more reading on the power of school choice and creative ways communities are making it possible (in the US and abroad), I highly recommend the books that the students at GGC read this year:
Education Freedom In Urban America: Brown Vs. Board after Half a Century
By: David Salisbury and Casey Lartigue Jr.
The Beautiful Tree
By: James Tooled
Market Education: The Unknown History
By: Andrew J. Coulson
Why America Needs School Choice
By: Jay P. Greene
by Kimberly Sawatka | Apr 17, 2014
Below is a guest blog by Dr. Eric Wearne of Georgia Gwinnett College and formerly with the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. Dr. Wearne currently leads GCO’s College & Career Pathways working group.
**********************************
In its 2013 Report Card, Digital Learning Now, a project of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, argued:
State policy can remove barriers to innovative approaches or it can stifle them with restrictions, red tape, and reinforcement of traditional, unsustainable approaches. It can accelerate reform or it can further entrench the status quo. Without changing state policy, innovative tools and models will fail to scale.
According to the Report Card, however, the news is good:
“states are rising to the challenge of supporting next generation models of learning. In 2013, states debated more than 450 digital learning bills with 132 signed into law. This builds on a record year in 2012 when state lawmakers introduced nearly 700 bills and signed 152 into law.”
To explore these issues specifically, Georgia Center for Opportunity’s College and Career Readiness Working Group heard from Sam Rauschenberg, Deputy Director of the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, who facilitated the Task Force, and Carla Youmans, Instructional Technology Specialist at South Forsyth High School in Forsyth County, who is coordinating a new hybrid program at that school.
The Governor’s Digital Task Force
In 2012, Governor Deal created a task force to look into online learning in Georgia. The Governor’s Digital Learning Task Force met over the course of 2012-13, and provided recommendations to Governor Deal in December of last year. The Task Force’s recommendations fall into three categories:
- Infrastructure
- Digital Content and Courses
- Blended and Competency-Based Learning
The state has already started to implement some of the Task Force’s recommendations on infrastructure. For example, the FY15 budget includes $3.9 million to connect school systems to the University System’s PeachNet. The AFY14 and FY15 budgets also include $14 million in bond funds to the Georgia Department of Education for district and school grants for equipment required to receive and use added bandwidth (edge devices, LAN, wireless, etc.), and $25 million in general funds to the One Georgia Authority for grants to support extension of high-speed internet access in schools.
Still, opportunities exist in the areas of digital content and courses, and experimenting with new models for blended and competency-based learning. For example the state, via the Georgia Department of Education, currently provides teachers with access to lesson and video content online. However, to maximize teachers’ use of the materials and the potentially transformative power of online learning, much more can be done. The working group discussed the concept of course choice, as has been adopted in Louisiana, and the idea of opening online schools developed in one school system to students from any other school system. Conceptually, the competition should make for improved products and services, all for the purpose of better serving Georgia children. The Governor’s Task Force report alludes to barriers that could make online learning easier and higher-quality. Enabling competition and other market-based approaches would help do that.
South Forsyth High School Hybrid
One school in Georgia that is experimenting within current structures is South Forsyth High School. South Forsyth is preparing to offer a hybrid schedule to a select group of students next year. Mondays are “synchronous”: students will sign on to their class websites when school starts, teachers will teach them online for a portion of the class period, and then students will work independently at home for the rest of the period. Then students will check in again when their next class starts. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, students come to campus and attend class as all other SFHS students do. Fridays are “asynchronous”: students receive their assignments online, but are free to complete them at their own speed. If a students’ grade drops below a certain level, however, that student is obligated to come in and meet individually (or in very small groups) with the teacher. The implications of this kind of system are many: struggling students can be identified and also given individual help more easily, and within the normal time constraints of a school week; students receive the kind of practice in self-regulation they will need in college; etc.
South Forsyth’s arrangement may not work for every school or every student, and digital learning overall is still in its infancy – we simply don’t yet know the best methods or all the possibilities involved with online learning. But as one task force member argued, we don’t necessarily need one 100 percent solution to improve student achievement and to increase opportunities; we could be successful with 100 one percent solutions. The Governor’s Task Force and South Forsyth High School’s hybrid program play important parts in state and local experimentation that can lead to better outcomes for Georgia students.
by Eric Cochling | Apr 3, 2014
In the wake of the recently concluded legislative session, I found myself at a local charter school discussing school choice with a group of parents, teachers, and administrators.
While upbeat in many ways, the conversation was heavy with a feeling of barely-restrained desperation. It was in the air and occasionally expressed by a frown, joined with a shake of the head.
The school’s staff explained the wonderful academic success of their students, nearly all minorities and all female, despite the statistical odds stacked against this school and others like it. At the same time they lamented how the treatment of charter schools in Georgia, which are public schools open to all students, results in their receiving much less funding per student than traditional public schools and forcing them to bear substantial additional costs.
Fewer dollars and higher costs mean that charters often must forego offering classes that are taken for granted in most public schools. Fewer dollars and higher costs mean students go without other, seemingly normal, parts of school life, like a playground, a sports field, recreation equipment, etc.
How much less funding? By my calculation, it amounts to nearly 20 percent less per student per year for state-approved charter schools. It’s that much less, yet charters – by definition – are held to a higher standard of academic achievement than traditional public schools. Unlike traditional public schools that linger forever regardless of their instructional performance or the academic success of their students, charter schools actually close for failure to meet targets. Despite the disparity in how they’re treated, charters typically perform well.
What about those additional costs? The big one for charters is the cost of renting or buying a school building, a cost that traditional public schools do not have to shoulder that can run into the many tens of thousands of dollars each month. Behind teacher pay, this is one of a charter school’s largest expenses.
For the parents in the room who were all unsatisfied with their local, traditional public schools, the issue was a lack of real alternatives. While Georgia can boast that it has some educational options, including charter schools and some private school scholarship programs, the reality is that those options are unavailable to most families.
Why? The answer is that charter schools are not present in every community and those in operation only have enough seats available for a small percentage of the state’s 1.8 million students. In a similar fashion, private school scholarships are severely limited by funding caps (this year, the cap on the tax credit scholarship was reached in the first 22 days of the year) or, by design, target only a very small group of students. The result is that waiting lists for these schools and programs often far exceed the actual number of students they are able to serve.
So what does this have to do with the legislative session, you might ask?
Well, if you were to just look at legislation that actually passed this session, you would be right to conclude that our legislature has little to do with or concern for the school choice needs of families in Georgia. You’d likely conclude that because, quite literally, nothing much happened to expand choice or to right the inequities in current education choice programs.
Now, if you followed the session from the beginning and paid close attention, you would know that the legislature had the opportunity to make serious strides in reforming the system and expanding choice, including adding more scholarships for private choice, allowing charter schools to use vacant public school buildings, and allowing charter schools to quickly replicate without unnecessary bureaucratic hoop-jumping, among others.
Yet, each opportunity ultimately withered on the vine. The unusually intense power struggle between house and senate Republicans, coupled with the active efforts of at least one committee chairman to kill school choice legislation, meant that nothing very meaningful survived to see the Governor’s pen.
So the children who desperately need a lifeline tossed to them are left to flounder another year in a system they didn’t choose and can’t leave. The powers-that-be and the protectors of the status quo win another round.
Who knew a prison could be so effectively
erected using only a zip code?
Some say that reform was mostly stopped this year because of election year politics; and we hear from some elected officials that next year will be different. After all, they say, we can’t do anything controversial in an election year; we can’t afford to anger the wrong constituency.
But wait, bills related to gun rights and abortion were hardly uncontroversial, yet they passed. Favors were called in and political capital was spent to insure their success. So being “controversial” couldn’t be the excuse….right?
Could it be, instead, that the parents of children most in need of rescue from failing schools vote neither often enough to warrant the risk, nor in the “right” way when they do? A skeptic – this skeptic – might answer “yes.” It’s difficult to come to any other conclusion. Of course, it doesn’t help that these same families are not typically campaign donors either.
It takes real courage to stand up to entrenched thinking in public education and I’m thankful for those few, brave elected officials who have done so, because they are truly standing up for our children. They recognize that few things in life offer an escape from poverty and a path to self-sufficiency as effectively as a quality education. But, what’s more, they understand that elections, holding office, and wielding power are not simply ends in themselves.
Here’s to hoping they receive reinforcements very soon because the children of Georgia can’t afford to continue to wait.
