The is poised to make a powerful impact on students across the state. Legislators drafted the bill to help increase literacy rates among young Ģ����Ƶns and prepare them for higher levels of learning and greater success in life. 

Ģ����Ƶ’s literacy statistics are undeniably troubling—. Ģ����Ƶ’s proficiency percentage is just slightly above the average reading level in the United States. The Nation’s Report Card, which tracks how well students across the country are reading in fourth grade, recently showed that . And proficiency is a key indicator of children’s progress and readiness for more advanced work.  

Third grade also marks a critical point in a student’s academic development. Between third and fourth grade, children should be transitioning from learning to read to using reading to learn. If students fall behind in reading during this crucial period, they can start to have a hard time in other school subjects, too. This struggle often takes a big toll on children as they grow up, and it can limit economic opportunities later on. 

But with support from organizations like the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO), state legislators are paving the way for children to overcome challenges with literacy. This will empower them to thrive in their academic development and build flourishing lives for themselves and their families in the future.

“GCO applauds the state’s General Assembly for passing the Ģ����Ƶ Early Literacy Act of 2026. This important legislation helps Ģ����Ƶ make sure that students read proficiently so they can excel in school and reach their full potential in life.”

Buzz Brockway, Vice President of Policy, Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

What Are the Core Requirements in This Bill?

Policymakers have included several key measures in the new literacy bill to help the youngest Ģ����Ƶns become skilled readers.

• Literacy Coaches in Every School: All schools that serve students in kindergarten through third grade will be required to hire literacy coaches—educators with expertise in teaching reading. The coaches will support teachers through lesson planning, co-teaching, and mentoring.
• Mandatory Kindergarten Enrollment: Students will be required to attend kindergarten before starting first grade (exemptions are possible if students pass the assessment described below). The bill will also encourage families to enroll their children in school or establish a home study program beginning at age 5. These measures should strengthen children’s foundational reading skills early on.
• First Grade Readiness Assessments: Schools will test students before they start first grade to make sure they’re academically prepared. If a kindergartener isn’t reading on grade level, the school will design a plan to help them.
• Expanded Use of Science of Reading Curriculums: Schools will continue to expand the use of materials grounded in the science of reading, a field of research that focuses on how students develop reading skills. Teachers will no longer be able to use the older three-cueing system, which encourages students to guess words.
  

Have Other States Passed Similar Laws?

Yes. Mississippi, in particular, has set the standard for effective literacy legislation. Recent reforms in that state include:

• Placing literacy coaches in the lowest-performing schools to guide reading teachers 
• Regularly screening students in grades K-3 for challenges with reading and creating plans to help children who are struggling
• Requiring third graders to demonstrate reading proficiency before starting fourth grade
• Training teachers to shift to an approach based on the science of reading

As a result of the strong focus on literacy, Mississippi’s fourth grade reading proficiency scores went from . Ģ����Ƶ and many other states have taken notice of this significant improvement and have modeled legislation after Mississippi’s laws.

When Will the New Requirements Take Effect?

Governor Brian Kemp is expected to sign the Ģ����Ƶ Early Literacy Act once the 2026 legislative session ends. After it becomes law:

• Schools will likely have literacy coaches on staff by the 2028-2029 school year.
• Mandatory kindergarten enrollment and enhanced readiness assessments will go into effect for the 2027-2028 school year.
• Every K-3 classroom will use only state-approved materials aligned with the science of reading by July 1, 2027.

What Is the Science of Reading

The science of reading is a field of research focused on how the brain learns to read and how to teach reading. It promotes proven practices that support students of all abilities. These practices involve several essential elements:

• Phonemic Awareness: the ability to hear and identify individual sounds in spoken words
• Phonics: the relationship between letters and the sounds they represent
• Fluency: the ability to read texts smoothly, accurately, and with the right expression
• Vocabulary: an understanding of what words mean and how to say and use them correctly
• Comprehension: the ability to understand, interpret, and analyze texts

What’s the Difference Between Reading on Grade Level and Reading Proficiently?

People often use these two phrases interchangeably, but they actually mean different things.

• Reading on Grade Level: A student who reads on grade level can figure out words and follow a basic plot, but they might still struggle to analyze more complex texts. This is the minimum expected skill level for a child in a specific grade.
• Reading Proficiently: A proficient reader has a higher-level skill set, including the ability to analyze more challenging material and to think critically about it. Reading proficiently makes it easier for students to use reading for learning as they develop academically.

This difference is important for understanding literacy rates in Ģ����Ƶ. The state’s Department of Education reports that , but the Ģ����Ƶ Council on Literacy has shown that only . 

How Can Increasing Reading Proficiency Open Doors to Opportunity?

The state legislature passed the Ģ����Ƶ Early Literacy Act in March of 2026 with unanimous bipartisan support. The strong approval of the bill confirms that Ģ����Ƶ’s policymakers have made literacy a priority.

This attention to literacy will make a meaningful difference for many Ģ����Ƶns. Research has shown that . And without that degree, access to higher levels of education, fulfilling jobs, and economic opportunities is more limited. For students who come from vulnerable families, struggles with reading can also make it harder to escape poverty.

Through the Literacy Act, Ģ����Ƶ legislators aim to remove barriers for children and encourage them to follow brighter paths to promising futures. By becoming stronger readers, Ģ����Ƶ’s students will be more successful in school. They’ll also learn to think more critically about the world around them. Their advanced skills will then lead young people toward more rewarding work and economic mobility as adults, and they’ll be able to positively impact their communities. The bill has the power to make all this possible, with literacy as the key that unlocks the door to these life-changing opportunities.

Additional Resources

The post Stronger Readers, Brighter Futures: Ģ����Ƶ Lawmakers Open Doors with New Literacy Bill appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• Research shows between years 2014 and 2019, charter school students were more advanced in math and reading than their public school counterparts. 
• Students  who experienced the greatest benefits were black and Hispanic student.
• The data shows that charter schools have consistently performed better than public schools.

When it comes to favorable education outcomes, charter schools consistently outshine the traditional public school system. 

According to an annual report from Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), between the years 2014 and 2019, charter school students were more advanced in math and reading than their public school counterparts. CREDO’s research concluded that over the course of a year, those gains equated to an extra six math learning days, and 16 extra reading days, above what public school students receive. 

In terms of performance, 83% of charter school students had stronger reading skills than their counterparts in public school. Seventy-five percent of students in charter schools had higher math performance. 

This is CREDO’s third study on charter schools since 2000. It covered 6,200 schools in 29 states. CREDO used data from standardized tests to obtain its findings.

“It’s clear that charter schools benefit Ģ����Ƶ families by offering a crucial alternative to a traditional public school,” said Buzz Brockway, vice president of public policy for the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. “We can add this CREDO study to a growing body of research bearing this out.”

Charter schools benefit marginalized students most

According to the data in the CREDO report, marginalized students benefited the most from charter schools’ curricula and practices. Of these students, those who experienced the greatest benefits were black and Hispanic students, students enrolled in English-as-a-second-language programs, and students living in poverty. 

CREDO concluded that black charter school students experienced approximately 35 days of additional progress in reading, and for math, 29 days. These results added up to an extra month and a half of learning per school year. 

It’s crucial that those responsible for students’ wellbeing, from the family to the highest levels of government, take note of these findings. If we want to offer historically marginalized students their best possible educational opportunities, then we must consider making charter schools more accessible than ever before.

“Over time, the data shows that charter schools have consistently performed better than public schools.”

“Over time, the data shows that charter schools have consistently performed better than public schools.”

High-quality charter school networks have consistently performed better over time

Over time, the data shows that charter schools have consistently performed better than public schools. CREDO’s research team ultimately ran three studies from 2000 to 2023 to prove that an established pattern existed. With this year’s data in hand, it’s safe to say that charter schools continue to perform well, and the future is looking bright. 

Researchers at CREDO took their initial 2014-2019 time frame and expanded it to cover the years 2009 through 2023. They then compared it to national public school performance. Again, the results remained consistent, with outcomes continuing to track positively for charter school students. 

It’s also important to note the boom in charter school enrollment since 2019. According to the (NCES), enrollment at charter schools jumped by seven percent between fall 2019 and fall 2020 (the start of the pandemic). By the same token, public school enrollment dropped by four percent during that time. 

This increase in demand, combined with emerging data about charter school performance, indicates that we may continue to see charter schools rising in popularity well into the future. 

Ģ����Ƶ opted out of this year’s study. Why?

Although Ģ����Ƶ participated in CREDO’s previous two studies, the state opted out of this year’s study. It’s unfortunate, given that Ģ����Ƶ’s charter schools are improving education, graduation rates, and career opportunities for students all over the state. With additional positive data from Ģ����Ƶ in hand, we may have seen even further success reflected in the CREDO study.

That being said, we do have some Ģ����Ƶ specific data to share. The State Charter School Commission (SCSC) compared state authorized charter school growth scores to the growth scores of traditional public schools the students would otherwise attend, following the CREDO study methodology.

• Charter school academic growth compared to local traditional schools is rising nationally. The number of state charter schools in Ģ����Ƶ with higher progress scores than the local traditional schools increased from 2015 to 2019, with over half outperforming in the most recent school year for which data are available 2021-2022.

• Students of color perform better in charter schools. Nationally, the academic performance of Black and Hispanic students attending charters grew by large margins relative to their peers attending traditional public schools. In Ģ����Ƶ, the share of majority-minority state charter schools outperforming their local traditional school comparisons rose dramatically from 17 percent to 60 percent between 2015 and 2019.

• Charter schools yield better academic performance for students living in poverty. From 2015 to 2019, the academic progress of charter school students living in poverty nationwide surpassed that of their peers attending traditional public schools. In 2015, Ģ����Ƶ had 11 state charter schools serving large populations of economically disadvantaged students, and only one had higher growth scores than the traditional local schools. However, by 2019, the number climbed to eight out of 17.

• The instructional delivery model matters and varies by location. At the national level, student performance in fully online charter schools floundered across the five-year period compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Conversely, in Ģ����Ƶ, virtual state charters showed significant progress during the same period. By 2021-2022, both statewide virtual charter schools outperformed their traditional brick-and-mortar counterparts in several grades.

The SCSC analysis mirrors the result of the CREDO study in all areas except one: Ģ����Ƶ’s virtual charter schools are performing better than virtual charter schools nationally.

Wrapping up

It’s essential that every participating state share their outcomes whenever possible. Studies like the one conducted by CREDO provide families and government entities with the compelling, factual information they need to make informed decisions. For families, that decision may mean the choice between a traditional public school and a higher-performing charter school that opens up new opportunities for their students.

For government entities, having plenty of hard data in hand to support charter schools could make it much easier for states to open up charter school access to more students. When states opt out of providing this all-important information, children ultimately suffer most.

The post Charter schools outshine the traditional public school model, Stanford University report finds appeared first on For Opportunity.

President Obama has left office, and the results of the ideas issued under his watch are coming in. Education research demonstrates we didn’t always get a bargain. A new study finds that a multi-billion-dollar federal grant program that incentivized district schools to change their operations neither changed such operations nor resulted in student achievement.

From 2009 to 2016, the U.S. Department of Education awarded (SIG). Each year, the agency divided approximately $500 million between states as part of Obama’s stimulus package to help ease schools out of the financial crisis that started in 2007. Ģ����Ƶ schools received approximately $16 million per year from 2014-16.

like adding instructional time to the school day (part of what are called the “transformation” and “turnaround” methods); convert to a charter school; or close the school and send students to better-performing schools.

The result? —none—on student achievement, graduation rates, or college enrollment.

Note this key detail: Researchers studied 1,200 participating schools and found that the transformation/turnaround methods were by far the most popular choices for schools. Just 33 schools converted to a charter school and 16 closed and allowed students to attend higher performing schools (3 percent and 1 percent of 1,253 schools, respectively). Thus, more money and grant applications promising to teach differently did not result in drastic changes.

Remarkably, researchers had already documented that some of the strategies SIG incentivized in the transformation/turnaround approaches were not supported by rigorous evidence: “Previous literature provides mixed evidence on the effectiveness of some of these practices at raising student achievement.” Yet Washington still spent some over nearly a decade encouraging these activities.

Meanwhile, approximately from 2009 to 2016. Today, more than 6,000 charter schools operate nationwide. Charter schools are different state-to-state, but in some areas where all public school results disappoint, like Detroit, Michigan, charter schools are outperforming district schools. President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, have cited Detroit’s low scores and DeVos’s support of parental choice in Michigan as evidence that she is not qualified for the post.

But demonstrate that Detroit charter school students are outperforming their peers in traditional schools. DeVos’s skeptics are free to scrutinize her policy positions, but opponents lose credibility when they misrepresent data.

Likewise, in Arizona, charter schools outperform district schools in terms of eventual college graduates. Charter schools account for , yet charter schools make up for .

Arizona charter schools—like nearly all charter schools in the U.S.—are producing these results despite being funded with less money per student than district public schools. Ģ����Ƶ charter schools are funded at approximately than district schools, and low-income 8th grade charter students are outperforming their peers in a national comparison. Now there’s a bargain.

Again, more SIG schools opted not to convert to a charter school with their grant money, choosing more administrative changes instead. And researchers did not find better student outcomes.

Let’s hope policymakers learned a lesson from a failed experiment relying on more taxpayer money for public schools. Lawmakers should commit to giving parents and children more quality educational choices over the next four years. Families will get a better deal when they can choose how and where their children learn.

The post Washington Won’t Give You What You Pay For appeared first on For Opportunity.

The Ģ����Ƶ Budget and Policy Institute’s on the state’s provides valuable findings about college scholarships and the students using the funds. The Institute’s recommendations, however, might give us too much of a good thing.

The Institute reports that a smaller percentage of low-income students use the scholarships (30 percent) than middle and upper-income students (42 percent). The authors are correct when they say that college tuition has “skyrocketed” recently—a finding that is true for colleges around the country. The authors also make a compelling point when they write, “Students need more options to gain valued skills and enter successful careers, regardless of their families’ background or bank account.”

Yet their solution will not solve the college cost problem nor the opportunity issues. The Institute suggests lawmakers find “an enhanced approach to financial aid that ensures students from all backgrounds…can gain the benefits of a college degree.”

If the Institute’s goal is to help qualified students—regardless of background or income—get help paying for college, such an objective may result in better candidates entering the workforce. But the report’s emphasis on sending as many students to college as possible should give taxpayers and students pause.

The Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey has documented research that links (similar to the “,” formulated by former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett). State lottery proceeds fund the HOPE and Zell Miller scholarships, but universities’ incentives remain the same: If scholarship funding is almost guaranteed, why lower tuition, especially if students can combine a scholarship with federal aid? Scholarships help students pay tuition, but this assistance does not create an incentive for schools to keep costs down.

Moreover, both scholarships require students in order to participate. The Institute says the merit-based awards are “disproportionately out of reach for students of modest means.” Yet the state should not lower the bar for this assistance because sending a student to college that is unprepared for higher education does not help that student.

Policy debates on college tuition and student opportunity intersect when unprepared students step on campus. If an undergraduate drops out without a degree, they find themselves in need of a job but without a degree to improve their prospects. According to an report, “Not completing a degree is a significant predictor of repayment difficulty and default,” as 43 percent of college dropouts that used college loans have debt levels of $10,000 or lower. A quarter of college dropouts that used loans have debt levels of between $10,000 and $20,000.

Sending everyone to college, even if they are unprepared, puts students from low-income families at great risk for debt later in life. Students with few resources that struggle in school and dropout of college will struggle to attain the American Dream even when well-intentioned policymakers try to help.

The Ģ����Ƶ Budget and Policy Institute’s report on scholarships provides a useful analysis of the kinds of students using state scholarships for higher ed. Furthermore, the Institute’s suggestion that the scholarships be available to students in their 20’s and 30’s may help nontraditional students that enter college later in life.

But in order to help more students succeed in their education and career, state lawmakers should give students better access to quality learning opportunities in K-12, like education savings accounts and encouraging the growth of high-quality charter schools. Meanwhile, policymakers should commit to helping students, no matter their socioeconomic status, make informed decisions about whether college is the right choice.

With the prospect of long-term debt, the idea of sending as many students to college as possible should make taxpayers—and students—nauseous.

The post Be Careful What You Ask For appeared first on For Opportunity.

Perla is like every mom—she wants the best for her children in and out of school. Fortunately for Perla and Albiery, they live in one of five states where lawmakers have allowed students to use education savings accounts to find unique learning experiences that may include online classes, personal tutors, private schools, public school classes, and college savings plans, among other uses, all with the same account.

With an education savings account, the state deposits public funds in a private account that parents use to purchase educational products and services for their child. In 2015, that would have allowed state families to use the accounts, but the legislation stalled.

Albiery’s new school has brought out his interests in new subjects, and Perla is excited to use his account to support him with whatever he needs to succeed. “He wants to be an architect, and I’m so happy for that,” Perla says.

In this three-part series, the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity will explain why Ģ����Ƶ needs to give parents this flexible educational option, how education savings accounts change the way we think about learning, and how the accounts work in states that have already enacted laws: , Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Nevada.

Ģ����Ƶ families, like those all over the country, need better learning options. Student achievement scores should trouble Ģ����Ƶ parents. According to researchers, . Among families where at least one parent finished college, students from 31 nations perform better than Ģ����Ƶ students.

In reading, . By eighth grade, nearly 70 percent read below the basic level.

Yet in a in January 2015, 30 percent of respondents rated Ģ����Ƶ public schools as “excellent” or “good,” while another 38 percent rated them as “fair.” Sixty-eight percent of Ģ����Ƶ schools cannot be doing a fair job or better if almost three-quarters of their students aren’t.

Every child should have access to a school that will challenge him and prepare him for the future. But the labor market is changing quickly. The skills individuals will need to know in order to have a successful career are impossible to predict over the long term.

A recent study by Young Invincibles, a group that researches trends among Millennials, found that the jobs most likely to set Millennials up for success are physician’s assistants, actuaries, statisticians, and biomedical engineers. These careers will require a solid educational background in K-12 and college and even graduate school.

Families can use education savings accounts to save money from year to year, pay for college classes before and during their student’s postsecondary years, and pay for graduate school. This way, students can learn skills before, during, and after college that will help them in their careers.

This feature of the accounts is why families like Perla and Albiery’s can talk about college. And life after college. “I think it has been very good for our family,” Perla says.

Ģ����Ƶ students deserve the same opportunities to find success in school and in life. Education savings accounts can help give this chance to every Ģ����Ƶ child.

Jonathan Butcher is education director at the Goldwater Institute and senior fellow at the Beacon Center of Tennessee.

The post Ģ����Ƶ and the Future of Learning appeared first on For Opportunity.

Ģ����Ƶ’s public school system is failing many of our children, and it seems everybody has an opinion in regard to what needs to happen. But one truism has become apparent: More money is not the solution.

Nationally, spending on public education in constant dollars has nearly tripled since 1970, and the expenditures per student have doubled from $4,500 per student per year in 1970 to almost $11,000 today.[1] During this same time period, the National Average for Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for 17-year-olds have remained essentially unchanged. Americans spend more money per-student than any other nation in the world while only performing in the middle-to-back of the pack among developed countries.

While an increase in spending has not yielded higher achievement scores among U.S. students, it has been successful in accomplishing one thing: increasing the size of school administration. Since 1950, the overall number of school administrators in the U.S. has risen by a staggering 702 percent, while the number of teachers has only grown by 252 percent, and the number of students has increased by only 96 percent.[2] For all this growth in school administration and faculty, the outcomes in student achievement have been disappointing.

The same can be said for Ģ����Ƶ. Spending on public education increased drastically from $5.6 billion in 1993 to $17.4 billion in 2012, yielding an improved student-teacher ratio during this time period (16.7 in 1993 to 15.6 in 2012). Yet despite all this spending and having more teachers and smaller classroom sizes, NAEP scores for eighth grade students in Ģ����Ƶ remained virtually the same. Similarly, the high school graduation rate did not improve significantly during this time period, going from 67.6 percent in 1996 to 71.5 percent in 2012, while hitting a low of 60.8 percent in 2002.

Both in Ģ����Ƶ and nationally we continue to operate under the assumption that more money and more staff will solve the problem of a failing educational system. However, statistic after statistic indicates that pouring more money into Ģ����Ƶ’s failing public school system will not provide any substantial improvement, especially for Ģ����Ƶ’s most vulnerable children. There have, and continue to be, serious and well-intentioned efforts to reform the system. But because these reforms only provide minor changes to the system without seeking to change the way the system is organized, they limit themselves to minor improvements in standardized test scores.

In order to improve the educational opportunities we give Ģ����Ƶ’s children and ensure that the money spent on public education is not wasted on poor results, Ģ����Ƶ needs a new and innovative approach to education – an approach that gives parents the power to see their children succeed in education and in life. We need quality instruction that meets the needs of an enormously diverse group of students in a broad range of circumstances.

This just might be the power that newly proposed Education Savings Accounts offer.

Notes

[1] McShane, Michael. How America’s Education System Fails to Live Up to Its Promises (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2015).

[2] Ibid.

The post Not More Money, But More Options appeared first on For Opportunity.

According to the most recent data released by the this January, Ģ����Ƶ’s high school graduation rate is still one of the lowest in the nation at 72 percent, despite good improvement over the last two years. Only three states and the District of Columbia have a lower graduation rate than Ģ����Ƶ. Compare this to such states as Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin, which all have a graduation rate of 88, and Iowa which leads the pack at 90.

Ģ����Ƶ’s struggles don’t end with its graduation rate. Education Week released the latest report cards for each state this January in the categories of Chance-for-Success, School Finance, and K-12 Achievement in its 19^th annual . Ģ����Ƶ earned a grade of C-Minus and a ranking of 31^st overall amongst the 50 states, based on its rankings of 37^th, 31^st, and 17^th in each respective category. Ģ����Ƶ is below the nation as a whole, which earned a grade of C.

It would be one thing if Ģ����Ƶ ranked near the middle of the pack in a country whose educational outcomes far exceeded those of other developing countries around the world. However, when comparing how the U.S. education system stacks up on the international playing field, the results are not promising.

The (PISA) assessed the competencies of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science in 65 countries and economies in 2012. Among the 34 countries who are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the U.S. performed below average in mathematics, ranking 27^th, and close to the OECD average in reading and science, ranking 17^th and 20^th respectively. According to PISA, U.S. students’ performance has not changed significantly over time despite the U.S. spending more per student than most countries.

So, what do these statistics teach us?

If Ģ����Ƶ stands in the middle of the pack when compared to other states in educating our children, in a country that is in the middle-to-the-back of the pack among developed countries, it’s safe to conclude that as a state we are failing to produce the level of excellence we desire for our children in an increasingly globalized economy.

Far too many students are stuck in failing schools that stifle them from reaching their full potential simply because their zip code affords them no other options. As a state, we cannot afford to let students spend another day in a failing school. The cost is too high individually and collectively.

Mediocre results call for a change in the status quo. Instead of keeping the same old system that is failing to produce the outcomes we hope to see, why not try a different strategy?

The post The Current System is Failing Many of Our Children appeared first on For Opportunity.

****

In a recent poll of high school seniors asking how many credit hours per semester they should take when they go to college; more than 50 percent indicated 12 hours as an ideal college course load. Though 12 hours is a full-time course load, it is impossible for a student to earn a bachelor’s degree within four years unless a student takes an additional six hours during the summer. The primary route to earning a bachelor’s degree within four years is to successfully complete 15 credit hours per semester, for a total of 30 credit hours annually.

To improve college graduation rates and encourage on-time completion, the state of Ģ����Ƶ has launched , a proven advisement, retention, progression, and graduation initiative that encourages students to take 15 credits per semester, thereby spending less time and money to earn a degree. The goal of Complete College Ģ����Ƶ and 15 to Finish is to provide better information and educate all students on tuition and fees, graduation rates, and job opportunities to ensure successful college completion.

The 15 to Finish initiative is important because many students express a desire to graduate within four years. Colleges are referred to as either four-year or two-year institutions, but most students are taking longer to graduate. In fact, if 100 students entered college today in the state of Ģ����Ƶ, only 11 students would graduate on time at a four-year college and only five would graduate on time at a two-year college (). Full time-students are taking an average of five years to earn a bachelor’s degree and four years to earn an associate degree (). Many students are unaware of the potential consequences that can result from taking fewer credit hours, including a higher likelihood of non-completion, lost wages, and increased college costs.

A cost analysis conducted by the University System of Ģ����Ƶ seeking to determine how much a student would pay for a degree based on the number of credit hours taken per semester revealed staggering results. For example, a student enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program at the University of North Ģ����Ƶ (UNG) would pay an average of $42,236 to earn a degree by completing only three credit hours per semester compared to $26,768 if completing 15 hours per semester– nearly $15,000 in savings for a UNG student who graduates on time. The study found the cost difference is even more drastic for students who wish to attend Ģ����Ƶ Tech or the University of Ģ����Ƶ (UGA). The chart below illustrates an additional expense of $74,000 for Ģ����Ƶ Tech and $90,000 for UGA for students taking only 3 hours per semester.

Not only do students reap significant financial benefits when they enroll in 15 hours every semester until degree completion, they also experience quicker entry and higher wages when they transition into the workforce. Students graduating from UNG with a bachelor’s degree earn an average of $20,000 more annually than their high school counterparts. A college student who graduates within four years with a bachelor’s degree earns $40,000 more in income than a college student who takes six years to graduate. Additionally, associate degree holders who graduate within 2 years earns $19,000 more than associate degree holders who take four years to graduate (). Many part-time students do not consider the enormous amount of money foregone in the workforce when they delay college completion by one or two years.

Part-time students pay more for their degree and incur lost wages because they lack a college credential. They also jeopardize their entire college career. According to “Time is the Enemy” (CCA, 2011), only 15% of part-time students will earn a bachelor’s degree within six years compared to 57% of full-time students. Only 7.8% of associate degree seekers will earn a degree within four years. The 15 to Finish initiative seeks to battle dismal college completion rates.

College completion not only enhances an individual’s economic well-being, it can improve overall quality of life in the following ways: longer life spans, better access to health care, more prestigious employment and greater job satisfaction, less dependency on government assistance, greater participation in leisure, civic, and artistic activities, and more self- confidence ().

The post Guest Blog: Complete College Ģ����Ƶ 15 to Finish Initiative appeared first on For Opportunity.

Elementary pupils outside classroom talking to teacher. Courtesy: nspt4kids.com

Hidden beneath academic benchmarks, league tables, and other measures of success in education, are the relationships and personal traits that fuel positive and negative outcomes for students. Attending the earlier this week, I realized this theme as presenters with extremely challenging backgrounds–such as one man who was abandoned at a bus station when he was 5 years old–shared their stories of trial and triumph. Relationships–both the ones we build with others, and the one we nurture with ourselves–are the true challenge of preparing students to be successful in school and in life.

Prefacing the College Access Challenge Grant Ģ����Ƶ Conference, Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity hosted a meeting focused on the non-academic needs of students earlier this week. Presenters Reginald Beaty and Tony Owens, independent consultants and Co-Deans of Students at in Augusta, Ga, enlightened the College and Career Pathways working group with trend leading research on non-cognitive variables.

If I just lost you, non-cognitive variables, more commonly referred to as “soft-skills,” are the qualities such as self-awareness, resilience, and even time management that bridge testable knowledge with actual successful outcomes. Notable scholars such as , and have led the conversation on how these skills can be fostered within traditional and nontraditional school settings to transform individual students’ mindsets to ensure they are better prepared to overcome adverse learning challenges.

Paring my experience at the conference with the meeting on non-cognitive variables, I gained 2 important take-aways this week:

1. Personal experiences with adversity can build “soft-skills” such as self-perception�����Ի� grit (the ability to preserve past challenges to reach long-term goals) that aid academic success. However, the framing of these vital skills in a negative context can potentially render them useless to students.

2. Actively working to connect with students on an individual level, in some cases weeding through the traumas of a student’s life, can change the context through which students utilize these traits to close achievement gaps and reach personal redemption.

Ruby K. Payne, Ph.D notes in her acclaimed book  that “support systems are simply networks of relationships.” From both meetings, the consensus was that  more streamlined support systems are needed to empower students, and there is still much debate around how to deliver a more relationship-focused infrastructure. Seeking a solution for this issue will continue to be at the heart of the College and Career Pathways working group.

The post Fellowship Friday: Relationships Open the Door to Educational Attainment appeared first on For Opportunity.

There are many pathways that will lead students to success later in life. We just have to get them started. Courtesy: Experience

The dream of an abounding future for folks in Ģ����Ƶ obliges a closer look at the current pathways for our young ones to reach success as adults. College attendance is shifting from a privilege for a small group, to a growing necessity for the majority of us. Sources such as the project that by 2025 60% of all jobs in America will require an Associate’s degree or higher. Currently only 36% of working Ģ����Ƶns have reached this mark.

In addition to preparing more students for traditional college settings, it is imperative that we build new pathways that lead directly to thriving jobs. Technical colleges, apprenticeships, public-private partnerships and other training programs remain underutilized resources that could provide new possibilities for student outcomes. To create a seamless transition from high school to postsecondary education, and on to careers, we must remove barriers to opportunity now.

The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity is excited to launch its College and Career Pathways Working Group this November. With a mission to discuss the issues that bar students from postsecondary success, GCO has assembled a cohort of experts across the education space to lend their experience and insights to creating sustainable solutions.

Key Focus Areas of College and Career Pathways

• Defining college and career readiness
• Teacher quality in Ģ����Ƶ
• Use of virtual learning for college and career readiness
• Identify important components of  the transition to postsecondary education
• Impact of the rising cost of college attendance

At GCO we look forward to creating a new dialogue for college and career readiness in Ģ����Ƶ. Finding solutions for the problems that threaten to keep more Ģ����Ƶns off the path to middle class by middle age will undoubtedly require that we draw support not only from experts, but also schools, communities and at home. What part can each of us take to adequately prepare youngsters to make their dreams a reality? Let’s share the work of making tomorrow a little peachier!

The post First Steps for College and Career Pathways appeared first on For Opportunity.