1. Memorandum:
To: Teresa MacCartney
Director, Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA)
From: Berkeley Teate, Policy Analyst-in-Training
Date: April 20th, 2016
Subject: The Shifting Primary Classroom: Failing Schools or Failing Methodologies?
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), based on Common Core of
Data (CCD), the U.S. high school graduation rate in the 2013 - 2014 academic year was 82.3
percent. In the State of Georgia, the graduation rate was 72.5 percent [nearly 10 percent less than
the national average] - 48th in the U.S. While that may be ‘passing’ by letter grade standards,
that is approximately 131,000 students annually, who do not receive a high school diploma.
Despite a recent legislative Charter School push by the GOSA and the Department of Education
(DOE), as well as public frustration with Common Core standards, no solidified alternative to the
traditional (K - 12) classroom approach has been universally adopted. Thus, the purpose of this
memo is to provide a critical analysis of the current state of our primary education, the history of
the traditional classroom methodologies, the consequences of continued evasion by legislative,
academic, and policy means, present three possible alternatives to this problem, criteria for
comparing and evaluating the alternatives, projected outcomes and potential trade-offs for each
alternative, and a recommended policy alternative and rationale.
Current State of the Problem
The traditional classroom approach is historically defined by its lack of innovative learning, little
to no integration of real-world engagement, and consistent standardized testing. In 2016, we
cannot expect our primary learners to be prepared for either collegiate or vocational tracks if
their only access to an evolving standard of learning is outside the classroom entirely. The State
of Georgia, GOSA, and GCPS recognized this 21st Century problem, and are working to find
ways to change its ‘traditional approaches.’ Prior to these addressing these changes, let’s first
discuss the components of the public education system in Georgia, a breakdown of stakeholders
impacted [students, state congress, and companies], as well as the money being spent to address
the problem. Supported by qualitative and quantitative analysis seen in Tables A - C, this will
provide a brief visual of just how significant the gap is between theoretical standards, and
realistic post-primary expectations.
According to the Curriculum and Instruction of the DOE, the traditional classroom approach in
the State of Georgia is defined by: 1) four CORE classes (English Language Arts, Mathematics,
Science and Social Studies); 2) Fine Arts (varies per school availability); 3) Health and Physical
Education; and, 4) World Languages and Global Initiatives (optional). Gifted Education, English
to Other Speaking Languages (ESOL), and Literacy Education are also optional, and often

2. limited by testing, to specific student populations. Interestingly, the ‘Global Initiatives’ aspect of
World Languages was added in Fall 2015. While this shows minor policy improvements, there is
no test data currently showing improvement by our students in these intercultural areas. Lastly,
Business and Technology Information courses are not required for college preparatory
graduation despite federal demand for computational integration. Currently the State of Georgia
is 1 of 22 states that still does not allow Computer Science to count towards a High School
Diploma.
Moving from policy and programs, let’s look at those currently impacted by the ‘traditional
classroom’ problem – the stakeholders. Specifically that includes congressional representation,
vendors, and the K-12 student populations. Often, the political environment in the State of
Georgia leans towards the private side of education based on conservative representation,
therefore public funding support is lacking. In this upcoming 2016 Legislative Session, the major
education pushes focus on Pre-K tax incentives and Higher Education tuition freezes - nothing
concerning the other 13 years of schooling. In addition to the State, private businesses [i.e.
textbook companies] tend to have monopolies on classroom materials, therefore testing
requirements increase two-fold. In addition to a lack of PDF-friendly [and budget-friendly]
textbooks, in a recent visit to a middle school in Gwinnett County, I discovered 7th grade Social
Studies books from 2007. That is nearly ten years of history, which these students were a small
part of, which will not be taught in the classroom.
Looking at Tables A – C, it’s apparent that K-12 student populations are impacted the most by
this problem.
Table A:
State of Georgia Education Data (Academic Year):
2012 2013 2014 2015
Total Students: 1,866,423 1,724,268 1,687,857 1,667,857
Total Attendance:1 56.8% 54.8% 60.7% 55%
Dropout Rate: 2.8% [22,155] 2.6% [21,401] 2.7% [21,986] 2.6% [21,833]
Graduation Rate: 69.73% [87,133] 71.8% [88,725] 79.7% [44,023] 78.84% [98,465]
HOPE Eligibility: 41.31% [36,363] 42.45% [38,330] 46.09% [41,750] 43.48% [44,057]
College Enrollment
(In-State):
67,479 64,893 65,326 64,182
Source: GOSA State Education Data, 2012 - 2015
Table B:
1
Total Attendance for ‘Five or Fewer Days’ annually [State of Georgia]

3. Breakdown of (Pre-K - 12) Students, State of Georgia
Total Percentage
Gender: Male 878,710 51.2
Female 838,195 48.8
Race: White 731,457 42.6
Black 635,096 36.9
Hispanic 210,884 13.4
Asian 61,498 3.6
Other 59,333 3.5
Economic: Free/Reduced
Lunch
1,039,729 60.6
Students
Transported
1,031,688 60
Source: GOSA State Education Data, 2013 - 2014
Table B:
Breakdown of Graduation Rate of Students State of Georgia
Percentage University Enrollment (Fall 2014) Percentage
Race: White 78 164,264 52.5
Black 62 86,574 27.7
Hispanic 60 21,244 6.8
Asian 82 24,036 7.7
Other 69 15,778 5.0
Source: GOSA State Education Data, 2013 – 2014
Referring to the Tables above, in AY 2013 – 2014 the State of Georgia was home to 1,687,857
students [including Pre-K students housed in K-5 schools], in 2,264 [traditional] schools, and

4. 112,117 teachers. Those numbers equate to nearly 20 percent of the State’s population [10.1
Million]. Refer to Table B for a further breakdown of that population, what stands out
immediately is the large minority student population [of approximately 966,822 individuals], as
well as the discernible use of low-income programs. It is statistically accurate to suggest that in
terms of demographics, the stagnant layout of the traditional classroom approach serves more
low-income minority families in Georgia than any other group. Refer to Table C to look at
graduation percentages of those same demographics. Although more low-income minority
students are enrolled in primary school (Pre-K - 12), less than half of the minority population
who graduated in Spring 2014 subsequently enrolled in the Fall 2014 University System of
Georgia (4-year and Technical) cohort. This provides a statistical connection by showing those
more subject to this classroom approach enroll less in our Universities. Now let’s look at the past
and current monetary spending that’s been spent for less than par results [as shown in Table A].
Refer to Table D below.
Table D:
State of Georgia Budget (Fiscal Year):
2012 2013 2014 2015
Total Budget: $15,979,357,771 $16,814,221,256 $17,422,367,055 $18,306,819,505
Total K-12 Budget: $6,989,931,274
[43.7%]
$7,168,082,873
[42.6%]
$7,407,799,810
[42.5%]
$7,951,920,712
[41.4%]
% Change from
Previous Year:
- 4.7% -1.1% -0.1% -1.1%
Total Pre-K
Budget::
$335,294,298 $354,061,853 $367,625,483 $369,793,520
Total Higher
Education Budget:
$1,923,161,990 $1,811,040,033 $1,878,958,196 $1,939,267,764
Source: General State Funds Appropriations, Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) FY Budget Report, 2012 - 2015
The budget analysis in Table D shows clear monetary trends - despite increases in overall State
of Georgia budgets, the K-12 ‘traditional classroom’ budget continues to be cut by up to 4
percent per year. This is the only sector in the GaDOE that has seen a decrease in funding, as
Pre-K and Higher Education both saw increased budgets from the 2014 to 2015 estimated
approved budgets. Table A shows trends in terms of costs and benefits, both intangible
categories. As K-12 budgets are cut, parallel trends of decreased enrollment, post-graduate
(college) enrollment, and a higher dropout rate across the state. These intangible opportunity
costs will be reflected in the Table I Outcome Matrix - showing a continued short-term trend of
reduced budgets and a loss in student enrollment and activity. To understand the severity of this
problem has escalated to this extent, let’s look at the history of our K-12 public school system.
Background or History of the Problem

5. A consistent problem in the State of Georgia for public education is our conservative
policymakers. Historically, Georgia became a ‘red’ state [or conservative] since Governor Roy
Barnes’ term ended in 2003. Our previous two governors, Governor Sonny Perdue and current
Governor Nathan Deal, have prioritized business and fiscal policies over social services such as
education. This method is now more commonly known as, ‘the Schoolhouse Squeeze.’
According to the 2015 Georgia Business and Policy Institute (GBPI), the State of Georgia has
slashed K-12 Education by $8.3 Billion between 2003 and 2014. Furthermore, since 2010 the
State has spent $1 Billion per year less on K-12 funding than was originally set aside that year.
So, where is that funding going? It is also important to recognize that I was including Pre-K
earlier for demographic purposes. Pre-Kindergarten opportunities are funded entirely separate,
similar to the Higher Education sector. Most recently, the 2014 FY Budget set aside less than 1
percent for Education (K - 12), including teacher and staff salaries [approximately 0.007
percent]. It leaves to question how much is left for student materials, innovative learning, and
cultural opportunities in and outside the classroom.
This historic development has brought on serious unemployment concerns as well. Following the
Great Recession, in January 2009, the state unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. Throughout the
following two years, that percentage would rise and remain at 10.5 percent of our State
population according to the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. A total of 468,000 individuals
attained their college degree in the State of Georgia in 2010. 10 percent of that population is
approximately 46,800 individuals. Imagine that many college graduates unable to find
employment after 4-6 years of hard work [and potential loan debt]. Refer to the Graph A below
for a visual.
Graph A:
Potential Consequences/Impact for not addressing the Problem

6. I’ve discussed the current and past status quo for education in the State of Georgia, its student
demographic breakdown, likely stakeholders, current initiatives and key controversies, as well as
how this problem overarching affects our society. It is now important to address potential
consequences if this approach continues to spearhead our next generation’s public education. As
shown previously, the State of Georgia public school system educates more minorities than
traditional majority students. The United States Census Bureau suggests by the year 2060, our
national Hispanic population will increase 114 percent, our Asian population will increase 143
percent, and our traditional non-Hispanic white population will decrease by 8.2 percent. By an
educated association, the State of Georgia will also follow similar trends, introducing more
minority populations to a failing public classroom approach.
I personally went through the K-12 public school system in the State of Georgia. This same
unoriginal methodology of CORE, Fine Arts, and PE existed in 1994 as it does now. When I
graduated high school in 2007, I received three separate in-state acceptances. However, due to
my lack of early introductions to STEM coursework, I was never able to fully develop an interest
in any 21st century market major. Therefore, I attended Georgia Southern University, the most
feasible option due to lack of scholarships. Following graduation, I had to complete an unpaid
internship, followed by accepting a job in a field with no relation to my major. While I’ve come
back to my career field in both education and professional work, I’ve heard this same experience
hundreds of times over. We need to look to our innovative projects such as those awarded by the
Innovation Grant Fund for critical analysis successes.
Three Possible Alternatives:
Let’s now look at three alternatives to resolve or at minimum the ‘traditional classroom’ problem
at hand. They are as follows: 1) the Status Quo in the State of Georgia; 2) Governor Nathan
Deal’s ‘Failing Schools’ Initiative; and, 3) Gwinnett County Schools ‘Project-Based Learning’
(PBL) Approach [supported by Innovative Fund Grant]. Keep in mind it is important to use the
Status Quo as a base case for two entirely separate alternatives, to ensure unbiased analysis and
operational capacity. I will breakdown each alternative by evaluative criteria, pilot successes,
and any barriers to implementation.
● 1st Alternative: Status Quo
It is important the current state of the K-12 public education system in Georgia is used as an
alternative. This allows a full comparison of organization, results, legislative roadblocks, and
opportunity costs of program option. Looking at the traditional classroom approach, the
Curriculum and Instruction Department of GaDOE defines the college prep track as: 1) four
CORE classes (English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies); 2) Fine Arts
(varies per school availability); 3) Health and Physical Education; and, 4) World Languages and
Global Initiatives (optional). Gifted Education, English to Other Speaking Languages (ESOL),
and Literacy Education are also optional, and often limited by testing, to specific student

7. populations.2 This approach has yet to adopt recent initiatives and federal education pushes
inside the classroom, which focuses heavily on Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) coursework. Notably, following President Obama’s January 2016 ‘Push
for Computer Science,’ the State of Georgia was highlighted as 1 of 22 states which has not
allowed Computer Science count towards a High School Diploma.3
The State of Georgia currently operates on the Status Quo of the ‘traditional classroom’ style
approach. Therefore, a literature review of this approach is inept due to overwhelming evidence
of funding inadequacies, political friction, and a detailed operative description above of the
blended 20th Century Industrial model.
● 2nd Alternative: Governor Nathan Deal’s ‘Charter School’ Initiative
Governor Nathan Deal is offering an alternative this November 2016, which citizens statewide
can vote for in the General Election on the K-12 education system.4 Currently, Charter Schools
in the State of Georgia report specifically to the Georgia Charter Schools Association (GCSA),
the State Charters School Commission (SCSC), and GOSA. Presented in Senate Bill 133 and
Senate Resolution 287 in Legislative Session 2015, Governor Deal’s plan titled his proposal
‘Opportunity School District’ gives the state the power to seize control over failing schools,
convert them to Charter Schools, or shut them down entirely. The ‘failing’ concept is based on
receiving a 60 or below for three consecutive years on a 0 – 100 state performance index created
by an appointed Education Reform Commission. Currently, the Governor’s Office has a
identified 139 eligible schools based on the 2012 – 2015 academic years, including 60 in the
metropolitan Atlanta area.5 The Education Reform Commission is made up of Governor Staff,
Superintendents and Legislators – no teachers or student representation. It was designated to
provide recommendations intended to improve the education system, increase access to early
learning programs, recruit and retain instructors, and expand school options for Georgia’s
families.6 Refer to Table E below for the 2015 – 2016 charter transitions:7
Table E:
Charter Type:
Authorization: Conversion: Start-Up Charter System: Total:
Local 22 73 300 395
State N/A 20 N/A 20
2
Curriculum and Instruction,Content Areas, Georgia Department of Education, Updated Fall 2015,
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Pages/English-
Language-Arts-Program.aspx
3
Computer Science for Fall, White House Blog, Office of the President, January 30 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
4
Senate Bill 133, Opportunity School District, http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/148455.pdf
5
The next phase of Nathan Deal’s schooltakeover campaign, Greg Bluestein, Georgia Legislature,
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/04/21/the-next-phase-of-nathan-deals-school-takeover-campaign-now-begins/
6
Education Reform Commission, Priorities, Office of the Governor, Updated 2016,
https://gov.georgia.gov/education-reform-commission
7
Financing Georgia’s School Districts, Charter Schools of Georgia,
http://cslf.gsu.edu/files/2015/10/Financing-Georgias-Schools_October-2015.pdf

8. Total 22 93 300 415
Source: Georgia Department of Education, Charter Schools in Georgia: Overview
Looking for literature reviews, it seemed natural to look at the program which Governor Deal has
based his ‘Opportunity School Initiative’ is based upon – the State of Louisiana’s ‘Recovery
School District in Louisiana’ (RSD).8 Implemented in 2003, the City of New Orleans became the
first all-charter district in the United States. While the RSD was a statewide initiative, the
majority of its oversight was in the New Orleans due to the physical and fiscal impacts of
Hurricane Katrina. Currently of the 110 schools taken over by the RSD Initiative, all have either
been shut down or turned into charter operators. It is important to take into account the shift of
demographics post-Katrina. In 2014, the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
(SCOPE) attempted to reform the highly stratified schools in the City of New Orleans,
dominated by race, class, and educational advantage.9 Previously, students’ academic and
disciplinary experiences depend on where in the City they land geographically. Despite ten years
of all-district charter school integration, schools continue to struggle with poor performance,
posting among the lowest achievement and graduation rates in the State of Louisiana.
● 3rd Alternative: Innovative Grant Fund PBL Approach
The Innovation Fund began as a $19.4 million one-time fund under Georgia’s ‘Race to the Top’
(RT3) plan.10 The State of Georgia partnered with 26 school systems, including Gwinnett County
Public School Systems (GCPS), accounting for 40 percent of public school students and 68
percent of the state’s lowest achieving schools.11 When Governor Nathan Deal appropriated state
funding in FY 2015 and 2016, in October 2014, GCPS was awarded a FY 2014 Innovation
‘Implementation’ Grant.12 The initial project prioritized applied learning, with a focus on STEM
Education and the development and replication of Blended Learning School Models.
Specifically, GCPS planned to implement: 1) project-based learning methodology in pilot
classrooms; 2) three professional development laboratory schools; and, 3) training for teachers
and leaders on STEM applied learning. GCPS designated one ‘Academic STEM’ team per (5)
high schools, (10) middle schools, and (33) elementary schools. Due to successes, starting in Fall
2016, GCPS will be implementing a school-wide PBL approach in each of the previously
designated schools. In addition to Math, Science, Language Arts, and Social Studies [i.e.
traditional CORE subjects], students take Computer Science and Engineering coursework, for a
total of six CORE classes per academic quarter, which provides ‘blended learning’. Mulberry
Elementary School, Duluth Middle School (DMS), and Peachtree Ridge High School have been
8
State Takover Models Have Not Proven Effective, Investing in What Works – Community Driven
Strategies, Southern Education, http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/c2de4b16-e4c3-4ec4-
9eaf-646390125639/Investing-in-What-Works-Community-driven-Strategie.aspx
9
Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands, Southern Education, http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-
content/uploads/charter-funding-inequity-expands.pdf
10
For more on the Innovation Fund, see About the Innovation Fund.Retrieved on November 21st, 2015 from
http://gosa.georgia.gov/innovation-fund
11
For more on Georgia’s ‘Race to the Top’ (RT3) Plan, see RT3 Four Year Report by GPEE. Retrieved on
November 21st, 2015 from http://bit.ly/1HQJLif
12
For more information on Gwinnett County Urban Acheivements, see The 2014 Broad Prize: Celebrating
Progress in America’s Public Schools by Broad Prize Education. Retrieved on November 22nd, 2015 from
http://bit.ly/1wQkc7J

9. designated as ‘lab schools,’ each now equipped with a ‘Professional Development Lab’ to allow
for in-depth student research and observation. Lastly, workshop training and quarterly digital
observation for teachers was to be provided by the BUCK Institute for Education Edecuris (BIE),
as well as the integration of Safari Montage software for student ‘dropbox’ capabilities. Refer to
the Table below for the grant approval from October 2014.
Understanding that the PBL Approach in GCPS is still in its first full academic year, let’s look to
a successful integration of this alternative. Currently, there are few established PBL Approaches
[in public schools] in which the State of Georgia to warrant a Literature Review.13 A study I
found looked at a 7th grade classroom at the Cape Cod Lighthouse Charter School (CCLS) in
Massachusetts.14 It drew on the Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences, Fred
Newmann’s model of authentic assessment, and Ted Sizer’s focus on student exhibitions to
emphasize project-based learning. Traditionally CCLS required teachers to present ‘Ancient and
Classical Civilizations in the Mediterranean’ based on the Massachusetts DOE. In this study, an
individual teacher integrated traditional classroom discussions with real-world activities that
included analysis of primary sources such as diaries, letters, government documents and artifacts
found at the Library of Congress. Additionally, the students built pyramids using digital
software, mummified virtual bodies, worked with curators at BBC History, and finally, created
an Imperial Scrapbook Project in which students write a ‘first-hand account’ as a soldier of
ancient Rome. What makes the CCLS study applicable to the GCPS pilot program is the
presentation of a problem or challenge per academic quarter. What is more exciting is this CCLS
model was the PBL Approach was established nearly two decades ago, and is still fully active.
With the ballot push for Governor Nathan Deal’s ‘Charter School Implementation’ plan for
failing Georgia schools, a PBL Approach could be very effective as either a standalone model
based on the results of the CCLS collaboration, or a future integrative model into the favorable
Charter School Initiative.
Criteria for Comparing and Evaluating the Alternatives:
In order to evaluate the discussed alternatives potential success, I will use the following criteria:
political acceptability and viability; and, economic and financial possibility.
● 1st Alternative: Status Quo
A consistent problem in the State of Georgia for public education is our conservative
policymakers. Historically, Georgia became a ‘red’ state [or conservative] since Governor Roy
Barnes’ term ended in 2003. Our previous two governors, Governor Sonny Perdue and current
Governor Nathan Deal, have prioritized business and fiscal policies over social services such as
education. This method is now more commonly known as, ‘the Schoolhouse Squeeze’.15
13
Implementing Project-Based Learning to Create “Authentic” Sources: The Egyptological Excavation and Imperial
Scrapbook Projects at the Cape Code Lighthouse Charter School by Danielle K. Garran. The History Teacher. Vol.
41, No. 3 (May, 2008) pp. 379 – 389. Society for Higher Education. Retrieved on November 26th, 2015 from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036918
14
15
The Schoolhouse Squeeze, Policy Report, Georgia Business & Policy Institute,Spring 2015, http://gbpi.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Schoolhouse-Squeeze-Report-09232013.pdf

10. Beginning in Summer 2015, students graduating from USG programs in Early Childhood,
Middle Grades or Subject-Based Education Majors are required to take four separate GACE
Examinations to evaluate entry-level knowledge and licensing.16 After speaking personally with
the Georgia State University COE Academic Advisement Office, with each GACE examination
being at minimum $150, low-income students have become discouraged [and often are
incapable] to remain in the undergraduate program. Furthermore, GaDOE has implemented K-12
teacher performance standards as part of the state’s ‘Race to the Top Initiative’ (RT3) for new
Fall 2016 teachers. Looking at the ‘Teacher Keys Effectiveness System Fact Sheet’ provided by
GCPS, teachers will be evaluated in-person on upwards of ten individual standard categories,
required to evaluate themselves based on these same standards, individual student achievement
[by standardized test scores], and finally student surveys for students’ grades 3 – 12.17 Starting in
Fall 2016, teachers will receive merit-based pay based on a combined score of these components.
While the GaDOE sees this as politically acceptable based on the conservative belief that
teachers solely determine classroom success, sans appropriate resources or school system
environment, legislators have now created a sever gap for teachers which can no longer be filled.
Looking at economic and financial possibilities, according to the 2015 Georgia Business and
Policy Institute (GBPI), the State of Georgia has slashed K-12 Education by $8.3 Billion
between 2003 and 2014. Furthermore, since 2010 the State has spent $1 Billion per year less on
K-12 funding than was originally set aside that year.18 In this recent 2016 Legislative Session,
the major education pushed a focus on Pre-K tax incentives and Higher Education tuition freezes
- nothing concerning the other 13 years of schooling. It is also important to recognize that I was
including Pre-K earlier for demographic purposes. Pre-Kindergarten opportunities are funded
entirely separate, similar to the Higher Education sector. Most recently, the 2016 FY Budget set
aside less than 1 percent for Education (K - 12), including teacher and staff salaries
[approximately 0.007 percent]. It leaves to question how much is left for student materials,
innovative learning, and cultural opportunities in and outside the classroom.
Let’s look at an example of fiscal policies set in place in the last decade. Currently, the Status
Quo alternative offers variation only for select students and schools. These programs include: 1)
Governor’s Honor Program; 2) Connections for Classrooms Grant Program; and, 3) Innovation
Fund Grant Programs. The latter two programs operate strictly on grant funds from the federal
and state level, and are only offered to schools through application processes. Looking
specifically at ‘Connections to Classrooms’ (C2C), the program markets an [100 megabits per
second per school] expansion of the University System of Georgia’s PeachNet network to ensure
every school has sufficient network infrastructure and bandwidth for digital and blended
learning. In its 2014 academic year debut, 146 schools that applied for more than $198 million in
16
Georgia State University College of Education B.S.E. in Early Childhood Education Program Requirements.
http://ecee.education.gsu.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/197/files/2013/11/ECE_BSED_Program_Manual_Fall_2012.pdf
17
GaDOE Teacher Keys Effectiveness SystemFact Sheet, GCPS Publishments,
https://publish.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/gcps/wcm/connect/eb7bb2a2-4fc2-4737-9486-
e8ec9e507c18/Fact++Sheets+Revised+7-11-2012_v15[1].pdf?MOD=AJPERES
18
State of Georgia FY 2014 Budget, Office of Planning and Budget, State of Georgia, 2014,
http://opb.georgia.gov/sites/opb.georgia.gov/files/related_files/document/Governors%20Budget%20Report%20FY
%202014.pdf

11. network needs, the program was only able to award $37 million to 104 schools.19 In the 2015
Round [most recent grants], GOSA awarded $8.2 million to 48 local education agency (LEAs)
infrastructure [based on a scored rubric], while schools in those districts were simply offered
discounted rates for internet and telecommunication needs.20 In addition to a near 75 percent cut
in infrastructure fund allocations, 81 percent of the awarded LEAs were only partially funded.
Refer to Table F below for a visual representation of the 2016 C2C allocations:
Table F:
Round 3 Award Determinations:
Category: Score Range: Percentage: Amount Funded: Total LEAs:
Fully Funded 45.00 – 50.00 100% 4,409,561.65 9
Partially Funded I 40.00 – 44.99 65% 2,289,909.30 14
Partially Funded II 30.00 – 39.99 30% 1,486,313.06 25
Unfunded 0.00 – 29.99 0% - 14
Total Funds Awarded 8,185,784.01 48
Source: Connections for Classrooms Annual Report (January 2016)
● 2nd Alternative: Governor Nathan Deal’s ‘Opportunity School District’ Initiative
Strictly looking at political viability, SB 133 and SR 287 [both surrounding the Charter School
initiative] are up for statewide vote in November 2016 – if passed, active January 1, 2017.
Furthermore, in January 2016 the Press Office in the Office of the Governor announced that the
SCSC received 12 out of 12 points on NACSA’s Index of Essential Practices, an annual
assessment of charter school authorizer quality administered by the National Association of
Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). Of 161 authorizers assessed across the nation, the SCSC
is one of two charter authorizers to receive a perfect score.21 This certainly boosts morale for the
upcoming vote, as well as potential academic success for currently failing districts. However
there has been a great deal of controversy from a number of fronts – the state Democratic
congress, the Georgia Association of Educators, and the American Federation Union for
Teachers. There was a lack of representation on the Education Reform Commission when these
suggestions were put forward for legislation – including taxpayer facilities handed to the
privately-funded CSG and a lack of appeal process for parents, students or teachers who oppose
the takeovers. Without community and educator approval, the Executive and Legislative
branches of Georgia will see a great deal of discouragement and opposition – regardless whether
the Initiative passes in November.
The economic and financial possibility of the Opportunity School District depend on funding
from both NACSA and SCSC, as well as GOSA state grant funding. According to the Center for
State and Local Finance (CSLF) in Georgia, K-12 funding may vary even further depending on
19
Connections for Classrooms Grant Program, Grant Opportunities, The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement;
http://gosa.georgia.gov/connections-classrooms-grant-program
20
2015 CFC Program Information, Connectins for Classrooms Grant Program, Grant Opportunities, The Governors
Office of Student Acheivement, http://gosa.georgia.gov/2015-cfc-program-information
21
State Charter Schools Comm receives perfect score on national assessment,January 27, 2016, Press Releases,
Office of the Governor, https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-01-27/deal-state-charter-schools-commission-
receives-perfect-score-national

12. specific authorization force (implementation, planning or ESPLOST) and the specific type of
charter school (state, local or federal).22 According to GOSA, the average need for Charter
Schools is not being met – the funding formula points out that only 62 percent of the total
amount spent in traditional schools are used to operate State Charter schools. Please refer to
Tables G and H below for comparison to Alternative 1 on feasibility:
Table G:
Summary of Student-Based Model Needs (2015):
Student Enrollment 1,697,497
Base Weighted Per Student $2,393.13
K-12 Enrollment Funds $4,062,325,096
Total Model with Add-on Weighs: $8,686,945,771
GRAND TOTAL: of Additional Funds
Needed:
$467,472,112
Source: Analysis of Charter School Funding, Governors Charter Schools Association (GOSA)
Table H:
Charter Funding Comparison (2015 -2016):
K-12 District Schools: State Charters: Charter vs. K-12
District:
State Revenue: $4,290 $5,230
Local Revenue: $3,686 $0
Capital: $1,017 $316
GRAND TOTAL: $8,993 $5,546 61.7%
Source: Analysis of Charter School Funding, Governors Charter Schools Association (GOSA)
● 3rd Alternative: Innovative Grant Fund PBL Approach
Looking at political acceptability and viability of the PBL Approach, legislators will likely look
at the ‘near perfect environment’ of the pilot program. Conservatives will question if failing
schools such as the Atlanta Public School Systems (APS) can see similar results. In review,
GCPS was one of two top urban school districts in the United States by the Broad Prize for
Urban Education. GCPS served over 175,000 students in the 2014 – 2015 academic year, the
largest number in the State of Georgia. Of those students, 31 percent were black, 28 percent were
white, and 27 percent were Hispanic, providing a diverse student population for potential pilot
programming.23 Last year, the district saw an increased enrollment of 2,800 students. Its Class of
2015 graduated 11,000 students, of which 83 percent planned to attend college. GCPS remains
the only school system of Georgia and in the Southeast to hold a triple-A bond rating from both
22
Center for State and Local Finance, Georgia State Unviersity, Updated December 2015,
http://cslf.gsu.edu/files/2015/10/Financing-Georgias-Schools_October-2015.pdf
23
For more on Gwinnett County FY2015 statistics,see Gwinnett County Public Schools… Creating a System of
World-Class Schools by GCPS. Retrived on November 22nd, 2015 from http://bit.ly/1jKoo6s

13. Moody’s Investors Services and Standard and Poor.24 Quite the opposite, according to the latest
APS demographic data, the system served just above 43,000 students in the 2011 – 2012
academic year.25 Of those students, 81 percent were black, 11 percent were white, and 3 percent
were Hispanic.26 However, in the 2015 academic year, APS reached a 72 percent graduation rate
– a 12 percent bump in one academic year. A pilot program in its most successful school, Early
College High School at Carver, could be presented to the State as a positive pilot for the PBL
Approach in APS.
According to the 2015 Annual Report released in January 2016, the Innovation Fund has
invested over $27 million in state and federal funding through 54 grants to 39 public, charter, and
postsecondary schools. However it’s important to note that $19.4 million of that was grants in
2011 alone – leaving less than $8 million in the last four years. In October 2015, GOSA awarded
12 grants totaling $4.1 million to 11 eligible schools. 27 Looking at economic feasibility, the
GaDOE may question the cost-benefits of this alternative, as well as the stability in flow of
funding. The multi-million dollar grant provided a great amenity for teachers through workshops
not open to students, and the digital resource expenditures [iPads and Labs] are program features
that could be questioned when some rural Georgia counties still have little access to proper
textbooks or transportation. While shadowing the 7th grade pilot STEM classroom, I witnessed
[able] students being asked to bring their own tablets and devices due to lack of digital resources
for each student. It is also important to look at the local benefits GPCS receives from a county
optional sales tax that brought in $876 million in 2014 (E-SPLOST), offering a FY2016 budget
of $1.86 billion – the cost of educating one child to be $8,215 per year.28 These enrollment
numbers, student achievement and fiscal successes allow for a near perfect environment in which
this alternative can thrive. It will be interesting to see the GCPS program expand to all students
in its selected schools, whether the expenditure problems can be resolved, and if possible
alternative resource options come to light.
Please refer to the matrix below for a current comparison of the alternatives:
Table I: Comparison Matrix
Comparative Analysis
State of Georgia - Primary (K-12) Education 2015
24
For more information on Gwinnett County Urban Acheivements, see The 2014 Broad Prize: Celebrating
Progress in America’s Public Schools by Broad Prize Education. Retrieved on November 22nd, 2015 from
http://bit.ly/1wQkc7J
25
Note: There are no later APS Demographic of Enrollment Summaries than the 2011-2012 year. This potentially
provides skewed data in comparison to the 2014 – 2015 GCPS enrollment numbers.
http://www.atlanta.k12.ga.us/cms/lib/GA01000924/Centricity/Domain/45/APSGAUtilizationOptionsSummary1202
07.pdf
26
http://jjie.org/by-numbers-look-inside-atlanta-public-schools/78902/
27
2015 Innovation Fund Annual Report, Governor’s Office of Student Acheivement, Prepared December 2015,
http://gosa.georgia.gov/sites/gosa.georgia.gov/files/related_files/press_release/2015%20Innovation%20Fund%20An
nual%20Report_Published.pdf
28
For more on Gwinnett County FY2015 statistics,see Gwinnett County Public Schools… Creating a System of
World-Class Schools by GCPS. Retrived on November 22nd, 2015 from http://bit.ly/1jKoo6s

14. Policy
Scenario
Total Students: Cost Legislation Growth Rate Viability
‘Status Quo’
Approach
1,441,758
[82%]
$7,951,920,712 - $1bill per year,
focus on Pre-K
and Higher Ed
-1.1% O: Low
E: Low
P: Medium
PBL Approach 683,821 [41%] $27,233,758.56 2015 - 2015
State Budget
Appropriations
+41.7 O: High
E: Medium
P: Medium
Charter
Initiative
356,142 [18%] $4,062,325,096 Quality
Education
Budget (QEB)
+18.4% O: High
E: Medium
P: Low
Key: Viability - Operational (O), Economic (E), Political (P)
Sources: GaDOE RT3 Four-Year Report, GOSA OPB 2015 Annual Report, GCSA 2015 Annual Report
The Outcome Matrix in Table I provides a current snapshot of each alternative side-by-side, and
includes a viability rating. Please note, the PBL Approach ‘Total Students’ number is based on
the 41 percent growth rate [and effect] provided by the RT3 2015 Annual Report. I multiplied
this percentage by the current number of students in the K-12 public school systems. Based on
what is seen, the PBL Approach shows the most promise currently - positive student growth, the
less excessive costs, the strongest growth rate, as well as Medium - High viability across
operational, economic and political situations. Put simply, currently, the benefits of the PBL
Approach exceed the costs. Once again, it is important to keep in mind this conclusion is based
on my own research and values.
Potential Outcomes:
Predicting a future outcome imposes a certain burden of justification, as I cannot be wholly sure
of which and if the alternatives will succeed. Therefore to be thorough but also realistic, I will
combine what is known [quantitative and qualitative data] into a secure frame [analysis model]
to provide usable projections for trade-offs and a final recommendation.29 By comparing each
alternative, it will be possible to determine a strong recommendation based on empirical research
and evaluation. Please refer to the following for a framework of the projected outcomes:
1. Alternative 1 - ‘Status Quo’
a. What is known?
i. 4 year [AY 2012 - 2015] retention, graduation, and collegiate enrollment
percentages; 4 year [FY 2012 - 2015] State of Georgia (Overall) and
GaDOE Budget (Overall, K-12)
ii. Information Displayed in Tables A - C
b. Analysis Framework: Trends Projection [growth quotient]
2. Alternative 2 - Governor Deal’s Charter School Initiative
29
Refer to Bardach and Patashnik’s A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis, Step 5 of ‘The Eightfold Path’
for the tip to combine [suggested] analysis models and evidence.

15. a. What is known?
i. GCSA 2015 Annual FY 2015 Annual Report
ii. Information Displayed in Tables D - E
b. Analysis Framework: Scenario Writing and Undesirable Effects
3. Alternative 3 - Innovation Grant Fund PBL Approach
a. What is known?
i. 2012 - 2016 Innovation Fund Annual Review Statistics including funding,
participating student surveys, and program expansion(s).
ii. Information Displayed in Tables F - H
b. Analysis Framework: Confronting the Optimism Problem and Magnitude
Estimate [percentages growth estimates]
● 1st Alternative: Status Quo
When projecting outcomes and potential impacts of policy alternatives, a base case is necessary
for ease of comparison. In this case, let’s use the status quo - the current traditional classroom
approach in the State of Georgia public K-12 education system. Briefly reviewing the Status Quo
in the State of Georgia, the Curriculum and Instruction Department of GaDOE defines the
college prep track as: 1) four CORE classes (English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and
Social Studies); 2) Fine Arts (varies per school availability); 3) Health and Physical Education;
and, 4) World Languages and Global Initiatives which is optional and only recently added in Fall
2015. Gifted Education, English to Other Speaking Languages (ESOL), and Literacy Education
are also optional, and often limited by testing, to specific student populations.30 This approach
has yet to adopt federal pushes for statewide innovative adjustments inside the classroom, which
focus heavily on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) coursework.
Keeping in mind information discussed in previous memos on a strong conservative
representation and legislation agenda since 2003 (Democratic Governor Roy Barnes’ Term End),
the ‘Schoolhouse Squeeze’ methodology, as well as the drastic GaDOE budget cuts passed
between fiscal years 2003 and 2014, let’s look at past and current trends based on comparisons
of 2012 - 2015 GOSA State Education Data and the 2012 - 2015 State of Georgia Budget in
Tables A, B, and C. It’s important to recognize Table J showcases data collected following the
end of a given academic year (AY) (i.e. the end of academic year 2011 - 2012, 2012 - 2013),
Table B showcases estimated budgets passed the previous Legislative Session (i.e. the 2012
budgets were passed in Legislative Session 2011), and Table C showcases K-12 STEM funding
from the same estimated budgets as Table B to provide a more detailed look at current
innovation integration practices in the ‘traditional classroom.’ By providing known statistics and
qualitative information, any predictive trends and scenarios are more wholly justified.
Table J:
State of Georgia Budget - K-12 STEM Funding (Fiscal Year)
30
Curriculum and Instruction,Content Areas, Georgia Department of Education, Updated Fall 2015,
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Pages/English-
Language-Arts-Program.aspx

16. 2012 2013 2014 2015
National Science
Center
-$200,000
[ELIMINATION]
N/A N/A N/A
Georgia Youth
Science and
Technology Centers
-$150,000 -$142,880 -$144,000 $0
Technology/Career
Education
-$1,291,432 -$60,497 -$421,775 $34,580
Information
Technology
Services
$0 $0 $12,705,581 $1,185,645
Georgia Learning
Resources System
$0 -$110,426 -$6,300,860 $0
Low-Performance
School Resources
-$612,265 -$429,475 -$1,485,922 $560,000
Source: General State Funds Appropriations, Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) FY Budget Report, 2012 - 2015
○ Predictive Trends [based on Table J]:
Lastly, in Table J, I thought it was necessary to show budget losses particular to the STEM fields
- the main problem being addressed throughout these memos. I provided six separate GaDOE
funded sub-sections, either a physical organization or resource access and development. Between
FY 2012 - 2015, nearly $10 million in STEM innovation funding was cut from the GaDOE
budget - specifically, moved to general funding appropriations. Despite increases seen in 2015
for Information Technology Services and Low-Performing School resources, these numbers
provide a clear trend of failure when it comes to applied STEM learning, available 21st Century
resources, and a career and readiness focus. Now, let’s look at future predictive trends,
showcased through scenario writing and undesirable side effects.
○ Scenario Writing [Short-Term, 2021]:
■ Due to the approximate $6.9 million elimination in GLRS funding for the
training of and resource utilization availability for educators [teachers,
administration], the ‘Schoolhouse Squeeze’ effect will continue until a
critical level of hiring needs is reached in 2021. Additionally, increased
rollovers of Georgia educators to either private or out-of-state schools due
to aggressive observation and implemented teaching standards will result
in an underprepared Generation Z.
■ There is an uneven distribution of information technology infrastructure
[internet access, online platforms, technology devices]. As a result, in five
years (2021), the semi-functioning platform PeachNet will be fully
privatized. This will result in school districts and counties having to cut
additional innovative practices, field trips, and course options (AP, IB) for
high-achieving students.

17. ■ Based on trends from 2012 - 2015, as well as the privatization of
PeachNet, a lack of STEM innovative programs will result in nearly 60
percent of school districts will receiving low-achieving status according to
the State of Georgia 80/80/80 mandate. Due to the 2016 Charter Initiative
passing, these schools will be shut down and converted to charter schools.
○ Undesirable Side Effects
■ The privatization of any resources such as PeachNet and the conversion to
Charter Schools allows for a breeding ground for rent-seekers. It is most
likely textbooks will be continued, despite a dire need for online resource
conversions, allowing for students of the digital age to be left behind in the
industrial age.
■ Already occurring in 2016, the overregulation of educators and
administration results in either standards ‘too high’ to be met, or an
unhealthy push of student populations to meet these standards [despite
low-achieving or slower-learning status].
○ Impact Questions:
Specific questions must be asked for each alternative, prior to determining trade-offs. The first
addresses the significance of stakeholders, which I predict only increasing based on a lack of
technology infrastructure and online resource availability throughout the State of Georgia. This
may not apply directly to all county systems, however for those such as the Atlanta Public
School Systems who have consistently low-income students and families, any assistance or
subsidiary resources will most likely be accepted - examples include textbook companies
[McGraw Hill]. Additionally, if we look at the K-12 ‘traditional’ population as stakeholders,
there is a negative significance as the analysis and funding shows. Limitations to these
predictions include a sustained political and economic climate. If the State of Georgia
administration were to change [to Democratic Administration], it is likely more funding will be
pushed into K-12 budgets - specifically to assist low-income and urban areas.
As stated, if the political climate is sustained, it is likely these trends, scenarios and undesirable
effects will occur. The current administration is conservative, and will favor both over-
regulations of standards for teachers as well as the privatization of any extraneous costs
(PeachNet). Furthermore, despite controversy around the Charter Initiative, it has seen success in
its short supported existence. It is very likely SB 133 will pass, allowing a full sweep of nearly
140 currently deemed ‘failing schools.’ While this statement holds a burden of justification,
current trends should carry into the future in similar fashion. I do not believe this alternative is
likely to produce results good enough to justify the costs. It seems preposterous to me that just
under half of the State of Georgia’s budget is spent annually on K-12 programming, with failing
results for both individual students and schools. My next two alternatives provide more realistic
alternatives to the ‘Status Quo’ approach, both economically and fiscally. Refer to Tables I and J
for short and long-term Outcome Matrixes.
● 2nd Alternative: Governor Deal’s ‘Charter School’ Initiative

18. Governor Nathan Deal is offering an alternative this November 2016, which citizens statewide
can vote for in the General Election on the K-12 education system.31 Currently, Charter Schools
in the State of Georgia report specifically to the Georgia Charter Schools Association (GCSA),
the State Charters School Commission (SCSC), and GOSA. Presented in Senate Bill 133 and
Senate Resolution 287 in Legislative Session 2015, Governor Deal’s plan titled his proposal
‘Opportunity School District’ gives the state the power to seize control over failing schools,
convert them to Charter Schools, or shut them down entirely. The ‘failing’ concept is based on
receiving a 60 or below for three consecutive years on a 0 – 100 state performance index created
by an appointed Education Reform Commission. Currently, the Governor’s Office has a
identified 139 eligible schools based on the 2012 – 2015 academic years, including 60 in the
metropolitan Atlanta area.32
Keeping in mind information discussed in previous memos on the November 2016 national
election (Charter School Initiative Vote), let’s look at past and current trends based on
comparisons of 2012 - 2015 GOSA State Education Data in Table D and fiscal budgets from
both the State of Georgia and the GCSA in years 2012 - 2015 in Table E. It is important to note
that neither GOSA nor GCSA Annual Reports provided 2014 - 2015 updates on enrollment,
attendance, or graduation data. Furthermore prior to 2014 the CCRPI was not evaluated - the
CRCT was the Standardized Index used in the State of Georgia. Nonetheless, by providing
known statistics and qualitative information, any predictive trends and scenarios are more wholly
justified.
Table K:
GCSA Education Data:
AY: Total Charter
Schools:
Total Charter
Students
% Enrollment
Change
CCRPI: Graduation
Rate:
% Graduation
Change:
2012 110 130,.492 +4.3% N/A 60.1% -20%
2013 108 225,259 +42.1% N/A 61.9% +1.9%
2014 111 245,995 +8.5% 74.1% N/A N/A
2015 117 265,431 +11.7% 77.0% N/A N/A
2016 115 325,806 +18.6% 75.8% N/A N/A
Key: College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI)
Source: GCSA 2015 FY Annual Report
31
Senate Bill 133, Opportunity School District, http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/148455.pdf
32
The next phase of Nathan Deal’s schooltakeover campaign, Greg Bluestein, Georgia Legislature,
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/04/21/the-next-phase-of-nathan-deals-school-takeover-campaign-now-begins/

19. Table L:
GCSA 2015 Annual Fiscal Report:
2012 2013 2014 2015
Total State Budget: 15,979,357,771 16,814,221,256 17,422,367,055 18,306,819,505
State Allocated
Funds:
$78,952,000 $135,155,400 $147,597,000 $182,149,497
% QBE Grant Loss
[from previous year]:
- 1.9% -.09% -.04% +$.06
Source: GCSA 2015 FY 2015 Annual Report
○ Predictive Trends [based on Tables K and L]:
Despite the burden of justification, looking at Tables K and L should provide clear quantitative
analytics to assist in predicting future trends, justified scenarios, and undesirable side effects.
Looking at monetary trends, the current cost spent per pupil is just under $6000 in all Charter
Schools [converted and start-up].33 That is approximately 61.7 percent of what is spent on
traditional pupils in the K-12 traditional classrooms. According to Table E, despite a near
200,000-student increase in four years [nearly 85 percent increase], funding from the GaDOE
has only increased approximately $100,000 in the same time period. Furthermore, Quality Based
Education (QBE) grants for charter schools in the State of Georgia has gone down nearly 2.5
percent - grants which assist in renovation and facility transitions. Looking now at current
successes seen overtime in GCSA schools, Table D shows CCRPI scores on average 2.5 percent
higher than non-charter schools. Additionally, according to the 2015 GCSA Annual Report,
charter schools have out-performed non-charter schools in all CORE classes by overall grade and
individual course. Similar to funding and success discrepancies found in the third alternative
[PBL Approach], this conflict of interests is most likely due to overall budget cuts in all areas of
Education since 2003. Now let’s predict short and long-term scenarios and undesirable side
effects based on the information that has been presented.
○ Scenario Writing:
■ The political atmosphere around the Charter School Initiative has gotten
particularly heated since its passing five years ago (November 2016).
Despite its mantra for assisting failing schools, the Initiative has left out
teachers, administration and families from the conversion processes of
their schools. This has assisted in continued ‘Schoolhouse Squeeze’
methods, forcing teachers to move out-of-state to rediscover innovative
teaching styles. There is now a critical need for teaching staff in the State
of Georgia.
33
GCSA 2015 FY 2015 Annual Report, https://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Charter-
Schools/Documents/2012-13%20Charter%20School%20Annual%20Report%20-%202014-01-16.pdf

20. ■ Furthermore, the Initiative has caused medium-high income families to
attend schools out-of-district. This shift has benefited congressional re-
districting, further widening the gaps of learning and resources between
charter and non-charter schools. Due to such heightened climates, the
democratic legislation has refused to participate in the 2021 Legislative
Session. No House or Senate Bills have been passed to-date this year.
○ Undesirable Side Effects:
■ The influence of rent-seekers has heightened due to ability of the GCSA to
accept private business funding in the form of ‘external grants’, while
there is a continued decrease in State Education funding.
■ Based on the nature of the Charter Initiative, the overregulation of schools,
educators and administration has resulted in either standards ‘too high’ to
be met, or an unhealthy push of student populations to meet these
standards [despite low-achieving or slower-learning status].
■ In addition, the concept of moral hazard is in play due to start-up and
conversion schools having 5-year standards expectations if below the
80/80/80 mark compared to the 3-year standards expectations of public
schools.
○ Impacts Questions:
Specific questions must be asked for each alternative, prior to determining trade-offs. The first
addresses the significance of stakeholders, which I predict increasing based on funding
opportunities legally available both within and outside the GaDOE based on the National Charter
School Association guidelines. The GCSA proudly claims ‘grant partnerships’ with multiple
private businesses and groups, including LEGO, Toshiba and Honda International.34 While these
grants are designed to offset the lack of state funding annually [nearly 40 percent], it provides a
severe conflict of interest. Looking again at student populations as stakeholders, in this instance
those 300,000 currently in GCSA schools, despite funding decreases I see significance in terms
of their positive CCRPI scores and consistent out-performance of traditional classroom students.
If these numbers were to drop, there would be alarm from families and communities - hence the
increased significance. Limitations to these predictions include a sustained political and
economic climate. If the State of Georgia administration were to change [to Democratic
Administration], it is likely funding to the GCSA through QBE would be cut severely, if not
entirely due to its nature to under-support democratic constituencies.
As stated, if the political climate is sustained, it is likely these trends, scenarios and undesirable
effects will occur. The current administration is conservative, and the privatization style of the
GCSA. Furthermore, despite controversy around the Charter Initiative, it has seen success in its
short supported existence. It is very likely SB 133 will pass, allowing a full sweep of nearly 140
currently deemed ‘failing schools.’ While this statement holds a burden of justification, current
trends should carry into the future in similar fashion. I could see this alternative continuing to
succeed in terms of operation and political standpoints [holding for limitations], but its feasibility
is my concern. My final alternative will provide the most realistic alternative to the ‘Status Quo’
34
External Grant Opportunities, GCSA Grant Opportunities, https://scsc.georgia.gov/grant-opportunities-and-
resources-state-charters

21. approach, both economically and fiscally. Refer to Tables I and J for short and long-term
Outcome Matrixes.
● 3rd Alternative: Innovative Grant Funded PBL Approach
Initially funded through Georgia’s ‘Race to the Top’ (RT3) plan, Gwinnett County Public
Schools (GCPS) was one of 26 systems to begin prioritizing applied learning, with a focus on
STEM Education and the development and replication of Blended Learning School
Models.35Specifically, GCPS planned to implement: 1) project-based learning methodology in
pilot classrooms; 2) three professional development laboratory schools; and, 3) training for
teachers and leaders on STEM applied learning. GCPS designated one ‘Academic STEM’ team
per (5) high schools, (10) middle schools, and (33) elementary schools. In addition to Math,
Science, Language Arts, and Social Studies [i.e. traditional CORE subjects], students take
Computer Science and Engineering coursework, for a total of six CORE classes per academic
quarter, which provides ‘blended learning’. Mulberry Elementary School, Duluth Middle School
(DMS), and Peachtree Ridge High School have been designated as ‘lab schools,’ each now
equipped with a ‘Professional Development Lab’ to allow for in-depth student research and
observation. Lastly, workshop training and quarterly digital observation for teachers was to be
provided by the BUCK Institute for Education Edecuris (BIE), as well as the integration of Safari
Montage software for student ‘dropbox’ capabilities.
Additionally, the FY 2015 Innovation Fund Grant Annual Report was released in January 2016,
providing qualitative and quantitative data on success thus far in PBL Approach priority areas in
GCPS. This information will be shown in in Table M featuring the 2015-2016 Innovation Grant
Demand and Awards, Table N showing priority application areas, and Table O showing survey
responses based on AY 2015 - 2016 Applied STEM Learning program student participants.
Refer back to Table D, which provides limited data regarding enrollment, graduation rates, and
collegiate enrollment in these pilot grant programs. In comparison, the ‘traditional classroom’
approach and the ‘Charter Initiative’ have over ten years of integrative experience in the State of
Georgia. By providing known statistics and qualitative information, any predictive trends and
estimates are more wholly justified.
Table M:
Innovation Grant Demand:36
AY: # of Grant
Applications:
Grant Request
Total:
# of Grants
Awarded:
Grant Award
Total:
Focus Area:
2015 59 $24,806,202.26 18 $4,527,905 Blended
2016 57 $33,595,886.67 12 $4,181,636 STEM
35
For more on Georgia’s ‘Race to the Top’ (RT3) Plan, see RT3 Four Year Report by GPEE. Retrieved on
November 21st, 2015 from http://bit.ly/1HQJLif
36
Academic Years 2011 - 2013 Annual Reports not available on GOSA website.

22. Total [2015 -
2016]:
117 $54,402,088.93 30 $8,709,541
Total [2012 -
2015]:
N/A N/A 54 $27,233,758.36 N/A
Source: Innovation Grant Fund Reports 2014 - 2015, GOSA
Table N:
K-12 Grant Application Areas:
AY: Applied STEM Learning: Blended Learning Models: Teacher & Leader
Development:
2015 32 23 17
2016 25 15 21
Total [2015 -
2016]:
57 38 30
Source: Innovation Grant Fund Reports 2014 - 2015, GOSA
Table O:
May 2015 Survey Response Rates:
Program: # of Survey Respondents Total # of Participating
Students:
Survey Response Rate:
21st Century Rockdale County 301 241 88%
Real STEM Georgia Southern 215 224 64%
Rt3 Computational Thinking 4 33 12%
STEM for Life Carroll County 239 325 74%
STEP Academy Gwinnett 140 144 97%
Tift County Mechatronics 71 71 100%
Total: 970 1,248 78%
Source: GOSA Applied Learning Student Questionnaire (ALSQ): Overall Analysis, May 2015
○ Predictive Trends [based on Tables M – O]:
Despite the burden of justification, tables M, N, and O should provide clear quantitative analytics
to assist in predicting future trends. Looking at trends strictly by costs and benefits, Tables F and
H provides a clear picture. Table O shows a near 80 percent positive response rate to Innovation

23. Fund Grant student participants in their first year of applied STEM learning programs based on
ALSQ surveys. Looking further, three of six programs received nearly 90 percent or higher in
positive feedback. Despite these clearly beneficial programs, the State of Georgia cut costs
almost 80 percent once the one-time $19.4 million federal [RT3] grant was used. Looking at
Table M, even with an increase of over $10 million in requested grant funds in one application
year, nearly $500,000 less was awarded. Furthermore, out of over $27 million awarded between
AY 2012 - 2016, a mere 29 percent was awarded in the last two academic years. These numbers
are not due to lack of overall state budgets, as seen in Table D [$3 billion increase between 2012
- 2015]. Speaking on strictly the information reviewed, there is simply a lack of will for STEM
and 21st Century integration into public school systems.
Despite these monetary and legislative setbacks, the PBL Approach [funded by the Innovative
Grant Fund] has been widely successful. Looking at Gwinnett County Public Schools
specifically, the pilot programs in Mulberry Elementary, Duluth Middle, and Peachtree Ridge
High Schools will be implemented school-wide starting in Fall 2016.37 This reality shows that
despite cuts in K-12 public system funding, political pressure on charter school conversion(s),
and a general lack of response to STEM approaches, the PBL Approach is a short-term success.
○ Confront the Optimism Problem:
■ Based on its high ‘OEP’ marks in Table I (below), there is a higher
optimism for the PBL Approach based simply on economic feasibility,
political viability, and operational capability. The PBL Approach was
initially designed outside the State of Georgia fiscal budget; therefore
there was little political influence on standards and regulation. However, it
is important to keep in mind that this program was a grant of $19.4 million
in 2011, which ran out in 2014. Thankfully Governor Nathan Deal
appropriated funding for continued implementation, and the Innovation
Fund Foundation, Inc. was established. The GaDOE appropriated funding
to these grants has become limited to less than 15 percent of what was
initially requested [through applications]. This provides some wavering
concern for long-term stability and maintenance. Refer to the Magnitude
Estimates for hopeful short-term solutions.
○ Magnitude Estimates [short-term, AY 2018]:38
■ Approximately 75 percent of former implementation and scaling grantees
have sustained their funded programs.
■ Furthermore, 90 percent of currently funded implementation and scaling
grantees can provide evidence of positive student achievement outcomes.
■ Lastly, relationships will be established with external donors to raise at
least $10,000 for the Innovation Fund Foundation, Inc.
○ Impacts Questions:
Specific questions must be asked for each alternative, prior to determining trade-offs. The first
addresses the significance of stakeholders, which would be numerous given the allowance for
local and statewide partnerships for project-based learning, annual training provided by BIE, as
37
GCPS Annual Report 2015, Gwinnett County Public Schools, State of Georgia
38
2015 Innovation Fund Annual Report, Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, State of Georgia

24. well as the ability for the Innovation Fund Foundation, Inc. (IFFI) to accept external donations.
While the first two stakeholder examples are positive relationships, the IFFI donations could be
controversial depending on the specific donor. This could be solved if the GaDOE extensions
that Governor Deal provided in 2015 - 2016 were made permanent at minimum, and/or more
state funding was provided given the success of the 54 pilot programs thus far. Limitations to
these predictions, like the other two alternatives due to the nature of state-funded education,
include a sustained political and economic climate. If the State of Georgia administration were to
change [to Democratic Administration], it is likely more funding would be provided through
federal grant programs as well as a shift in the GaDOE budget.
If the political climate is sustained, likely the short-term monetary trends will continue.
Furthermore, if the economy were to slide, significant cuts to funding in the GaDOE would
occur - first to the grant programs, which are not fully necessary in comparison to salaries,
transportation costs, and basic utility maintenance. While this statement holds a burden of
justification, current trends should carry into the future in similar fashion. Of all three presented
alternatives, based on past and current trends, as well as predicted future outcomes through
analysis, scenario writing, optimism confrontation, and magnitude estimates, I believe alternative
three [the PBL Approach] is most likely to succeed based on its piloted success, a gateway to
counter the optimism argument, and the numbers seen in the Outcome Matrix P below.
Table P: Outcome Matrix 2021
Comparative Analysis
State of Georgia - Primary (K-12) Education 2021
Policy: Policy Scenario Total Students: Cost Viability
Alternative 1:
‘Status Quo’
Approach
- Public-Private
Partnership Collaboration
for Infrastructure
- Forced Districting per
Square Mile
1,427,280
[-14,700]
$7,872,401,504.88
[-$79,519,207.12]
O: Low
E: Low
P: Low
Alternative 2:
Charter Initiative
- Public Oversight of
GCSA
- Public K-12 tax per pupil
420,247
[64,105]
$3,331,106,578.72
[+731,218,517.28]
O: Medium
E: Low
P: Low
Alternative 3: PBL
Approach
- 25 additional PBL Grant
Programs
- Appropriated Funding
from Alternatives 1 & 2
1, 769,424
[+980,000]
$38,399,599.34
[+$11,165,840.78]
O: High
E: Medium
P: High
*Based on Predicted Future Outcomes for Alternatives 1 - 3
Unlike the Comparison Matrix [Table I], the Outcome Matrix in Table J provides a future
outcome snapshot of each alternative side-by-side, also including a viability rating, based on
predicted outcomes. The shifts in viability [Low - High] are based on the magnitude estimates
discussed in alternative three. The Policy Scenarios are scenario-based, continuing those listed in

25. Alternatives 1 and 2. Lastly, I calculated the Total Students, Cost, and overall Growth Rate by
2016 numbers [in Table I] by five years.
Ex: PBL - # of Students is 683,821 X Overall Growth of 41.7% = 1,769,424 Total Students in
2012
Supporting both the Table P Outcome Matrix, as well as my predicted outcomes, the PBL
Approach in 2021 will be the most feasible, productive alternative of the three available for the
State of Georgia. It is important, based on the optimism awareness statements in alternative
three, that I kept the economic viability of the PBL Approach alternative at a ‘medium’ level.
This is due to availability of technology, cloud platform access, and up-to-date infrastructure per
school (system). This can fluctuate in urban vs. rural areas, as well as is often practically non-
existent in low-income areas. Once again, it is important to keep in mind this conclusion is based
on my own research and values. Now let’s move on to potential trade-offs, based on the above
outcomes and impacts already discussed.
Potential Trade-Offs
● 1st Alternative: Status Quo
Similar to the organization style of predictive outcomes, let’s look at trade-offs per alternative. It
is important to recognize these trade-offs are not across alternatives - they are across the
predicted outcomes [in 2021]. The predicted outcomes for the first alternative shifts are [lack of]
goods and services to the student populations, education administration, and local communities.
○ Privatization of Technology Infrastructure: This outcome, which already began to
integrate into school districts as semi-privatized alternatives to little to no
available infrastructure in 2016, offered the concept of PeachNet to rural and low-
income schools as low-cost options - initially a free distribution that was cut by
State of Georgia budgets between 2012 - 2015. As a trade-off to this
infrastructure, which would unevenly distribute information technology based on
local county funds, is a Public-Private Partnership with local groups such as
Technology Association of Georgia (TAG), the Georgia Institute of Technology
(GT), and FisServ (Top Cloud Distributor in the State of Georgia). These
companies will receive state tax incentives for their practices, which incentivize
college and career readiness. This provides a services or good trade-off for
monetary services.
○ Lack of STEM Programs: I offer a break-even analysis for curriculum re-
development within current public schools, based on the fiscal costs saved from
the consolidation of STEM K-12 traditional programs in Table C and GaDOE
OBE funding in Table E. By integrating Applied and Blended learning models
successful in 54 schools and higher education programs thus far. These
redevelopment grant programs have allowed public and nonprofit institute

26. involvement, education administration curriculum input, and student survey
response(s).
● 2nd Alternative: Governor Deal’s ‘Charter School’ Initiative
Similar to the organization style of predictive outcomes, let’s look at trade-offs per alternative. It
is important to recognize these trade-offs are not across alternatives - they are across the
predicted outcomes [in year 2021]. The predicted outcomes for the first alternative shifts are
[lack of] goods and services to the student populations, education administration, and local
communities.
○ Schoolhouse Squeeze: Over-regulation has caused a ‘flight’ of teachers to private
or out-of-state systems due to elimination of training and resources funding
(GRLE). If this sub-sector category was re-established in the GaDOE budget,
perhaps shifting to look at STEM training similar to the cost-effective BIE annual
training in the ‘PBL Approach,’ this should allow both a solid monetary trade-
off while introducing variation in teaching methods.
○ Redistricting: The outcome of redistricting due to charter school conversions has
divided communities, resulting in a multi-attribute problem - racial divide(s),
grouped socioeconomic status, and preferential constituencies. Although a
potential trade-off to this problem could lie in establishing commensurability, or
weighting the private costs vs. social benefits, it is difficult to measure the ‘cost of
an individual’ in these communities. A suggested trade-off is establishing a
framework for redistricting based on school-size in comparison to population by
square mile. This framework would require legislative approval, but could be
supported through either GOSA or the Governor’s Education Reform
Commission. This redistricting will not affect the ‘no zip code’ policy the GCSA
offers.
○ Non-Involvement of Students, Educators, and Communities: I offer a break-even
trade-off for this topic, particularly looking at the cost of shutting down and/or
shifting schools. Although not published, the monetary cost of converting an
already existing schools, as well as the opportunity costs lost in legislation,
transition and curriculum re-development is likely large figures. Under this
analysis, I also look at the opportunity costs of conversion when community and
administrative involvement is left out - keeping in figures such as $2000 less per
pupil compensation in GCSA schools. Does society value student stability or
potential threat to state shut-down? Additionally, does society value input into
education reformation or a completely new processes to produce a 2.5 percent
higher CCRPI change? I offer a curriculum re-development within current public
schools, based on the fiscal costs saved from the consolidation of STEM K-12
traditional programs in Table C and GaDOE OBE funding in Table E. By
integrating Applied and Blended learning models successful in 54 schools and
higher education programs thus far. These redevelopment grant programs have
allowed public and nonprofit institute involvement, education administration
curriculum input, and student survey response(s).
● 3rd Alternative: Innovative Grant Fund PBL Approach

27. Based on predictive outcomes of Alternative 3, in comparison to Table I and J Outcome
Matrices, the PBL Approach is the ‘dominant’ alternative. Looking at the final Outcome Matrix,
it is has either Medium or High viability in all categories. Again, the only reasons it is not ‘High’
in the economic category is due to the lack of infrastructure and technological capacity in rural
and low-income areas. With a statewide ‘PBL Approach’ focus, there should be no reason
educational technology is a problem. Therefore, there are no trade-offs among alternatives.
While this is uncommon, both quantitative and qualitative analysis in Tables F - H, in
collaboration with the successes of the local GCPS school system, establish provisions for
students - specifically time and resources, read-world engagements, and guidance of 21st
century digital resources.
Recommended Policy Alternative and Rationale
Based on thorough analysis of the ‘traditional classroom approach’ in State of Georgia K – 12
public schools, I have confidence in alternative three – the Project-Based Learning Approach.
Based on the criteria used [Political Acceptability, Economic Feasibility, Overall Viability, and
Predictive Trends and Estimates], this approach offers realistic capacity for success. Refer back
to my Outcome Matrix [Table P] for the following rationale statements. Briefly reflecting, the
current grant programs under the Innovation Fund were extended by the Deal administration =
Political Acceptability. The PBL Approach offers the innovative success and career readiness at
a fraction of the costs of either alternative one or two = Economic Feasibility. Furthermore,
quantitative analysis shows positive feedback through both student surveys and a continuing
increase in grant applications and funding. Looking at the stated predictive outcomes –
confronting optimism and supplying magnitude estimates – the numbers simply support this
alternative as the solution for the problem of the failing traditional classroom approach = Overall
Viability.
● Simulation of PBL Approach:
To support my recommendation by example, let’s look at a current PBL pilot program – which
was mentioned earlier – that is being successfully expanded. In GCPS, Duluth Middle School
has been piloting the PBL Approach since Fall 2015 through implementation in a singular 7th
grade academic team. Also mentioned earlier, this pilot team has been so successful that every
6th – 8th grade team will be integrating the PBL curriculum and training starting Fall 2016. Table
Q provides the specific project framework for the simulation.
Table Q:
Organization Gwinnett County Public Schools
Project Name
Transforming STEM Education through Leader and Teacher Development

28. Priority Area(s)
Addressed
Applied Learning with a focus on K-12 STEM Education Development and Replication of
Blended Learning School Models Teacher and Leader Induction and Development
Area(s) Served Gwinnett County
Amount
Requested
$1,226,107.00
Description of
Project
Gwinnett County Public Schools, in partnership with the Buck Institute for Education, Educurious,
and SAFARI Montage,will implement three professionaldevelopment laboratory schools,training
Gwinnett County Public School (GCPS) teachers and leaders on STEM applied learning, project-
based learning, and blended learning. Through these laboratory schools,GCPS plans to transform
STEM education at five high schools,ten middle schools,and 33 elementary schools.
Source: Innovation Fund Annual Report, 2012
In addition to the two additional CORE classes [Engineering and Computer Science], the
teachers provide four quarter-challenges the students must complete which require full CORE
collaboration. Its first quarter-challenge was a ‘plane crash’ scenario which randomly-selected
student groups had to survive. The students were provided a set number of ‘digital resources,’ or
iPads, for in-class research. In Language Arts, students read about the 1972 Olympic Uruguay
soccer team plane crash in the Andes Mountains, and watched clips about survival from the
movie ‘127 Hours’ to ‘Into the Wild.’ In Biology, assigned teams [of students] had to learn about
their ‘randomly-selected’ surroundings from plant life, to local wildlife, and water capacity. In
Engineering, students had to work together to build a fortified housing structure with available
resources from their ‘randomly-selected’ surroundings. In Mathematics, students had to create
formulas for resource rationing. At the end of the quarter, real-world engineering students from
Georgia Tech reviewed each student’s [public] project, traveled to Gwinnett County, and held a
‘Survival Day Celebration’ where they informed groups of their life or death. The Unit plans for
this example are provided in the appendix, following report sources.
Most recently, this 7th grade team was visited by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to discuss
the recent Ebola Scare in the United States. I was fortunate to take part in the students’ third
quarter-challenge, observing a full day from the student perspective. In Language Arts, students
provided executive summaries of their reports on The Scarlet Plague by Jack London. In
Biology, students studied habitats in which Ebola thrives, how it can be carried, and current CDC
response efforts. In Social Studies, students studied the history of famous virus and disease
strains – the Black Plague, Polio, and Influenza. In Mathematics, students had to create formulas
for resource rationing, as well as estimate cycle and response times for individual viruses
including Ebola and Zika virus. These types of integrative approaches provide real-world
experience, integrate Public-Private Partnerships such as that with the CDC, as well as demand
student understanding of digital resources available to them.
Once again, express sincere confidence in my third alternative, the Project-Based Learning
approach. The value in its integration throughout K – 12 public schools is critical to meet

29. consistent failing standards, while appeasing both stakeholders and our fiscally conservative
congress. I look forward to meeting in the near future to discuss this information.
Sincerely,
Berkeley C. Teate

30. Report and Statistic Sources:
Student Enrollment by Grade Level, Georgia Department of Education, March 2014,
https://app3.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_enrollgrade.entry_form
Curriculum and Instruction, Content Areas, Georgia Department of Education, Updated Fall
2015, https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-
Instruction/Pages/English-Language-Arts-Program.aspx
Georgia Learning Resources/Textbook Program, Georgia Department of Education, Updated
September 2012, https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-
and-
Instruction/Documents/Learning%20Resources/Textbooks%20FAQ%20October%202012.pdf
State of Georgia FY 2014 Budget, Office of Planning and Budget, State of Georgia, 2014,
http://opb.georgia.gov/sites/opb.georgia.gov/files/related_files/document/Governors%20Budget
%20Report%20FY%202014.pdf
Semester Enrollment Report, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, Fall 2014,
http://www.usg.edu/research/documents/enrollment_reports/SER_Fall2014.pdf
The Schoolhouse Squeeze, Policy Report, Georgia Business & Policy Institute, Spring 2015,
http://gbpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Schoolhouse-Squeeze-Report-09232013.pdf
Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060, Current
Population Estimates, Population Estimates and Projections, Sandra Colby and Jennifer Ortman,
March 2015, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-
1143.pdf

31. References: Lesson Plans
Q1 – Survival Challenge: Language Arts
7th
Grade STEM: Survival Challenge
Video: 127 Hours Survival Situation: _______________________
What would you do?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____
Video: Castaway Survival Situation: _______________________
What would you do?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____
Video: Into the Wild Survival Situation: _______________________
What would you do?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

32. _____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____
Video: Uruguay Crash 1972 Survival Situation: _______________________
What would you do?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
Q1 – Survival Challenge: Science (Biology)
7th
STEM: Survival Shelter Challenge
Team names: _____________________
Survival Situation: ___________________________
List parts salvaged from your downed plane:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Describe your biome. Be sure to include the time of year and necessary details.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
Is your survival structure portable? Yes or No. Explain how it is portable:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________

33. Does your survival structure fit into the four trash bags? Yes or No. Explain the breakdown:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________
How are you going to sealthe trash bags?
________________________________________________________________
Is your survival shelter large enough for four team members with backpacks? Define the dimensions
involved.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________
Is your structure adequate in terms of a living environment? Give specific information from math and
science to support your claim:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
How does your survival shelter help maintain internal body temperature? Explain with specific examples.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
What natural resources have you incorporated into your design? Explain the potential use of these
resources.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Q1 – Survival Challenge: Engineering
7th
STEM Survival Shelter Challenge
Team names: _____________
Proposal and Presentation _________________________
Describe your survival shelter. Use specific language and details.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

34. _____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Describe the design process your team used to create your shelter. Be specific.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Does your team believe that your shelter will be sufficient for survival? Be specific.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Are there any design changes that you would make at this time? Why? Be specific.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Defend your design choices and concept to the engineers. Why does your team feel that your shelter is the
best chance for survival?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

35. Q1 – Survival Challenge: Social Studies
Scenario: You and three of your friends are on an expedition completing a project for Ms. Jones’s Social
Studies class. As you are flying in your Cessna 182T, a four seat single engine airplane, the engine’s oil
pressure drops! This drop in oil pressure forces you to perform an emergency landing! Fortunately, the
emergency landing was successful,and everyone is OK. Unfortunately, your expedition is now stranded
in the middle of nowhere! Even worst, there is no radio contact because the crash destroyed the airplane’s
antenna, and shorted out its electrical system!
Design Brief: To provide protection from the environment and predators, your survival community must
now build a structure from parts salvaged off your downed airplane. Since you crashed in such an isolated
area with no radio contact, your survival community must travel to find the safety of civilization. As a
result, your survival structure must be portable. Each of you has a 55 gallon trash bag that you’re using to
carry your structure in. ALL parts of your survival structure MUST fit into these four trash bags, and
each bag MUST be able to be sealed close for transport. Also, your survival structure MUST be large
enough to fit all four of you, plus your backpacks. Important consideration must be given to the biome,
and the time of year in which you crashed. Therefore,critical information must be used from Ms.
Buonamia’s and Ms. Burley’s class to design your structure so it adequately provides a place to live, and
safely maintains everyone’s internal body temperatures. Finally, in order to determine if your survival
community perishes or not, your solution will be presented to an engineer for evaluation and
consideration. You are required to give a 10 minute presentation where you’ll setup your survival
structure, and justify its design for the biome and time of year you crashed.
Therefore,you’ll be using skills developed and refined in Ms. White’s class to inform and persuade them
for a positive outcome of this life or death STEM Challenge!!!!!!
Materials: The following materials will be provided on a first come, first available basis. Each survival
community MUST create a bill of materials in Excel with the exact parts and amounts needed to be
salvaged off their airplane, as well as a detailed drawing with dimensions before they’ll receive any
salvaged building supplies. Due to the extreme importance of salvaging these parts quickly, so your
survival community can begin to travel to find the safety of civilization as soon as possible, ONLY one
trip to your downed airplane for materials will be permitted. If additional materials are needed after your
survival community leaves the crash site, your community will have to collect them on its own with
justification of its authenticity and permission from either Ms. Godown or Mr. Sadowski. Finally, TWO
of the materials used in the design and construction of your survival structure MUST represent natural
resources gathered in the biome in which you crashed,and MUST be appropriate for the time of year
during which you crashed.
Foam Sheet – Represents the seats of the airplane
Metal Sheet – Represents the aluminum skin of the airplane
Cardboard – Represents the wood used in the interior of the airplane.

36. Cardboard Tubes or PVC Pipe – Represents the struts used to brace the Cessna’s
wings
Electrical Wire – Represents the electrical wiring from the airplane
Fabric – Represents the fabric used in the interior of the airplane ****All other
material MUST be approved by Ms. Godown or Mr. Sadowski for authenticity in solving
this STEM Challenge.****