Imagine you could take the wayback machine to 1993 and try to shape the HOPE scholarship based on what we know now about its growth and the state of its finances, but before public expectations were set.
You could report to the governor at the time, Zell Miller, that his brainchild would become wildly popular. You could tell him it would help lower-income students further their education and would keep many of Georgia’s brightest high school graduates in the state for college and beyond.
But you’d also have to tell Miller that HOPE’s promises would, within two decades, far exceed his lottery’s ability to pay for them. You would have to explain that having the Legislature write a blank check from its lottery account, for an ever-increasing amount set by the Board of Regents, had become as unsustainable as third-party-payer health care (another topic of contemporary interest).
And you could offer Miller your services in constructing HOPE to avoid those problems.
You could tell him of a proposal about to be made by one of his successors, a man with whom he worked for years in the state Senate, Nathan Deal. You could tell him the meat of Deal’s plan, as reported by the AJC, is to cap tuition payments at 90 percent of their 2011 levels and stop raising them in tandem with tuition.
You could tell him that this “decoupling” of HOPE and tuition, while painful, was necessary because of the third-party-payer dynamic. You could tell him that HOPE was so popular that across-the-board cuts might be the only politically feasible option in 2011.
Miller, who had won five statewide elections by 1993 and may have foreseen that removing HOPE’s income cap would help him win a sixth in 1994, may have understood that future political dilemma. But he also may have asked: Will Deal’s plan fix HOPE for very long?
You’d tell him you didn’t know, but that chances were good. Then he might ask: What effect would the plan have on those lower-income students and those brightest grads?
Again, you wouldn’t be able to say for sure, but it probably would depend on how high tuition rose — and that yet another increase likely lay ahead.
And then you might speculate that, over time, some of the lowest-income and highest-achieving students might disappear from Georgia’s colleges. And when he frowned, you could offer this alternative, an idea of how you’d design HOPE in 2011 if time and politics would allow for a do-over:
What if Georgia promised “B” students that it would pay the amount of tuition charged by the state’s two-year colleges, such as Georgia Perimeter, and those four-year schools known as “state colleges,” such as Gainesville State? Students could use the money at any college in Georgia, but they would only get as much money as those schools charged for tuition. In 2011, that’s less than $2,700 a year (compared with $7,070 at, say, Georgia Tech).
You could make the promise subject to review if those schools’ tuition rose faster than inflation over, say, five years.
That would leave the state with a good bit of money. After putting some in reserve, you could award extra money to students with, for example, a 3.5 GPA in high school and a set score on the SAT or ACT (you’d have to explain to Miller the grade inflation HOPE caused).
The college GPA requirement would remain a 3.0, so as not to discourage students from pursuing the more difficult majors.
It wouldn’t exactly fit Miller’s vision, but it would provide access to college and help retain the best students.
I wonder what he’d have said.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
154 comments Add your comment
Light
February 21st, 2011
9:49 am
Regarding HOPE, I believe it should be for students who can’t afford to attend college or whose parents don’t make enough money to save for college, and thus the income limit should apply.
On another note, I’ve read here that some people refer to entitlements as if everyone who takes it is lazy and poor. There are many people who believed they made good life and career choices and have found themselves unemployed or underemployed for the past few years. I don’t think it’s fair or appropriate to generalize that anyone who needs some assistance has an expectation from the government. But if it’s there and you have a need and qualify, then by all means you should do it because those are the folks when they get back on their feet will have a deep appreciation for the support that helped them during a rough spot, and that’s what “entitlement” programs should be designed for, not for people who live their entire life off of the government.
taytay52
February 21st, 2011
10:13 am
Greetings all! As someone who worked in the University System I can tell you that HOPE is a great idea that had unforseen consequences. Here is the problem. A campus that is set up to adequately serve 4000 students (buildings, teachers, small teacher to student ratio, etc.)
This campus must suddenly provide for 10000 students. The influx of students requires more infrastructure to support those students. More teachers, more classrooms, more learning support (because high school teachers inflate grades because they don’t want to be the person who keeps a kid from getting hope), etc.
You can’t dump all those students into a university system and not support them with adequate classrooms and good teachers. So to say that schools are making money off of Hope and wasting it, well truthfully they are playing catch up to support all these students. Some of whom should have gone the technical school route to begin with. Sending everyone to college sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately not everyone is capable of completing college and that first year of HOPE that is wasted on those students could have been better used.
Jefferson Jackson
February 21st, 2011
10:53 am
Kill the Pre-K4 program, then make your changes. Pre-K is WASTE!
Governor Deal’s HOPE plan sounds pretty good to me | Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2011
12:57 pm
[...] for putting the HOPE scholarship on sound financial footing came a little closer than I expected to the idea I floated a few days [...]