The Fate of New HOPE
Decatur Metro | February 22, 2011Gov. Nathan Deal announced his plan this morning to keep the HOPE Scholarship program alive as education costs continue to rise. From the AJC…
Only the brightest of college students – those with at least a 3.7 high school GPA – will see HOPE cover all tuition, Gov. Nathan Deal said Tuesday morning as he released a drastic plan to cut escalating costs to the popular lottery-funded program.
For those earning at least a 3.0, the scholarship will cover at most 90 percent.
As for pre-K, parents will see the free program cut from 6 ½ hours to four, Deal said, adding that the change will allow the state to open more slots to the program.
According to the AJC, Democrats also support the proposal. More details on the entire plan can be found in the AJC article linked to above.
Latest from Decaturish
Sigh.
does this mean that preK will end at noon?
Or maybe 12:15, depending on when school officially starts?
I wonder if they will they run a special bus service just for the pre-k kids? Or will parents be responsible for picking up their kiddos at the earlier release time (or paying for an after-care program until the regular school day ends)?
I’m not totally opposed to the half-day idea, as I think 5 full days a week is a bit much for many 4-year olds. That’s one reason so many parents opt to keep their kids in private pre-k. I also like that it would create more spots and therefore open access to more families. I’ve always thought it was unfair how so many people end up being excluded from a public program supposedly open to everyone.
But, I know it will create a financial hardship and/or logistical headache for many families. It will be interesting to see the reaction of parents and whether it actually ends up being included in the final bill.
If a private company ran a slick marketing campaign designed to lure poor people into spending what little money they have on a 1 in a blue moon chance of winning a cash prize, the howls from the politcal left — victimizing the poor! — and the religious right — the sin of gambling! — would be defeaning. But if the state runs the same system and transfers the proceeds to mostly middle or upper income families to send their kids to college for free? All good. Even better: have the idiot tax pay for college so you can get a shiny new Hopemobile! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07hope.html
Then again, the tragedy of straight B students NOT getting free tuition to the country’s top party school really brings a tear to my eyes.
If I recall, all of those howls were heard when the lottery was proposed. I guess the non-howlers prevailed.
Initially, HOPE had an income limit of about $65,000. A year later, I believe, it was lifted to a cool $100 grand. In year 3, no limit. So the program is a lot different now than it was at passage.
A blue moon must be shining, because I pretty much agree with you, DEM, about the travesty of so much HOPE scholarship money going to support new cars and comfortable lifestyles for middle and upper-class college students, rather than enabling those with genuine financial need to have access to higher education. I’ve heard too many stories, firsthand and secondhand, about students whose parents provide them with new cars and relatively plush housing because HOPE gets them off the hook for tuition costs. I’ve also heard it’s common to take less than a full course load, to avoid having to study too hard to keep the GPA high enough to retain the HOPE scholarship. As somebody who worked her way through college in grubby, minimum-wage jobs and spent a decade paying back loans, I find all of that disgusting. IMO the eligibility for HOPE should be based on a combination of academic performance and financial need. The lottery soaks the poor, so those in need who are willing to work hard academically should primarily benefit.
Since the blue moon is shining, maybe I’ll go buy a Lotto ticket!
I don’t understand why it wasn’t tied to need + grades from the beginning.
It was means-tested in the beginning, but that component was dropped after a couple of years because the lottery brought in so much money. Not sure why that wasn’t brought back if revenues were not adequate.
Because poor folks don’t make huge campaign contributions, nor do they run companies that can afford lobbyists.
I’m as liberal as they come, DEM, and I’ve been saying this ever since we moved to Georgia. I’m all for performance-based scholarships to retain bright students in the state, but a B-average doesn’t cut it in my book for that kind of thing.
Mrs. Token and I have always anticipated the HOPE well would eventually run dry, so we have been saving for our kids’ college since day 1. Disappointing, but not unexpected.
We also expect Social Security and Medicare will disappear by the time we are of an age to need them. So we are saving for those eventualities also.
Same here, bro. Having to save for your own family’s expenses is rough, I tell ya. And to think, with the money college will cost me, I could have bought my son a new car.
HA! Thanks for the smile, DEM.
I SO want to be a part of the entitlement class, but the gummint says I make too much. So they tax the hell out of me to give others the chance to buy new cars and get a free education while I putter around town in my decade-old econobox and save to pay for my kids’ education.
Please… Basing public policy on anecdotes is probably not the best method to take.
I for one, would love to see HOPE means tested but lets face it, rich people don’t like poor people so as soon as money is seen as going primarily to poor people, then that’s the first program on the chopping block. You need to pay off the more well off to get them to agree to let the poor get some of the action as well.
Face it, you’re no more ‘taxed the hell out of’ than I am. Fact is, you likely pay less in taxes than your parents did and way less than you would in any other western country. I would happily vote for higher taxes and I guess this would come with the added advantage of feeding your feeling of being victimized.
Anyway, I’m surprised that you couldn’t work in the story of the welfare queen in a Cadillac buy steak with food stamps. That’s always a good one.
The poor aren’t getting some of the action through OPE, they are paying the freight. Who do you think buys lottery tickets?
If “the poor” aren’t getting any action, whose fault is that? Are “the rich” preventing them from geting the grades, applying to the schools or any of the other steps it takes to qualify?
And if “the poor” are bearing the load, whose fault is that? Are “the rich” making them buy all the lottery tickets? Where I live, I see a lot of “the poor” buying lottery tickets, though I’ve never seen or heard any “rich” encouraging them to do so.
As originally conceived and presented to voters, HOPE eligibility was linked to financial means. It was a way to offer financial support to preK and college-age students who otherwise would not have access to educational opportunities. As someone has pointed out, making education available to as many willing people as possible is an investment in the future. Once it passed, however, the maximum income threshold for the college scholarship was raised and finally eliminated, with the result that much of the funds have gone to middle-class and upper-class students who would have gotten to go to college anyway. The extra money from HOPE just means they get to drive new cars, live in cool apartments instead of dumpy dorms, etc. Because there isn’t enough money to go around, for every student receiving the support who doesn’t really need it in order to attend college, there’s one who does need it and doesn’t get it, and so doesn’t get the opportunity which Georgia voters wanted them to have.
I’m going to disagree with your statement to indicating that “for every student who doesn’t need it but gets it, there is a student who needs it but doesn’t get it.” It is hard for me to believe that anyone who needed it (and earned or deserved it) didn’t or wouldn’t get it. The criteria for qualifying is pretty basic and straightforward. I’m not going to list it here but it amounts to getting a 3.0 in high school (heck – you might not even have to go to a real high school if I read the criteria right!)
Your statement comes across that economically advantaged students are benefiting *at the expense* of disadvantaged kids. Nothing is keeping those disadvantaged kids from earning their grades (and I’m going to regret saying this but here goes) except of course, their peers, (sometimes) families, communities and overall economic situation.
Now having said all that. I strongly agree that there should be a needs based component, as well as a merit component. And I agree with fifi about the sliding scale (not threshold, though). Example: a 2.5 kid from a $35,000 gets similar funding as 3.3 kid from a $95K household.
Those are made-up numbers just to illustrate the idea – think a 2X2 grid with grades and income…Smarter people should figure out the right formula but it can’t be that hard. Spend a couple mil to fund a committee that works with some consultants (Educators and Economists). I’m sure something like that could be gamed but that is a risk worth taking for the greater incentive. Probably also a lot of holes in this concept from a “fairness” standpoint.
Anyone else see the Baltimore City School study cited in Gladwell’s “Outliers”, which essentially shows that kids from low-income households keep up with the middle and high income kids during the school year in terms of what they learn and only fall behind during the summer break?
He goes on to suggest the one thing that’s rarely, if ever, discussed in all these income-related education conversations – eliminate the summer break. We don’t need the kids in the fields anymore for the harvest, so what’s the point?
I just salivate over how controversial, yet non-political, the suggestion is.
Haven’t read Outliers yet but here’s to moving toward year round schooling! With proportionate increases in teacher pay funded by HOPE/ lottery (and Sunday Beer Sales!) No liquor – just beer. Liquor is the Devil’s brew.
It is hard for me to believe that anyone who needed it (and earned or deserved it) didn’t or wouldn’t get it.
—
There’s not enough HOPE money to go around. With financial need completely eliminated from the eligibility equation, it’s certain that some of the money has been going to kids who don’t really need it, at the expense of some who really do. I’m not sure why that is so difficult to understand.
If they didn’t get it, it was because he or she didn’t get the 3.0, not because someone else did, regardless of whether they could afford it. It’s about INCENTIVES – not ENTITLEMENT. That seems to be where we differ. I WAS here when this was in the works and I recall it being sold heavily with a “you have to earn it” component.
And to talk about fairness – what about that marginal 2.8 GPA advantaged kid who now has a real incentive to work hard to get up to the B average so she can get a free education? She deserves it every bit as that disadvantaged kid.
ps. not shouting with the words in caps – just emphasizing, but can’t underline or italicize.
I am not sure why people are saying that it is just as easy for the poor to get the high grades as the rich. The poor cannot afford private tutors and fancy enrichment programs and general visits to museums and other enrichment activities.
LocalMom – Not implying that it “is just as easy” for the poor. I won’t argue that many many factors favor the rich. That is well understood and impacts so much more in society. But as far as this specific issue with smalltown implying that poor folks aren’t getting college funds because they are going to the (undeserving) rich – well my counter is:
It is also “not that hard” to attain a B average with some effort, motivation, and most importantly – support. I also don’t buy that tutors and enrichment programs are the key (maybe for a few marginal students). The key is to put forth some effort. Read, do your homework, Read, study, (really study) for tests and Read. I’ll even go so far as to say the kid shouldn’t be expected to do it on his/her own – there needs to be support from family and friends.
Right on, Eric. Most people (save extreme illnesses/accidents/extreme abuse) are in the boat they are in due to the sum of choices they have made. Have unprotected sex while in no position to have child or take cold shower; rack up credit card bills on unneccessary consumer goods or go without; pay attention in school or goof off; try drugs and take chance you’ll get hooked or abstain.
I’m confused. You guys seem to be saying that people are in the position they’re in because of choices, but then in the same breath admit that family/friends are also a major contributing factor.
So does that mean that these kids chose their unsupportive families?
Will have to expand later, but no – the kids themselves shouldn’t be blamed for their circumstances. I’m thinking, personally, more in terms of household – whatever that may be. An interested family or parent sharing the burden of helping a kid, but also benefiting from the reduced burden of paying for an education when the student earns a scholarship.
So what about that otherwise good kid who doesn’t have enough support, i.e. disinterested family and too many peer distractions, to push him or her to that 3.0? I don’t know and don’t see an easy answer. You’d hope personal responsibility would come into play but I’ve lost all hope for that.
Don’t buy it. I’m rich, retired young, live in a nice place and I did all those things. Mark me as Exhibit A for the side of reality.
‘I would happily vote for higher taxes….’
There is no need for a vote. Seeing as you are happy to pay more to the government, have at it:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
Ha Ha Ha! Good one. Humor based on a deliberate misinterpretation of a fairly obvious statement is always the best.
No, seriously Glocken…. set the example and make a hefty annual donation to the public coffers yourself dude – maybe a little to the feds, a little to the state and some more to our wonderful local jurisdiction. And please… spare our public school system of the expense of educating your child and send them to private school so we have more money and resources for disadvantaged kids here in Decatur. There are just too many Decaturites who could afford private school but take advantage of free schooling and draw precious resources from more needy kids. And when you retire, send back your Social Security check so that it may go to the elderly who are more in need.
Also.. please turn down HOPE if you ever have a college aged kid.
I don’t think this is complicated or hard to understand. I think we should pay higher taxes. So that is a policynoption that I will support. I also don’t like the mortgage tax deduction. I will continue to take the deduction and pay the taxes that the current system says that I owe while suggesting that the system could better reflect what I think of as long term societal goals. I suppose that you could say that this makes me some kind of hypocritical monster but I would suggest that this leads to a number of odd recommended courses of action. My individual action in isolation will have little effect. Do you think we should be doing more research on cancer? If so, why are you not taking a direct role in doing the research? Do you think you think that carsnshould be safer? If so then why aren’t you out there adding padding to peoples cars? Recommending society level changes is consistent with working for society level changes. You could claim that all individuals suggesting such changes need to align all individual behaviors to desired societal change or be a hypocrite is going to cast a broad and nonsensical net.
Well said Sarahph
I know Sarah is using sarcasm in her retort Glocken, but are you seriously suggesting that people who can afford private shouldn’t send their kids to public schools. I can’t think of worst way to encourage diversity within our little hamlet.
So it is fairly obvious that you are happy to “vote” to raise taxes, but you have no intent to pay more yourself? You and Warren Buffett could have a good laugh together — he loves the estate tax but is leaving all his money to Bill Gates, tax free.
You seem to be making the case for why we need more mandates, because obviously people will do only what is good for them personally. Tragedy of the Commons applies to giving as much as it does taking.
Last I heard, taxes were mandates — as in, don’t pay them, go to jail. The issue here is advocating even higher taxes, having the opportunity to pay them, and refusing to do it.
HOPE and Pre K use lottery funds. You may still feel that “they” tax the hell out of you but it hasn’t been used for those two programs.
According to the NYT article at the link embedded in DEM’s response, “last year, lawmakers had to pull millions of dollars from the state’s reserve fund just to cover the cost.”
It also says the program, “will be short $243 million this fiscal year and as much as $317 million the next.”
Sounds like taxpayer dollars to me.
Ooops – you are right. I mistakenly thought they had scraped by with lottery $$ last year and that this year would be the first shortfall.
I think reinstating the income cap is the best way to go but I guess that would hurt the politicians big time at the polls.
Yes it would… I’d be first in line at the polls.
Why? The income cap was there when revenues were sufficient, why not have it when they’re not?
What’s wrong with the income cap ? Should all families regardless of income should get the same deal ? Won’t it help all of us if students from low income families can get a college education ?
I was all in favor of HOPE when the lottery money could cover it but I think it is terrible to cut back on the amount available for low income kids and while still offering a break for families with high income.
The money was pulled from lottery reserves to cover increased costs, not state (tax) reserves.
Thanks, Cranky. I tried to find where those reserves came from, and you did it for me.
I erred in assuming it was tax dollars.
Your kids are very fortunate to have you providing for them now and saving for their future education expenses. Lots of other kids are not so fortunate. I supported the establishment of the HOPE scholarship because it promised opportunities for students who were willing to work and make the grades, but lacking financial resources, to attend college. And it did so without increasing your and my tax burden. (There seemed to be some kind of poetic justice in it, frankly. If poor people were going to squander their hard-earned money buying lottery tickets, then at least the proceeds could be used to help their children get educated and make their way to something better.) My gripe is that too much of the funds have gone to kids like yours, who have the chance to go to college with or without it.
“My gripe is that too much of the funds have gone to kids like yours, who have the chance to go to college with or without it.”
—————————————————
STG,
I should have added more detail to my statement. I said we are saving for it, but I sincerely doubt we’ll save nearly enough for when they go to college. We will still need to get additional funding, whether it be from loans, grants, scholarships or the HOPE. If, in a worst-case scenrio, none of that is available and college expenses continue to rise at their current rates, we’ll be lucky to pay for two years.
I’m still banking on the unknown wealthy relative to die and leave me $$$, but that’s doubtful.
Why are people so against kids taking out college loans and working while in school? I am saving, but if my kids need more, they can fund it. They will be adults at 18. I worked (three jobs at one point), took out loans and got scholarships. I got three degrees with about $40,000 in debt. Didn’t kill me.
I’m not against it. I took advantage of loans, too. But I would prefer my kids not start out their after-college life heavily in debt. I was able to pay off my loans in seven years, but the future cost of college promises to make debt repayment a lot harder.
I expect my kids to get jobs at some point to help pay their own way, so that they have a fuller understanding of what an education costs (and a sense of accomplishment). College is exponentially more expensive than it used to be, so it’s going to take all our combined efforts to get them through.
I tend to agree with you NB. Especially since we are using a social ill, gambling, to support a social benefit, education. What gets little attention is the number of families who go without basics because there is an addicted gambler heading the household.
Token: To make my view clearer, too: I’m in favor of some kind of sliding scale for HOPE eligibility, so there is some degree of support available to every student with the motivation to keep their grades up and with genuine financial need. Some families need a lot of help, some need less. But I also think there needs to be an absolute cut-off, so that ONLY students who really need it, get it. Which side of that line your family might land on, I don’t know. What I do know is that I’ve heard too many anecdotes about students whose parents can spring for new cars, luxurious (relative to dorms) off-campus housing, cool spring vacation trips, etc. because HOPE is taking care of the tuition (and books and other fees?); and students who take light course loads so they can maintain their GPA and hang onto the HOPE, without having to study too hard. Those kids would be able to attend college without HOPE, they’re just having more fun with it. But that’s not what HOPE was created for, and I’d like to see it return to its original mission.
I also agree with Nellie that there’s nothing wrong with students working their butts off and having to borrow some money to secure higher education. I realize the costs have escalated madly, and understand parents wanting to help their kids avoid starting life with a load of debt. But all the more reason, IMO, to spread the opportunities around. If it’s daunting for a middle-class kid whose parents have been saving toward her college tuition all of her life, think how much more of a challenge confronts her classmate (with equivalent academic record) whose parents have been unable or unwilling to support her ambitions, financially and maybe any other way. If the first one is going to make it to college with or without HOPE, and the second one absolutely depends on it, I say the second one gets first crack at the money.
Cutting Pre-K to help fund private, religious colleges teach narrow minded dogma is a great deal, except if you don’t value narrow minded dogma. Unfortunately the private colleges have a lobby and 4 year olds don’t. I actually expected a worse result from Govna Deal – will his son-in-law manage the lottery proceeds? :-/
I must be missing the part about cutting Pre-K to help fund private, religious colleges… Is that in the linked AJC article or somewhere else?
It is ‘somewhere else.’ Google HOPE Tuition Equalization Grant and you’ll find that students attending private colleges get $4,700/year. That’s staying, pre-K is being cut.
Thank you for your reply, but I still don’t find anything to indicate that Pre-K is being cut to help fund private religious institutions. I couldn’t find anything that mentioned the Tuition Equalization Grant from the press release. It appears that program is funded separately from the lottery. If you are referring to the HOPE Grant itself, I understand that to apply to technical colleges instead of universities. It appears those HOPE Grant funds are being cut in the same or similar percentages as the Scholarship Funds (Do correct me if I am wrong – this is not stated explicitly).
Finally – back to that T.E.G. – nothing about that is limited to religious institutions. Since those dollars come from general state funds, while HOPE comes from the lottery it is a big stretch to say that cuts in pre-K are even helping to fund {grants to} religious institutions – or any private schools for that matter.
Actually HOPE funds going to private colleges will now be capped at 3600 annually.
GTEG isn’t just for “religious” schools, They gave it to me one semester at Ga Military College.
I favor means testing and sliding scale tuition for both Pre K and HOPE. These programs were intended to help level the playing field for kids from low income families. Those who can afford to pay should pay something.
For all B average kids offer a sliding scale HOPE scholarship based on family income. For top students ( 3.7 maybe 3.5 GPA) from families above the income threshold, perhaps offer a merit discount of 20% or 25% off in-state tuition.
Even without full tuition HOPE, state schools will remain a bargain for the best and the brightest given the $50K+ tuition and fees for most private colleges.
I wasn’t living in GA back when HOPE was first passed, but have a question about it’s intent (or how it was sold to the public):
Was it supposed to help low-income people attend college?
– and/or –
Was it supposed to improve the quality of students attending state universities?
My experience is that it seems to have done both, with maybe a bigger impact on the latter. Just curious if these proposed changes are a departure from the original intent.
I think HOPE was originally intended to make it possible for all bright students in Georgia to have access to a college education AND to encourage top students to stay in state.
Initially there was an family income cap. To me , that says helping good students from low income families was the higher priority.
One thing that seems to be overlooked in this bill is that those getting the Pell grant based on low income will no longer have their HOPE funds reduced. In other words, if they qualify fo Pell and HOPE, they get the maximum from both again. I imagine this would be a net gain for many low income students, and perhaps the reason it has garnered early support from Democratic legislators.
It was designed to do both, except substitute “middle class” for “low income” because the income caps were high enough to cover the middle class at the time. Now even the upper classes view at as an entitlement, and hence, like Social Security and Medicaid, practically untouchable except for some tinkering at the margins.
What troubles me is that the HOPE program is a kind of Rube Goldberg mechanism when viewed from the perspective of making college affordable. State support for higher education has been dropping for at least the last 10 years and universities (Tech certainly) have been raising tuition and increasing their admissions (especially of out of state if possible) to make up the short fall.
In an ideal world, we would have some kind of unified mechanism that could both provide state support for public colleges and universities in a way that would cap tuition as a percentage of a student’s family income.
But i guess we don’t live in an ideal world so we need to do something like fund education from profits from a lottery.
G, you hit it exactly– the HOPE program is running out of money because the Gov and state legislators have used it to fund higher education for the past 10 years. The budget cuts to the universities = higher tuition = higher amounts needed per student for HOPE scholarship, b/c the scholarship is tied to the amount charged for tuition. The Gov and legislators knew that there cuts would be somewhat cushioned by the HOPE funds, and haven’t had to pay the true poltical price for their cuts. Now the HOPE adjustments are putting some focus on something we all should have been upset about for years.
I’m surprised Hope or Pre-K survived at all. It’s a testament to politicians wanting to stay in office. Completely cutting the program would cause a back lash among middle class voters that would last until the next election! That is group that shows up at the polls and that is the group the politicians respond to and try to fool the most. While I would love to depend on the Hope for my kids, I also am saving and using the 529 tax shelter. I am not “Hope”ful for college costs to be covered in any other way. As far as educational value, I find for the Pre-K program. One reason middle class and upper class students do better is the earlier exposure to an educational curriculum in private pre-K. Helping children lower on the socioeconomic ladder get that exposure will pay huge dividends for all of us in the future. A down payment now on a better future. However, that is not how you win votes in our very deep red state.
I’d be curious to know how many truly low income children statewide get those coveted Pre K spots vs middle / upper class kids . I have the sense that many of the low income kids especially those in transient living situations are left out while the more privileged kids get the spots.
If we truly want to close the achievement gap and invest in a better future then the current Pre K program should be scrapped in favor of birth -4 programs specifically for low income or otherwise at risk children. Let the middle / upper income children be served by private preschools.
It’ll never happen for the reason you cite – middle class voter backlash .
Fifi, many, many if not most middle class parents can’t afford it either. The cut offs for low income in this country are so low they preclude most working people trying to survive. A single mom teacher or single father fireman could not afford private pre-k for a kid. The lottery funded pre-k makes a huge difference for countless families. Do you know that most of the College Heights Y scholarships for daycare tuition were going to “middle class” families who lost an income and could no longer afford daycare but needed it to find jobs or couldn’t afford to lose their spots?
The whole point of a lot of this early childhood education is to mix incomes and classes. Segregating low income kids in public schools while only upper income kids can afford private is exact opposite of the leveling effect early childhood education is supposed to provide. And that is exactly what will happen. Lottery funds currently allow all children to access any lottery-funded program- public or private – and provide parents with choice and diversity. I do not think that type of class segregation is what most people want for their children on any side.
Doesn’t that strike you as slightly segregationist? Rich kids go to private. Poor ones go to public. Again, I thought we valued diversity here. I’ve intentionally put my children in public Pre-K so they can be exposed to a richer, diversified experience. The cost savings over private school was a factor in my decision but not the driving force.
I don’t quite understand those who express doubts about the future of HOPE, pre-k, etc. Do you think the lottery is going away? Because the only reason there is a lottery in Georgia is to support education. The lottery is thriving, but too many students are receiving HOPE for it to keep up. My view is that they should have gone to a conditional loan approach. If students made a 3.0 after 30 hours in college, HOPE would reimburse for those hours. Too many “B” students are matriculating with HOPE and losing it at the first checkpoint, or dropping out before. Huge money could have been saved there, and grade inflation in high school would be much less of an issue.
So, in Georgia there are no “enduring promises” or Hope. I thought so, but now I’m sure–and I still can’t buy beer on Sunday.
Maybe the state can gather some revenue by taxing churches, ministries, and religious schools.
Maybe a triple tax on Sunday alcohol sales could go to fund Pre-K at religiously oriented colleges…
I can only dream of the day they start taxing churches and “religious organizations”
Why not tax all charitable organizations, including women’s shelters, humane societies and LiveStrong? Oh wait, it’s not charity you have a problem with it’s God, or god, whichever you prefer.
No. Joe and I both referred to “churches, ministries, and religious” organizations, and not to organizations that really are non-profit.
And churches aren’t charitable? Or is it because they are religious and charitable?
Most are not charity first entities: so called ministries that you see everywhere is what I’m referring to, and not churches that run shelters, kitchens (these I think should get tax breaks); there are a lot “clergy” that drive around in real nice cars and don’t give squat to anyone.
Well, on that we agree. I could actually support a tax on churches that can’t prove charitable works. (I just googled, ‘Wiccan Charitable Causes.’ I couldn’t help myself.)
I could very easily prove certain churches are engaging in non-tax exempt political works if I chose to sign up to be a deacon and carried a tape recorder with me.
Go for it. It would make for an interesting documentary.
Ok maybe not so easily. I don’t speak Baptist all that convincingly.
Oh but I bet Chad can speak Baptist–he probably nails the accent and everything.
“Never, ever, go full deacon.”
I prefer to speak in tongues.
“Once a snake handler, always a snake handler.”
Dang.. why not allow Sunday sales and put the proceeds toward shoring up HOPE… would that get the “Jesus doesn’t like it when you buy beer on Sunday at a store instead of a bar.” crowd on board?
If you, like me, feel that the PreK program as it stands is a very high quality program that is important and shouldn’t be cut, here is a link to a website that shows how you can make your opinion known to the governor and state legislators.
http://www.geears.org/advocate/action-alerts/
I’m all for eliminating summer break! The students forget too much as is… Who’s with me?
Democrats were fools to sign on to any cuts. They couldn’t fight effectively, but they could at least fight.
My son won a Hope Scholarship 2 years ago, by the way, after getting an IB diploma at North Atlanta, but to date we have seen zero dollars. They keep coming up with excuses not to credit him. I’m glad Georgia State is affordable, although I hate the football tax.
I’m with Kris. Pre-K is a program that needs to be covered — giving all kids a better foundation to grow up to get the grades they need to go to college.
I agree that Pre K is a fine program . It should continue but I don’t believe it needs to be free to everyone if there isn’t enough lottery money to cover it.
First of all, let me say “Thank you” to the few conservative voices of reason in this multitude of liberals. I find the argument against giving students a SMALL portion (4700/yr.) to cover private schools – only some of which are religous – humorous considering most of you don’t have any problem giving B students all or 90% of tuition to cover liberal leaning pulbic university educations. As a former UGA student and conservative as well as HOPE recipient, I fee my personal experience is testament enough to the liberal leanings of most of my professors. Graduating high school with a 3.0 is no be feat. I don’t think that Deal proposes to cut HOPE enough. If you’re going to offer students with a 3.0 a tuition discount, offer 75%, then incremental up to 100% based on higher GPAs. I’m not sure that an SAT score should be used – we have enough test anxiety among students as it is.
As far as Pre-K goes, it should never be touched. It should not be solely for lower income or higher income students. Part of what makes the experience so unique and beneficial for all students is the various backgrounds of all students. Also, knowing the Pre-K curriculum, I have no idea how it could be taught in less time. 4 year olds aren’t developmentally ready to come into school and sit in group after group for 4 hours. They need playtime and outside time- which the full day allows for. Go back to the drawing board Deal and look for ways to cut Bright From the Start, Pre-K Consultants, and bureaucrats using the money that should be there to support our teachers and students.
Two of my three kids went to four hour pre-K and had no problem with kindergarten. My youngest went to College Heights, and from what I recall a full hour at the end of the day was spent in a forced nap. Seems to me that HOPE money is better spent on something other than making 5 year olds lie down silently on a plastic mat for an hour. I have no problem with the drop to 4 hours.
Also, my youngest was no more prepared for kindergarten than my kids who were in 4 hour programs. The extra 2.5 hours didn’t seem to do much other than provide me with free childcare.
“I fee my personal experience is testament enough to the liberal leanings of most of my professors. ”
What does that have to do with HOPE funding?
Two of my three kids attended/are attending a 3 hour a day preK and my oldest is doing great in first grade now. She started K when she was still technically 4 and did not have a problem tranistioning to a full day K. My 2nd child will be going to a full day K in the Fall and I don’t anticipate her having a problem. I personally think the 6 hour preK is way to long for 4 year olds, which is why I worked harder to pay for them to attend a 3 hour preK instead of sending them to the free full day preK.
Just in case I’m one of the–ick–liberals to whom you referred, I want to be sure the record is clear. While my comments have mostly reflected my STRONG opinion that HOPE eligibility should be tied to financial need, I also feel very strongly that a 3.0 GPA should not qualify a student for HOPE support for a four-year college. For tech school, probably.
And I’d like to echo brianc’s question: what does thinking your professors were liberal have to do with HOPE funding?
I’m sorry that was your experience. As a Pre-K teacher, our students currently nap for 45 min.-1 hr. depending on the classroom. Even if you take that away, that still leaves another hour and a half of instruction that is going to be cut. Also, while a four hour day might be an easy thing for your family to handle, it is not for most families. That also leaves the school system with looking at the possibility of making aftercare last from 12-6. In addition, that leaves many teachers throughout the state either without a job or with a job that pays only a fraction of what they are used to.
OK, I get that. However, we can’t escape the fact that there is only so much money. I know pre-K is important, but so is college. Cuts have to be made somewhere and no matter where they are made, someone will have a negative consequence. I do understand the hardship to pre-K teachers though. Perhaps some of that can be mitigated by offering an extended educational day for families who want it on a fee basis (sliding scale if needed). That won’t take care of everyone, but it would help.
If class is from 8-12, you can also cut time spent on lunch. There’s another 45 minutes by the time the kids line up, get to lunch and get back. Also, from my recollection, there are two recesses (correct me if I’m wrong). If the kids are out at 12, they only need one recess. That leaves maybe a half hour or so of lost instruction.
Also, my experience was great with pre-K. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t wonderful. It just didn’t have a better educational outcome than a four hour program. Both were great.
“The lottery soaks the poor”
Perhaps you meant to say the lottery sokas the stupid. I am pretty sure that there is not an income level at which one was forced to buy lottery tickets.
I admit to being stupid sometimes. I’m not poor, but I do occasionally buy a scratch-off. They’re kind of fun. Sigh. But I did win $500 on a scratch-off once.
DTR, you didn’t take me out to dinner
Yeah, I have to agree with that Skeptic. I know someone who lost a business in part due to a lottery addiction. Spent thousands a week on scratch-offs, then switched to those illegal machines you see in convenience stores. I don’t think most people realize the extent of the problem with addiction to gambling that is destroying families, and it cuts across income levels.
The person I mentioned had no idea her husband was throwing away their savings until he died of a heart attack and the truth came out.
Skeptic, I agree that it isn’t necessarily just a “poor people” problem, but it is an addiction problem. In some ways it hits people with money harder because they have more of it to lose.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be too upset if HOPE and the like disappeared if it meant the lottery disappeared too.
That middle part was confusing. Meant to say “The person’s wife had no idea…”
Well, then we’d have to get rid of alcohol too… or at least the alcohol tax. My guess is that there are a whole lot more alcoholics than gambling addicts in Georgia. My other guess is that alcoholism, drunk driving, and just general drunkenness do many times more harm to families and society than gambling addiction.
The difference is the lottery is a state-created vice, created strictly for revenue generation. The state didn’t create alcohol or other drugs like tobacco; it taxes and regulates them. Yeah, I know people would gamble anyway, but the state rolls out the red carpet for irresponsible and weak-minded people and invites them to equate “hope” with getting lucky one day.
A state drinking incentive would be pretty amusing. “I’m doing it for the kids! (Hick!)”
I was pointing out a correlation, not causation. Whether or not we should have a lottery in the first place is certainly debatable. But since we have one, which voters approved as a means of generating funds to support preK education and academically motivated, financially disadvantaged college students, I think we should be using it as it was intended.
Man, if I didn’t have to work so hard to save for my son to go to college, I would have a field day commenting on the ridiculous comments on this post. Then again, my wife and I combined make over $100,000 a year, so we are rich!! Oh wait, I forgot about all those taxes, student loans, CD property taxes, etc. I have to pay. Yup, paying for my son’s tuition and books would be a breeze!
As a parent of children who have benefited from HOPE in Pre-K or in college, I am sad that raising the GPA is part of the equation–it only adds the prevalent grade inflation that exists in many public and private schools. A 3.7 unweighted GPA is difficult to achieve at some schools (Decatur for example) if the student is also taking a rigorous course load –which includes many AP courses. How much would they have saved it if an income cap was put on the Pre-K program eligibility? Honestly, I could have sent my kids to private pre-k but used the lottery Pre-K because Decatur has such a strong program. One of my kids goes to UGA and yes there are many kids w// nice cars and apartments who could afford to go to school w/ or w/out the HOPE money. However, my oldest first roommate at UGA was the child of a Somalian immigrant who drove a cab and HOPE made it possible for their family.
Nelliebellie1197–I worked while in college and very few loans to pay back, however, the cost of college tuition has FAR outpaced the increased cost of living —so it is like comparing apples to oranges. Visit your alma mater website and check out their current tuition rates—be prepared for sticker shock.
i did go back to my alma mater website to check on tuition…holy cr@p….it is triple what it was when i went there (almost 20 years ago)…..i’ll take eye opening for 500, please, alex.
As a parent of children who have benefited from HOPE in Pre-K or in college, I am sad that raising the GPA is part of the equation–it only adds the prevalent grade inflation that exists in many public and private schools. A 3.7 unweighted GPA is difficult to achieve at some schools (Decatur for example) if the student is also taking a rigorous course load –which includes many AP courses.
_________________________
As well it should be. I think a very high GPA (and standardized test score) cutoff is essential, because we need to get over this mass delusion that college is for damn near everyone. The fact is that many, many kids who do no better than 3.0 in high school have no business getting 4 year degrees, and have even less business doing so at public expense. These kids would often be far better off becoming plumbers, machinists, carpenters, etc. Honorable professions all.
And what have we gotten for this mindless “investment” in college for all? Extremely high drop out rates, outrageously soaring tuition driven in large part by massive subsidies, and a segment of college graduates who spent most of their time partying and emerge with no real skills. They are credentialed but not educated.
If your kid manages a 3.1 high school GPA yet remains convinced that college is for him, have at it — but at your own expense. If we are going to pay anyone’s tuition, let’s limit it to kids who (a) have demonstrated beyond doubt through actual achievement that they are future doctors, scientists, engineers, etc., and (b) have an actual financial need. Everyone else needs to be told the truth — that college is supposed to be hard, it is not for everyone, and some people are better served by gaining other kinds of skills.
Agree that the academic threshold for HOPE eligibility should be high enough to be genuinely motivating. I’ve never thought a 3.0 was high enough. And indeed, college should be hard and should not be automatically assumed as the best track for everyone. But I’m not sure that HOPE eligibility should be the screen in that regard. Our public colleges and universities need to do a better job of filtering applicants and declining to admit those students who are clearly not going to survive (much less thrive and really learn), either because they are ill-prepared or insufficiently motivated, or both. That’s a whole other kettle of fish, and one that needs stirring IMO.
But these are two different things — who will go to college and who will pay for it. The state should not rely on universities to cull their own populations to save the state money on a program it created.
“whole other kettle of fish” = “two different things”
IMO the schools of higher ed should not be admitting students and taking their money, regardless of where the money comes from, if said students are clearly not college material. There’s been a flap about for-profit institutions conning students out of money, but to a certain extent, many non-profit colleges and universities, esp public ones, do the same thing by admitting kids who are in no way prepared for college, either academically or motivation-wise, or both. They do it for various combinations of reasons, including pressure from the Regents to keep admission yield numbers up, simple budgetary pressures to keep their doors open, misguided (IMO and yours, I think) notions about making college accessible to everybody. Take a look at the graduation stats, if you don’t believe me. HOPE money gets squandered, and students who wash out wind up with loans they can’t repay.
It’s not just a HOPE problem, which is why I don’t think the solution lies in how HOPE eligibility is arranged.
d’oh — you are right. I missed the different kettle thing at the end, sorry.
One more ting, DEM: you seem to be saying that someone is either bound for an advanced degree in medicine, engineering, or a hard science, or they shouldn’t go to college at all. Really? If that’s what you mean, then I adamantly disagree. Just as we need to stop assuming that everybody belongs in college, we need to stop perceiving college only as a stepping-stone to professional or graduate school. There’s nothing wrong with getting a four-year degree and then getting on with earning a living and building a life. We need for young people to see that as a socially acceptable and financially feasible option.
No, that’s why I put an “etc” after those things — to indicate that there are too many other worth pursuits to list here.
What STG said!
Hate to say it, but I agree. As someone with first hand knowledge of current college classrooms, I am amazed at the number of students who come to college with HOPE but can barely read and write. Many of them are shockingly ignorant. Ask them to read an editorial and tell you if it is from a liberal or from a conservative viewpoint; most cannot do it. Ask them about basic geography; many do not know where the Middle East is. I have heard astoundingly naive statements. A recent example: “X corporation would not put anything in brand X that would hurt us.”
Worse than the ignorance is their seeming total lack of intellectual curiosity or desire to learn anything that does not pertain to their narrowly defined area of interest (some appear to not even have that).
Current college kids are more tolerant of differences than past generations, and I suppose that is to their credit. On that front, the social conservatives may as well raise the white flag; the culture wars are over.
But the free marketers can rest easy: These kids are unquestioning consumers. No wonder advertisers love them to death.
These are generalizations, to be sure. But many of the kids in college are only interested in the hoped-for bigger paycheck they’ve been promised a college education will provide.
Generalizations are gross, dude. And far from intellectual. But I get your point, youth is wasted on the young. And it always has been.
I don’t agree that it always has been. Not to the extent it is now. Of course, a lot of kids in college now could not have graduated from high school 30 or 40 years ago. Not trying to be the cranky adult; I appreciate that a lot these kids are nicer people, more tolerant, and in some ways more charitable than past generations. But they are also more self-absorbed and much more ignorant.
‘Tune in and drop out’ was all about self-absorption, no?
Does anybody know where to find data about where HOPE funds have been going, e.g., how much of the money going to preK and how much to post-secondary? How many students/how much money for 4-year college, how many/how much for tech schools? How many/how much for private, how many/how much for public? How the eligibility criteria have changed over time? etc
I appears that the gfsc.org website might have all of the information you are looking for. As far as the changes – Wikipedia’s entry on the GA Hope scholarship seems to have a decent timeline.
There is a HOPE Statistical page on the left that looks promising.
thx
Sorry! – thats gsfc.org NOT gfsc.org (Georgia Student Finance Commission)
Today’s students are never as deserving, hard working, intellectually curious, etc as yesterdays. Certainly never as much as we were when we worked hard for our college education. So, really by making college more expensive, we really are just building the character of the less well off that choose to pursue college.
What I really hate about alot of this discussion is that there is a stark lack of sympathy and sense that we are in this together. Lots of students work hard, are intellectually curious, and are also, surprise, immature. I think it is unfortunate that discussion often focuses on how people (or particular people) are somehow going to get more than they deserve, so the solution is to collectively make college less affordable for those less well off in society.
We often hold that many people are deserving of certain rights, regardless of whether they truly deserve them (partly because it would be awful to have to decide who was deserving), but other things like education and health care are some how luxuries that you are supposed to demonstrate that you deserve it. Ideally if you show up for class, and want to do the work, and have the mental horsepower to do it, then you should be able to. We as a country would be much better off if this were the case.
Not sure if this will be the case in Decatur–but I’ve heard that public schools that offer preK will start doing a morning and an afternoon session. I’ve not seen or heard of the plan for after-school care. If there is not a solid after-school program this will create a hardship for low-income families, particularly those single-mom homes.
Has anyone heard of the after-school care for College Heights and what will happen to the child who attends a morning session and has a mother who works full-time?
BTW–I’m all for raising the hope scholarship standards in the gpa arena. Giving a full-ride to a student that only attains a 3.0 is wasteful. Make these kids work hard for college.
And for the upper middle-class families that are upset about the changes to the Hope Scholarship fund–check out a 529 plan. It’s your responsibility / or your child’s responsibility to save for continuing education.
I’m so shocked about Georgia preK that I don’t know what to think. IMHO, it is not only one of the few shining achievements in Georgia education, it was one of the many factors that led to the renaissance of CSD in the late 1990s. Two-income families who were routinely sending their children to excellent private preschools like Montessori schools or Paideia, and then keeping them there once they hit elementary school age because the family had already invested time, money, and emotional connection in the school, now had another option once CSD offered preK. After a good year in preK, they would go ahead and keep their children in CSD where they had developed friends and trust. The parent participation, sound parenting, volunteering, and monetary support that those families brought to CSD helped it flourish.
I kind of agree with those who say that a full day of preK is a bit long for 4 year olds–I think that private preKs, even those that provide an all-day experience in conjunction with daycare, do a better job of providing a developmentally appropriate experience. Our family experienced both settings. Four year olds walking the College Heights halls quietly with their hands behind their backs may have a better academic experience than those attending more learning-through-play oriented private preKs, but I prefer the latter. But that doesn’t mean that the CSD full day preK wasn’t an excellent option and one very needed in the community. I hope that CSD can offer an attractive enough package of funded preK and tuition after care that its preK program remains a useful option for two-income and single parent families. Otherwise, we may see a lot of Emory, CDC,Georgia State, Georgia Tech, Turner, CNN, medical, legal, and other professional families switching back to many of the excellent private schools in the area. We can’t afford to lose those folks from CSD–their involvement and their political and tax support of the school system are critical to its success.
And I really feel for the two-income and single parent families who are caught in this transition period. Right now, there’s not enough full day preK slots to go around in the private sector even for those who can afford it. It’s going to be a scramble if the CSD PreK Program can’t serve their needs for full-day care.