by Eric Cochling | Jan 15, 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.
****************************
By: Dr. Eric Wearne
What it means to be “college ready” has been a popular topic of conversation among educators in school systems, state agencies, and even at the national level for several years. Local schools certainly think about this, though they are not directly held accountable for their graduates’ outcomes (other than graduation itself). The Georgia Department of Education and the University System of Georgia have worked on college readiness definition and alignment issues for several years. SAT and ACT publish their opinions of what constitutes “college readiness” (based on their respective tests) every year. And the federal report that was meant as a “blueprint” for reform of no child left behind very clearly discusses USED’s desire to increase “college readiness.”
Over the past few months, GCO’s working group on college and career readiness has met and started defining its research agenda in the area of improving college readiness outcomes.
In its first few meetings, the group has looked specifically at college readiness. The group has chosen to focus its efforts in this area by looking at the particular issues of three sets of students:
a. Students in college but not prepared for it;
b. Students currently in high school and in danger of dropping out;
c. Students in high school (not in danger of dropping out), but not on track for college or careers.
Today, the group will meet at Georgia Gwinnett College, and will hear presentations about issues related to students in need of remediation and first-generation college students. SAT, ACT, and USED have suggested college readiness standards or goals, as noted above. More practically for Georgia schools, the University System of Georgia has defined what it means to be “college ready” through its Required High School Curriculum. The requirements are reasonable, and both public and private schools in Georgia know what these requirements are and help their students meet them. But the fact remains that large numbers of students who would like to attend college, and work toward (and often attain) these credentials are still not college ready. How might colleges support students who they have admitted, but who are not really college ready? What can K12 do to ensure that their graduates are able to do what they want to with their lives, or, as GCO often puts it, reach “middle class by middle age?” This ground is where GCO’s working group will conduct its research and find recommendations.
This is just the first stage in the group’s work. In the coming months, the group will look more specifically at career readiness, broadly-defined: career academies, vocational education, apprenticeships, etc. Other areas the group will explore as it works toward policy recommendations are: looking at the impact of teacher effectiveness, teacher training, and teacher career responsibilities on college- and career-readiness outcomes; exploring the possibilities that may come from online learning technologies and related strategies such as competency-based learning; and other areas the group finds necessary and worthwhile.
by Eric Cochling | Dec 20, 2013
Our team at GCO had the privilege of hosting Dr. Rick Hess this week. On Tuesday, Dr. Hess, who is an education scholar (and prolific writer) with the American Enterprise Institute, spoke at an early morning breakfast attended by a group of about 45 people that included politicians, lobbyists, academics, parents, and policy wonks.
While the crowd was diverse, each person shared a common concern about the depressing condition of public education in the state of Georgia and wanted to hear Dr. Hess’ thoughts on the subject. He didn’t disappoint.
Using his book Cage-Busting Leadership as the springboard, Dr. Hess challenged the group to consider how much innovation and real reform could be achieved within the current education system if administrators, teachers, and concerned parents stopped taking “no” for an answer.
He shared example after example of people who were able to break through the “cage bars” erected by overly risk-averse school system lawyers or years of outdated rules that still clogged school procedures and hamstrung teachers from addressing student needs.
The bottom line: With a little questioning and a lot of grit, it is possible to change the system so that children receive better educations.
Although Dr. Hess focused on ways to improve the system from within, he didn’t shy away from endorsing school choice as an important tool for giving children more and better options – and incentivizing the public system to improve. Wisely, though, he warned the audience that just changing laws – even something as significant as vouchers – will not be sufficient in itself to really change education if everyone at the school level simply continues to accept business as usual.
In addition to legal reforms that allow parental choice and school flexibility, we must have pioneering and system-challenging educators and parents willing to question the status quo every time any engrained practice misses the mark of promoting our children’s best interests.
Those were all great points by Dr. Hess and a wonderful reminder that we have more power to change things than we may realize just by asking the question “Why not?”
Join us in asking that question and pushing for reforms that free parents and children to have more educational options and free excellent teachers to change lives.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Dec 11, 2013
This week, Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) published its first report on ways to improve reentry for ex-offenders in the state. The report focuses on increasing employment opportunities for ex-offenders and offers six recommendations for the State of Georgia to consider implementing. The report is a product of GCO’s Prisoner Reentry Working Group that has been working to develop solutions for curbing recidivism and improving offenders’ transition to communities throughout Georgia.
The first report focuses on employment because of the critical role it plays in an offenders’ success outside of prison.
Read the full report: Increasing Employment Opportunities for Ex-Offenders
-
- Image credit: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
by gaopp | Oct 4, 2013
GCO’s Breakthrough Communities initiative is modeled, in part, on the collective impact framework developed by the Strive Partnership in Cincinnati, OH. Over the past few months we have participated in numerous opportunities to learn from Strive, most recently we attended Strive Together’s third annual Cradle-to-Career Network Convening, in Dallas, TX.
To kick the convening off Jeff Edmondson, Strive Together Managing Director, shared a list of “Knowledge Nuggets” that he had gathered over his years of work in the world of educational collective impact. Below are a few that resonated with the work that is taking place in our first Breakthrough Community, Peachtree Corners & Norcross.
“I don’t care where it lives, I care how it behaves.”
One of the first questions I was asked at the convening was, “Where do you live?” To which, I answered “Buford, GA.” The woman asking the question was quick to clarify what she was asking, “No, What is your anchor entity? Where does your partnership live?” Now I get it. I shared briefly about GCO and how it is serving to support the Breakthrough PCN initiative. This really framed this Knowledge Nugget for me. One axiomatic realization from the Convening is that there is no normal for cradle to career partnerships. Some “live” in universities, others in United Ways, some in community foundations, a cohort are backed by chambers of commerce. The bottom line is that it should not matter what organization is serving as an anchor entity or backbone support role, what matters is behavior – how successfully is the partnership achieving its collective impact goals.
“There is a difference between engaged and committed.”
This resonated with me immediately. Of course, as one sits across a table from a community leader and brings up the topic of education the leader will be engaged in the conversation. Often community leaders will even be very excited about the efforts that are developing. However, what keeps the wheels of collective impact turning is not engagement, but undoubtedly, commitment. The process simply requires an organizational trust and vulnerability that all but prohibits success without the true long-term commitment of all involved parties.
“Action looks different now.”
Why must you be committed? Because, inevitably, this process is going to open your eyes to ways that action is going to change. Whether you are a funder who has to learn to look past outputs to true measurable outcomes, a non-profit who realizes that a program is ineffective and must be modified or eliminated, or maybe a business who realizes that the true battle ground for work force development is not what you expected – action looks different. There is no room in collective impact for a program that doesn’t push an indicator. Collective impact depends upon continuous improvement, and always pushing toward what proves to be the best solution. It was clear in discussions with partnership directors from around the country that action does look different now.
Through efforts to begin developing a collective impact here in the Norcross and Peachtree Corners communities, we are seeing the truth of these simple quotes lived out, and learning how deeply interconnected they are. The reality is, what matters about an intervention or support program is not who provides it or where it is offered – what should be the bottom line is its efficacy. However, growing that perspective requires some collaboration, which will demand the commitment of involved parties. Ultimately, as this starts to happen action will begin to look very different – and hopefully fare more successful!
