1

Coweta County Central Education Center: Meeting Its Objectives?

by

Bryan LaBrecque

Research Project

PADM 9050

Dr. Gerald Merwin and Dr. Leigh Swicord

Valdosta State University

November 30, 2012

© Copyright 2012 Bryan LaBrecque.

All Rights Reserved.

This research project, “Coweta County Central Educational Center: Meeting Its Objectives?” by Bryan LaBrecque, is approved by:

Professors ______

Dr. Gerald Merwin, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Political Science

______

Dr. Leigh Swicord, DPA

Assistant Professor of Political Science

Peer Reviewer ______

Natalie Kuhlman

DPA Student

Fair Use

This research paper is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, revised in 1976). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of the material for financial gain without the author’s expressed written permission is not allowed.

Duplication

I authorize the Head of Interlibrary Loan or the Head of Archives at the Odum Library at Valdosta State University to arrange for duplication of this research paper for educational or scholarly purposes when so requested by a library user. The duplication shall be at the user’s expense.

Signature ______

Bryan LaBrecque, Author

Abstract

The concept of charter schools began in earnest in the late 1980’s. The concept was rejuvenated in early 2000 when then President George Bush advocated charter schools in his long-term strategy to improve education. Recently, Georgia voters have the opportunity to express their interest in expanding this program throughout the state.

The Coweta County Central Education Center was established in 2000 and is among the oldest and longest continuing charter schools in Georgia. This study examines the effectiveness of the charter school with regard to two of its stated and prominent objectives: 1) to improve the Coweta County graduation rate (conversely, dropout rate), and 2) to better prepare county students for entry into employment. Archival data collected over the years 2000-2011 were analyzed for this purpose.

In addition to archival data, this study utilized qualitative data acquired via several sources including surveys and interviews. All data has been scrubbed and remains anonymous. Each data set was analyzed using various statistical tools. The results indicated a clear correlation between the existence of the CEC and dropout rate. Qualitative data supported the assertion that a Career-Technical education has a positive influence on career skills and has narrowed the skills gap in the county and surrounding area.

Several barriers still exist to assuring that the data is accurate. Recently the state of Georgia has undergone a re-assessment of overall graduation rates which has reduced the state’s numbers considerably.

Further study, regarding the impact of demographics as well as skills needs outside of the county will be necessary to determine if the CEC is in fact a model for the remaining counties in the state, or if there is a limit to its effectiveness elsewhere.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...... 11

Charter Schools: Defined …………………………………………………………….....11

Employer-Linked Charter Schools: Variation.....……………………………………… 12

Coweta County Central Education Center: Development ……………………………...13

Coweta County Central Education Center: Goals.….…………………………………..14

Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………..15

Research Questions………………………………………….………………………...…16

Literature Review……………………………………………………………..…………17

CHAPTER II. METHOD...... 25

Method Overview……………………………………………………………………….25

Study Data and Their Sources ...... 26

Study Procedures and Statistical Analysis...... 31

CHAPTER III. RESULTS ...... 33

Results of Research Question One ...... 33

Results of Research Question Two ……...... 34

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION ...... 36

Implications ...... 36

Study Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….. 36

Recommendations for Future Research...... 38

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………….40

REFERENCE LIST ...... 41APPENDICES ...... 43

Appendix A: CITI Completion Certificate………………………………………………43

Appendix B: IRB Exemption ...... 44

List of Tables and Figures

1. Figure 1: GHSGT: ELA…………………………………………..………………..28

2. Figure 2: GHSGT: Mathematics…………………………………..………………28

3. Figure 3: GHSGT: Science………………..……………...……..…………….…...28

4. Figure 4: Georgia High School Graduation Rates .…………………………..……29

5. Table 1: Dropout Rate v. CEC Participation Rate…………………………………29

6.Table 2: Employer Survey Sample………………….……………………………..30

7. Figure 5: Scatterplot/Regression …………………………………………………..34

8. Table 3: Employer Survey Results ………………………………………………...35

List of Acronyms

CEC – Coweta County Central Education Center

ELCS – Employer-Linked Charter School

FTE – Full-time Equivalent
CTE - Career-Technology Education

AEE – Alliance for Education Excellence

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Charter Schools Defined

Charter schools have become increasingly popular public school alternatives to the more traditional public school systems. Under a charter school program, the governance process –administration, funding and accountability – stray from the more established local and state controls. Educational charters are written documents between specific schools and governing bodies – often local, but at a state-level as well – that codify the responsibilities and goals/objectives of both parties. Typically, charter schools establish their own governing boards consisting of local educators, administrators, parents and community/industry representatives (Wohlsetter and Anderson1994, 487). Similar to the more standard educational system, charter schools are free to the student, paid for by public funds. These funds are accumulated via a combination of state and local funding as well as donations, and flow directly from the granting authority to the school with little or no restrictions or stipulations from the granting authority. Of course, the granting authority’s educational budget requires adjustment to accommodate the shifting of funds from the local school system to the charter school. Typically this is accomplished using student FTE’s (Full-Time Equivalents) and some form of pro rata allocation. This particular issue can often time act as a barrier to establishing such charters.

The concept of charter schools has been, and is continuously, evolving. Several key characteristics appear to be consistent among the majority of such schools. Generally, the charter idea:

  • Specifies that charter schools be non-sectarian and require no admissions testing
  • Allows state and local governing bodies to authorize creation of charter schools
  • Shifts responsibility and accountability for student performance and school goals to the established board and away from granting authorities
  • Permits families to select schools rather than being assigned
  • Requires that the charter school be responsible for improved student achievement over a 3-5 year period
  • Requires that average per-pupil funding follow that student to the charter school

(Nathan 1998, 500)

Employer-linked Charter Schools

Declining enrollment in trade schools, as well as vocational and industrial education, has been steady since the late 1990’s. Reasons for the decline are varied. Parents are more focused on post-secondary education, particularly a 4-yr degree. The HOPE scholarship has given college opportunity a large pool of students who - prior to the HOPE – would not have found college affordable. Additionally, the turn of the century witnessed a steady increase in a “stigma” associated with technical secondary education. Economic constraints and funding have further reduced the availability of industrial education classes in many counties. Finally, the emergence of the dot.com industry swayed interest away from traditional blue-collar skills, to more computer and software-oriented skills.

“Of particular concern among industrialists…were implications of the new economic turn toward globalization, skilled labor shortages, restructuring within the manufacturing sector, the rise of computer information systems, and greater attention to customer service, all of which impacted the training of young people, future workers, to learn changing workplace proficiencies” (Lakes 2003, 1)

To counteract this decline, a subtle variation to the Charter School “revolution” has become common, both nation-wide and in the state of Georgia. This variation is referred to as the employer-linked charter school (ELCS) and - as means of educational reform – coordinates a coalition among many varied stakeholders for the purpose of better aligning the workforce needs to student outcomes. Aside from the usual parent/administrator interaction, ELCS involves industry leaders in the policy-making process. “ECLS stakeholders exclusively play a major role in the governance of the school through key assignments to steering committee and board seats, and offer input into curriculum and instruction arenas” (Lakes 2003, 1). In fact, these industry leaders not only participate in the curriculum development, but often times take part in the curriculum delivery itself, in the form of teaching.

Development of the Coweta County Central Education Center

The Georgia Central Educational Center (CEC) was opened in 2000 in Coweta County, a rural county 40 miles south of Atlanta. It is a charter career academy designed as a partnership between families, high schools, local employers, local technical college(s) and local four-year college(s), which focuses on the needs of the community at-large. The CEC was designed to meet these needs, utilizing educational methods that have been largely used by private industry and government agencies. Among its early successes, the CEC has received the prestigious National Model High School resulting in significant national and statewide acclaim. The school currently serves as a model for educational reform in Georgia.

The CEC was originally formulated from a single telephone call in 1996, from one of the largest employers in the county to the county public school superintendent. The superintendent was informed that the basic skill of the county’s high school graduates was unacceptable to many employers in the area. In addition, the superintendent learned that the technical skills of county high school graduates – those necessary to satisfy the emerging manufacturing automation – were woefully inadequate. What began as a request by the company to acquire district aid in retraining existing employees, morphed into an opportunity for educational reform, resulting in the creation of the Coweta County Central Education Center.

The CEC is housed in an abandoned middle school, centrally located in Coweta County. It is governed by a formal Board of Directors, with assistance from an advisory committee consisting of local education administration, local educators, local industry leaders, and West Georgia Technical College and Mercer University staff. These two colleges have established satellites campuses at the facility, as well. The administration, along with the board, has developed numerous career-track curricula including manufacturing, dental technician, media services, computer networking, architectural drafting and robotics. Students are “based” at their district high school – in this case, Newnan H.S., Northgate H.S., or East Coweta H.S. – and are transported to the CEC facility utilizing county school bus transportation. The career track courses are taught at the facility by a combination of state certified teachers and corporate experts. However, the majority of instruction currently centers on corporate experts as educators. Each student returns to his or her “base” high school and graduates as a member of the “base” school. This situation – while efficient and effective – creates difficulty in quantitatively measuring CEC success. This issue will be discussed in further detail later in this paper.

Primary Objectives of the CEC

The CEC emerged as a result of local industry dissatisfaction with the skills readiness of the local population, particularly of the younger, entry-level candidates. Several prominent businesses were contemplating relocation to better satisfy their resource needs. Concurrently, the state of Georgia (and local county) board of education began to measure school performance, distributing state funds based on that performance. The principle metric used by the state was graduation rate (or conversely, dropout rate). Coweta County learned very quickly that their dropout rate was not competitive with the leading counties in Georgia.

The primary objectives of the CEC are derived directly from its mission statement:

“To create synergy among the educational, business, industrial and government agencies that will favorably impact and enhance economic development and the quality of life in the region”. (CEC Presentation/Interview with Mark Whitlock)

These objectives include:

  • Prepare students for college and career
  • Provide supportive atmospheres through small learning community environments
  • Sequence curricula and integrate academics and career-based learning
  • Give the students the opportunity to earn high school and college credits through dual enrollment courses
  • Link high school to business, civic community and higher education
  • Measure and show impact on student performance and achievement
  • Reflect the local community in the career themes

Purpose of the Study

Many constituencies in Georgia support educational reform. They cite national educational rankings such as the “Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform” (Ladner and Lips 2011) and other documented failures as the foundation for reform. Data indicates that nearly 33% of students who enter high school in Georgiadropout before graduation, while only 15% graduate from college. This study is designed to research the available data and assess the success or failure of the CEC to reach its stated goals. Ultimately, this study – when used in conjunction with similar assessments - willhelp to determine if Career-Technology Education is a positive model for the state and should be adopted elsewhere in Georgia.

Research Questions

It was the intention of this project to determine the impact on county graduation rates and local job skills gap reduction resulting from the development of a Coweta County charter career academy. Unfortunately, the state of Georgia has re-assessed the graduation rate by significantly revising its rate algorithm, rendering the data over the past 11 years difficult to analyze without re-assessing prior years under the new algorithm. As a result, in lieu of graduation rate, this study focused on dropout rate as one of the primary metrics and the research hypotheses were adjusted accordingly. The dropout rate algorithm has remained consistent over the 11 year spectrum. As a result, the following hypotheses have been established, along with associated null hypotheses.

Research Hypothesis #1: The high school dropout rates among Coweta County students have declined as a direct result of student participation in the charter career academy (CEC) in the county.

Null Hypothesis #1: There is no true difference in dropout rates in Coweta County, resulting from student participation in the CEC.

Research Hypothesis #2: As a result of the establishment of the CEC in Coweta County, employers in the county - and adjoining areas - have experienced lower job vacancies in skilled positions.

Null Hypothesis #2: Employers have not experienced lower job vacancies in skilled positions as a result of the establishment of the CEC.

Literature Review

Education reform has received substantial attention over the past 30 years. As the concept pertains to secondary education, the principal study areas center on five main topics. These are:

  • Improving Schools through Partnerships
  • Student Engagement
  • Benefits of the Career-Technical Education (CTE) charter school concept
  • Student/Carter School Performance Measurement
  • Charter School Cost/Benefit Analysis

Partnerships - Several articles have been authored assessing the importance and value of partnering with non-traditional organizations in an attempt to improve schools. Traditional academia has been the cornerstone of K-12 education and has been instrumental in determining appropriate course selection, teacher certification, textbook assessment and administration. Priscilla Wohlsetter and Joanna Smith, in their article entitled, “Improving Schools through Partnerships: Learning from Charter Schools” (2006, 465), indicate that relying only on academia can often time pass by opportunities otherwise available. They cite several benefits of partnering including organizational, political, and financial benefits. Because charter schools exist in a unique environment, partnering is both essential and common. Wohlsetter and Smith (465-466) indicate that in visiting 22 charter schools encompassing 11 states, they found that partnering helped the schools improve and “achieve their goals by: 1) enriching curriculum offerings, 2) broadening teaching expertise, and 3) helping at-risk students stay in school.”

As is the case with most non-traditional actions, improvements do not come without potential pitfalls. Wohlsetter and Smith(2006) clearly define warnings for any school attempting to partner outside of the norm. First and foremost the authors are convinced that every partner opportunity is not appropriate. They insist that “Strong partnerships that sustain themselves over time exist when the partner organizations and the schools share common goals or have common philosophical approaches to education” (2006, 467). Secondly, the authors found that “charter school leaders suggest that the best partners were the ones willing to give as much as they get” (2006, 467). Finally, Wohlsetter and Smith lay down the landscape for partnering by stressing that successful partnerships are fluid and organic. They must be nurtured and cultured to ensure that both parties can maximize the benefits.

Charles Dayton, Marylin Raby, David Stern and Alan Weisberg offer a different perspective regarding partnerships in education. In their article, “The California Partnership Academies: Remembering the Forgotten Half” (1992), the authors focus more on partnering as a complement to traditional education methodology. Dayton et al.stress the need for partnering specifically for the non-college bound high school student, noting that they perform at a lower level than the college bound students. Several factors are presented as reasons for the poor performance, including societal barriers, increasing sizes of high schools, teachers’ low expectations, and “…uninspiring curricula that lack academic rigor and fail to provide the skills young people need after high school” (Dayton et al. 1992, 540).

Dayton and his fellow co-authors propose partnering in traditional schools utilizinga “school within a school” forum in order to rectify these faults. Unlike charter schools, which have no eligibility stipulations and are thus open to all students –both college bound and non-college bound - this approach targets low performing students and at-risk students. Dayton et al. advocate combining core academic courses with vocational and technical curriculum. The intent of course is to expose the students to varying relationship between academia and the workplace environment. Citing perennial outcome measuressuch as retention, attendance, credits earned, courses failed, and GPA, the authors make a strong case for their structure. Student testimony seems to support their findings.