Members of the Education Committee
Senator Jimmy Jeffress, Arkansas
Report of Activities of the Education Committee at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Southern Legislative Conference in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, July 11-15, 2008
The SLC Education Committee convened on Saturday, July 12, for a program session and Sunday, July 13, for a business session during the 62nd SLC Annual Meeting. The following is a summary of the speaker presentations and Committee activities from each of these programs. An attendance list is attached.
I. Practical Lessons on Teacher Compensation
Rich Nagel, Executive Director, Arkansas Education Association
Jason Culbertson, Director, South Carolina Teacher Advancement Program, South Carolina Department of Education
An active debate is underway in the South over paying teachers based, in part, on their performance. Even as states grapple with implementation, questions remain about the impact and effectiveness of such programs. States and local education agencies have been working for several years on a variety of approaches to pay-for-performance policies, providing a host of experiences from which states can learn.
Mr. Nagel’s Presentation
Mr. Nagel began by noting that the United States, as a matter of federal policy, asserts that we will get all students to high levels of achievement. The way to do this is to utilize resources to help all teachers excel and not just reward a few.
In crafting performance pay legislation, Mr. Nagel suggested several questions that should be asked in advance. Among these is whether the current base salary is adequate and comparable to other professions requiring similar levels of work. Another issue to review is the cost of the program and where the money will come from. If the program is to be grant-funded, Mr. Nagel noted that it is important to specify future sources of funding for the time after the grant money has ended.
Transparency is a very important part of any performance pay program, Mr. Nagel added. Policymakers must ask if the program is easily understood by all stakeholders, including members of the legislature, educators and the public. Another matter that should be resolved in advance is the question of how large the incentives need to be so that they are effective and change behavior. He added that there is some question as to whether incentives actually cause much of a change.
Questions about the number of eligible participants, or the absence of any limitations, need to be resolved in advance, as should the standards and criteria for program participation. The program’s impact on competition or collaboration among educators should be considered in advance as well. He recommended that policymakers ask whether the new program will require additional work of the teachers and, if so, what affect that will have on the time available to the teachers for their regular tasks.
Mr. Nagel also recommended establishing criteria for determining eligibility, adding that if a measure of performance is test results, the tests should be designed to measure teacher effectiveness. Policymakers should be on the lookout for unintended consequences, such as teaching to the test.
Mr. Nagel noted that incentives to attract qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools, particularly National Board certified teachers to work in low-performing schools, seem to hold promise. He also suggested that incentives could be used to encourage experienced teachers to mentor colleagues new to the profession (which helps lower attrition) and for completing additional work. Group or school wide salary supplements for improved teacher practices also are viable alternatives to individual teacher incentives as they encourage collaboration and cooperation among teachers and focus on school-wide improvement. Another incentive option is the provision of incentives to enter specific certification areas.
Mr. Nagel reported that the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University recently received a $10 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education to study the nearly $100 million in grants available through the teacher incentive fund. These funds support programs that most typically tie incentives to a test score. He added that the policy of merit pay has gotten ahead of the research; while there is still very little solid research available on the practice, programs have been advancing quickly. There seemed to be a consensus from the Center’s first conference, he explained, that programs are likely to be unsuccessful if they have insufficient incentives, lack teacher buy-in, use performance measures that do not have transparency, are not understood, or rely too heavily on student test scores to gauge performance.
Mr. Nagel continued his remarks with a discussion of National Board for Professional Teaching Standards licensure and its significance. A recent National Research Council of the National Academies report recognized the potential of National Board certification to bring benefits to more schools and observed that the National Board’s work needs continuing support and coordination by states, districts and schools. Based on the research that is available, National Board licensure makes a significant difference in the achievement of students and the process of certification changes and improves teachers’ practices.
Mr. Culbertson’s Presentation
Mr. Culbertson opened his remarks by noting that education is facing a crisis in teaching, with teacher candidates declining in quality, high attrition rates among all teachers, and high concentrations of inexperienced teachers in high poverty schools. Furthermore, as the median age of teachers continues to rise, fewer students are inclined to become teachers.
The South Carolina Teacher Advancement Program (SCTAP) was crafted to address this crisis while keeping in mind the many design concerns raised by Mr. Nagel and other skeptics of performance pay, Mr. Culbertson said. A few years of participation in SCTAP, changes a culture of stagnant student achievement to one of improved student achievement; a disenfranchised faculty to a positive school climate; and high teacher turnover to one of reduced teacher turnover.
The first tenet of SCTAP, he explained, is the idea of multiple career paths for teachers. In a traditional school, the best teachers typically leave the classroom to become principals to make more money and have greater professional opportunities. SCTAP’s multiple career paths offer ways for these teachers to remain in the classroom and still enjoy financial and professional advancement. The SCTAP approach actually makes use of the best teachers as mentors and master teachers to work with all the students in the school to provide model lessons. This process helps build teaching capacity and gets the most skilled teachers more time with students.
While the traditional salary model determines teacher compensation in a credentials-based system of years of experience and training units accrued, Mr. Culberton explained, the SCTAP approach applies performance-based measures, which account for credentials, levels of responsibility, classroom effectiveness, school team achievement and student achievement. Eligibility for teacher performance pay supplements is determined in part by observation by peers (accounting for 40 percent of the total measure) and in part by value-added achievement of the students on approved assessments (30 percent individual teacher and 30 percent school-wide achievement). The South Carolina program also has been carefully designed to provide sufficient incentives to teachers to encourage growth and support increasing levels of responsibility.
South Carolina uses a value-added assessment program to track student progress, Mr. Culbertson continued, which provides specific information on the gains individual students have made in a classroom. Prior merit pay systems, which lacked the ability to measure individual student progress, were largely unsuccessful because there was no identifiable connection between teacher and student performance.
Mr. Culbertson noted that in traditional teacher compensation programs, professional accountability is uneven, with idiosyncratic evaluation standards and procedures, and rewards and sanctions unrelated to evaluations. Under these systems, support is typically provided only for deficiencies, with little support to promote professional growth. In contrast, the SCTAP approach, however, professional accountability is instructionally-focused, matching SCTAP standards and procedures. Hiring, advancement and compensation are tied to evaluations and more support is provided for professional growth, not ameliorating deficiencies. Professional growth itself is handled very differently, diverging from the traditional model which follows individual commitment and intermittent activities with goals and activities tied to personal and financial interests of the individual and unconnected to evaluation. The SCTAP approach seeks a school-wide commitment, with weekly, site-based teacher-led activities, goals and activities tied to state standards, local school improvement plans and analysis of student learning outcomes used to support and reinforce evaluation growth goals.
Participating schools have experienced increased student performance, professional collegiality and cooperation among teachers (when measured against schools not participating in the program), Mr. Culbertson said. Citing the high levels of support among teachers for the program, he noted that teachers do not necessarily object to the idea of performance pay, but that they do not necessarily trust the test on which it is based.
South Carolina’s program started small, with only four participating schools in 2002, its first year, Mr. Culbertson said, and grew relatively slowly to 2006, when it had 17 participating schools. Because a majority of teachers in a school must vote to participate in the program, expansion has been predictably slow, but steady, increasing to more than 50 schools in 2008, the most robust performance-pay program in the country. Funding for SCTAP, Mr. Culbertson observed, is a combination of federal grants, Title I and Title II federal funding, as well as some local funds. Going forward, he concluded, the program faces three distinct challenges: fiscal sustainability; continuity of leadership (with high turnover at the district level); and local capacity (insofar as finding the requisite master teachers for the program within each school and system).
II. The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children
Keith Scott, Director, The National Center for Interstate Compacts, The Council of State Governments, Kentucky
The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children is an initiative that seeks to eliminate the difficulties that children of military families face as they move from state to state and new school systems as a result of their parent’s frequent reassignments.
Mr. Scott’s Presentation
Mr. Scott explained that a compact is a binding relationship among and between states to address mutually-held needs. Every state in the nation is party to compacts, with more than 200 active compacts in the United States. The National Center for Interstate Compacts at The Council of State Governments (CSG) was established to help states create, manage and maintain these important elements of interstate cooperation, which is at the heart of CSG’s mission.
The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children was created to ease the burdens placed on military families, Mr. Scott explained, who may transfer up to nine times during a child’s academic career. Because of these frequent moves, the compact attempts to address the four most common conflict points for transferring students: enrollment, placement, eligibility and graduation. Specific impacts on military children include: transfer of records; course sequencing; graduation requirements; exclusion from extra-curricular activities; redundant or missed entrance/exit testing; kindergarten and first grade entrance age variations; and power of custodial parents while parents are deployed.
Currently 10 states have enacted the Compact, the minimum number for the Compact to become active, Mr. Scott said. As it is intended as a 50-state compact, the Center continues to seek its approval. Considering the Compact was first introduced in January 2008, it has been very quickly considered and adopted. The Council of State Government is ready to support and testify on the Compact and help explain its operation wherever requested, he added in conclusion.
III. Stay on Track: Substance Abuse Prevention
Major Rickey Thomas, Chief, National Guard Drug Demand Reduction Program, Virginia
Scott Steger, President, National Center for Prevention and Research Solutions, Florida
Lt. Col. Kevin Tackett, Coordinator, Oklahoma Counterdrug Task Force, Oklahoma National Guard Drug Demand Reduction Program
The National Guard has developed a unique, research-based substance abuse prevention program which offers an innovative, fun, and comprehensive approach to help middle school students make wise health and social decisions. The Stay on Track program is just a part of the full range of substance abuse and drug control activities in which the National Guard engages.
Mr. Steger’s Presentation
Following an introduction by Major Thomas, which included a discussion of the National Guard’s work to reduce drug demand through programs in schools, Mr. Steger introduced the National Center for Prevention and Research Strategies (NCPRS), a non-profit organization that takes an education approach to get young people to make a commitment to remain drug free and lead positive lives. Over the past 10 years, the NCPRS has done extensive research into what actually makes a difference in children’s attitudes and future actions, he added. Through the Center’s research, they were able to distill the core components of effective programs and then infuse these approaches with an element of fun to make it something children want to do and teachers want to teach.
Mr. Steger explained that the Stay on Track program uses motor sports to interest children and draw analogies, such as the effect on performance of what children put into their bodies. The program is a series of three levels of curriculum designed for 6th, 7th and 8th grades, which are critical transitional years in middle school. Twelve lessons at each level address different issues such as decision-making skills, understanding how to communicate desired outcomes, and understanding external influences, particularly media influences. The Stay on Track program also provides traditional drug prevention information, giving realistic and truthful explanations of the impacts of drugs with which children might come in contact.
Mr. Steger noted that while law enforcement is having success with drug interdiction and supply disruption, the supply of drugs to the United States is four times greater than demand. This means that even if interdiction and disruption activities double their success rate, the supply still will exceed demand and drugs will continue to be available to anyone who seeks them. Thus, the greatest impact in the battle against illegal drugs is found in prevention. It is critical, he continued, that parents, community leaders and policymakers ensure the availability of programs that will make a difference in children’s lives.
Stay on Track partnered with the National Guard in the 2006-2007 school year to serve 80,000 children in 11 states, Mr. Steger said. The Center delivered materials and provided programmatic services and evaluations. In the 2007-2008 school year, the program expanded to 115,000 students in 40 states and one territory. Next year, the program should serve 50 states and territories and about 120,000 students. While that figure is considerable, he noted, there are about 10 million students in the country, which means the program only reaches about 1 percent of all students. This demonstrates, he concluded, that there is a great need for programs that reduce drug demand.
Lt. Colonel Tackett’s Presentation
Lt. Colonel Tackett began his remarks by noting that the National Guard is actively involved in two of the three chief goals of the National Drug Control Strategy: preventing drug use before it starts and disrupting drug markets. The National Guard’s counterdrug program runs the spectrum from demand reduction activities, such as educational activities, to supply reduction activities, such as supporting local law enforcement agencies.
The National Guard’s counterdrug program is federally funded, with each state National Guard receiving funds to support the governor’s state plan for drug control (which is developed by the state National Guard, signed by state officials and approved by the U.S. secretary of defense), Lt. Colonel Tackett explained. The state National Guard counterdrug coordinator is then in charge of implementing the plan, which places the Guard in a support role only, as the Guard is not a law enforcement agency.
The 2,300 National Guard personnel detailed to counterdrug activities nationally varies from a high of 233 in Texas (largely due to support for interdiction activities along the Rio Grande Valley) to a low of 25 in Mississippi, Lt. Colonel Tackett added. The budget for the counterdrug program was $270 million in fiscal 2008, which assisted in the seizure of $34.9 billion of drugs. The strategic goal is to expand the total force to 4,000 nationally and stabilize at that level, with expansion into information services and legislative liaison activities. The program continues to leverage the unique military capabilities of the National Guard, he added, by providing law enforcement access to aviation assets, analysis and ground reconnaissance with very low overhead, as the National Guard has these elements constantly at the ready. He noted that the threat has changed over the past several years, with increased drug traffic from Canada as well as domestic threats from methamphetamines in the Heartland, which has shifted the focus away from the Southern border with Mexico.
In Oklahoma, Lt. Colonel Tackett continued, the counterdrug program includes use of the Guard’s four helicopters, which greatly expands the reach of local law enforcement (he noted that only three law enforcement jurisdictionsTulsa, Oklahoma City and the state policehave any aviation support). Matched with this is ground reconnaissance and analysis of information from reconnaissance, as well as drug demand reduction efforts in the schools and internal substance abuse programs within the ranks. In Oklahoma, the program participates in the federal asset seizure program, which he noted might help to offset the problem of declining federal appropriations. He noted that of the $1.1 billion available for counternarcotics programs through the U.S. Department of Defense, only 25 percent was for National Guard programs, with uniformed military activities receiving $823.3 million in the FY 2008 budget.
Lt. Colonel Tackett concluded by noting that the National Guard is uniquely positioned to be an efficient and effective force multiplier in the fight against drugs. Their work in schools with the Stay on Track program has helped to reinforce the message that the Guard promotes, as well as helped the Guard shift its focus to vital demand reduction activities. Finally, he encouraged Committee members to contact their state police and National Guard counterdrug coordinators to see how these programs can be supported and expanded.
I. Early Childhood Education Update
W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., Director, National Institute for Early Education Research, New Jersey
Diane Horm, Ph.D., George Kaiser Family Foundation Endowed Professor in Early Childhood Education;
Director of the Early Childhood Education Institute, The University of Oklahoma-Tulsa
Research indicates that early childhood education is one of the best investments states can make in the future of their citizens. As states expand their programs, quality and access have become the two key components to watch. This program explored state and local actions to improve early childhood options.
Dr. Barnett’s Presentation
Dr. Barnett began by noting that the basic story on research on early childhood education is that these programs can have substantial impact on children’s education. What remains is the question of the long-term impact of these programs on participants’ lives. Only recently, studies have been able to tell us a bit about the long-term outcomes of early childhood education programs. Most long-term studies indicate positive outcomes, including increased scores on achievement tests, higher high school graduation rates, better employment history and earnings, less welfare dependency and decreased rates of smoking, drug use, criminality, and depression. Many of these benefits reduce the costs of state government, subsequently saving costs in education, welfare, and criminal justice.
With respect to research on the life-long benefits of early childhood education, Dr. Barnett noted that there are long- and short-term randomized trials providing results as well as quasi-experimental studies with follow-up into school years. There are three cost-benefit analyses that are instructive along these lines, comparing the Abecedarian program established in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in 1972; the High/Scope Perry Preschool, established in 1962 in Ypsilanti, Michigan; and the Chicago Child Parent Center (CPC), established in 1985. The programs have varying design features that make them useful for comparison, with variables including: the age range of the students and the length of the school days and years of each program, with the Abecedarian program the most intensive (ages 6 weeks to 5 years, full day, full year) and the other two variations of half day, normal school year programs for ages 3-4.
All three programs had significant impacts on the lives of the participants in the early years, Dr. Barnett noted. Looking at just one programthe Perry Preschoolwhich has the longest study period, the participants have lower participation rates in special education, higher academic achievement, greater rates of on-time high school graduation, better incomes, higher home-ownership, lower welfare participation, and fewer arrests (half as many) than the non-program comparison group. The Abecedarian program has similar results, including higher rates of 4-year college participation. The Chicago CPC program had a smaller effect than the Perry Preschool program because it is a smaller program in scope (with higher student-teacher ratios) than the Perry Preschool program, but the benefits are measurable nonetheless.
One of the benefits of having comparable longitudinal data on these programs, Dr. Barnett continued, is the ability to conduct cost-benefit analyses of the various approaches. The Perry Preschool program, with a per-pupil cost (for the two years of participation) of $17,599 returns an average $284,086 in benefits, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 16:1. The Abecedarian program, in which participants are enrolled for five years, costs $70,697 per child, and returns $176,284, for a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.5:1. The Chicago CPC program, with a much lower two-year cost of only $8,224, returns an average $83,511, for a benefit-to-cost ratio of 10:1.
Dr. Barnett noted that there are several reasons to extend high-quality pre-K to all children. First and foremost, serving all children is the best way to reach children who are disadvantaged and at risk for school failure. This is true because being at risk for school failure is not a simple calculation of family income, but rather the combination of a host of risk factors. Targeting high-need childrenwhich typically means children in families with low incomesis difficult because families can move above and below the income threshold several times a year. He also noted that disadvantaged children make larger learning gains in settings that serve children from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, a learning gap of the same magnitude separates the children of middle- and upper-income families as separates children from lower- and middle-income families. Closing this cognitive development gap for all children is a major benefit of high quality preschool. Moreover, most school failure and dropouts are middle-income children, which a focus exclusively on low-income children fails to address. Having said this, however, he acknowledged that children from low-income families are still at greatest risk and programs need to be available to serve them, but focusing on this population alone will not solve the overall problem in schools.
Dr. Barnett noted that all of the high quality programs that the National Institute on Early Education Research have found successful share some common features, including: well-educated, adequately paid teachers; good curriculum and professional development; small classes and reasonable teacher-to-child ratios; strong supervision, monitoring, and review; and high standards and accountability. This list provides an excellent template for what the basic components of a preschool program should be, he added.
When Dr. Barnett’s organization published its 2007 yearbook of state pre-K quality, two statesAlabama and North Carolinareceived perfect scores on benchmarks for quality, with four more Southern states (Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee) meeting nine out of the 10 benchmarks. The South does not just lead the nation when it comes to coverage, he noted, but also in the quality of pre-K standards. There is concern in some instances with funding levels, however, and about half states do not provide enough funding to meet the standards that have been established, he said, which may mean that actual quality and standards may vary. The only way to know this, however, is by increased program evaluation to determine if the programs are conducted to standards and if the results match expectations.
Dr. Barnett concluded by noting that pre-K programs can provide a high payoff for public investment. To make these programs most successful, he said, it is necessary to assess the program quality and child learning in a manner that is tied to ongoing program improvement.
Dr. Horm’s Presentation
Dr. Horm opened her remarks by explaining that “educare” is a term that has been around for several years to describe a combination of education and care. It is also the name of a program using this approach, Educare, initially chartered in Chicago. Nationally, there are currently five Educare cent
ers working with children from birth to age five, she added, including the center with which she is affiliated in Tulsa. Educare centers are state-of-the-art early childhood centers working together in a growing network to advance the quality of early childhood education in their respective states and across the country. Each Educare center serves between 150 and 200 young children and their families, with an emphasis on services for infants and young children in families eligible for Head Start.
Educare’s approach is based on research that indicates that starting early is the best way to prevent the education gap that exists for low-income children, Dr. Horm said. Each Educare implements a model developed in 2000 by Chicago’s Ounce of Prevention Fund, utilizing a mix of best practices from Head Start, preschool, and childcare services on a full day, full year schedule, she added. Educare features well-prepared and well-supervised classroom staff and family support services to ensure each family’s comprehensive needs are addressed.
Each classroom has a teacher with a bachelor’s degree, an assistant teacher with a minimum of an associate’s degree, as well as an aide from the community, Dr. Horm explained. All classroom teachers are supervised by teachers with master’s degrees in early childhood education. Classroom ratios are small, she noted, but realistic, with seven or eight children in a classroom, depending on the age. In addition to the classroom team, each family is paired with a family support worker and a family support supervisor who facilitate family/parent involvement; social work and family support services; mental health services; and opportunities to participate in program governance. She noted that approximately one-third of the budget and space in Educare is devoted to adults.
Public schools are an important partner for Educare centers, which are located adjacent to or very near elementary schools and often are partly sponsored by public schools, Dr. Horm said. This helps to facilitate collaboration and sends the message that children are learning from birth. Educare centers are funded by private/public partnerships, with private dollars providing capital for the building and operating budgets (approximately $2.6 million to $3 million annually) based on cross-organizational partnerships with multiple funding streams, including Head Start/Early Head Start grantees (about 50 percent), public school districts, state governments and private dollars.
Dr. Horm indicated that Educare buildings are intended to rival corporate childcare centers in design and quality. The average 30,000 square foot building costs from approximately $4 million to $9 million to construct and are open, inviting and designed to serve children’s needs. One architectural firm, RDG, provides consultation to ensure sharing of lessons learned and improving quality with each new center.
Educare also is a platform for policy change, Dr. Horm continued, serving as a “showroom” to educate the public about high quality early childhood education. Key partners from all participating Educare communities gather regularly to learn from each other and leaders in the field. Educare has a set of common measures for all centers to use for determining program performance and to help with improvements. Each center has a local evaluator, she added, who coordinates with the national evaluator on data collection and analysis. The Educare program uses data to drive professional development and has a staff in place to implement training quickly, she said.
The results of the program’s research, Dr. Horm indicated, show children entering Educare below average and, at the end of one program year, approaching average, thus improving their school readiness and the likelihood of their academic success. Preliminary results suggest, she concluded, that participation in Educare makes a difference.
II. Election of Officers
Senator Alice Harden, Mississippi, gave the report of the Nominating Committee. Senator Jimmy Jeffress, Arkansas, was nominated for a second term as chair of the Committee, and Representative Tommy Benton, Georgia, was nominated for a second term as vice chair of the Committee. The nominations were moved and seconded, and Senator Jeffress and Representative Benton were elected by acclamation.
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
The SLC will meet for the 63rd Annual Meeting in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, August 15-19, 2009. In keeping with the wishes of the SLC presiding officers, please note that meeting notification does not authorize travel.
SLC Staff Contact
If you have any questions regarding this report or the 2008 SLC Annual Meeting, please contact Jonathan R. Watts Hull in the Atlanta office at (404) 633-1866 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Southern Legislative Conference 62nd Annual Meeting
July 11-15, 2008
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
(List reflects those attendees whose names appeared on the sign-in sheet)
Representative Priscilla Dunn
Senator David Bisbee
Senator Shane Broadway
Senator Jimmy Jeffress
Senator Shawn Womack
Representative Eddie Cheatham
Representative Janet Johnson
Representative Ray Kidd
Representative Betty Pickett
Dan Marzoni, Arkansas Education Association
Eric Sherman, U.S. Department of Defense
Representative Tommy Benton
Kenneth Fern, Jr., Southern Legislative Conference
Jonathan R. Watts Hull,
Speaker Jody Richards
Speaker Pro Tem Larry Clark
Representative Jim DeCesare
Representative Chuck Miller
DeeAnn Mansfield, Legislative Research Commission
John Mountjoy, The Council of State Governments
Keith A. Scott, The Council of State Governments
Speaker Mike Busch
Senator Alice V. Harden
Representative Sara R. Thomas
Senator Edward Jones
Representative Linda P. Johnson
Representative Pat McElraft
Representative Neil Brannon
Representative Ed Cannaday
Representative Ann Coody
Billie Brown, Oklahoma Education Association
Kathyrn Jones, Higher Education Alumni Council
Pat Smith, Oklahoma Education Association
Lt. Colonel Kevin Tackett, Oklahoma National Guard
Representative Richard Chalk
Representative Jackie Hayes
Representative Walt McLeod
Representative Rex Rice
Representative J. Roland Smith
Senator Reginald Tate
Comptroller John Morgan
Cindy Ellison, Legislative Council
Dale Vandehey, U.S. Department of Defense
Senator Harry Blevins
Senator Yvonne B. Miller
Major Rickey Thomas, U.S. National Guard
Randall Elkins, Division of Legislative Services
June Dewetering, Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group
Southern Office of The Council of State Governments
phone: (404) 633-1866 | fax: (404) 633-4896 | email: email@example.com
P.O. Box 98129, Atlanta, Georgia 30359