By KA

January 30, 2007 08:38 AM | Link to this

I would like to see the Lottery funds used for remedial reading programs in K-12, as I have posted before as Reading Bootcamp, or it could be called Reading Railroad (get the students’ reading skills ‘back on track’). Here’s my plan in case the governor is reading ; )

Institute statewide yearly reading assessments on ALL grade levels, and any students not reading on grade level would be placed in * intensive classes with individually programmed reading skills lessons until they read on grade level.* New students should also be tested and placed as needed. If we identify and help poor readers, then they will do better in school, which will result in higher school performance scores, and a decrease in failings and the drop out rate.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

I side with the Gov. on this one.

Too much waste has occured that could jeopardize Hope for college bound students in the future. I just wish he’d take it a step further and make those that are wasting the funds, until they flunk out, repay!

By ECLB

January 30, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

How about limiting the use of Hope for college students to those who can actually last a semester or more in college? I’m sick of the kids who use it as a free ride to party, and let’s face it, if you can earn HOPE as a high school senior, but don’t get at least a 1000 on the SATs, should you really be going to college anyway? Talk about grade inflation! I like that HOPE can be used to pay for technical/vocational training schools, and that the program has allowed many kids who might not otherwise have attempted college, to at least try it for a semester. But there should be more accountability on the part of the student. I agree with KA that some of the funds should be used in the K-12 school system for a reading intensive program. But instituting an across-the-board program like that will not work. There will be too great a chance for abuse of a program like that in school systems that don’t have the literacy problems on a wide scale. Each school system should have to apply and demonstrate what they will do to meet the needs of those kids who do qualify. Of course, bureaucracy being what it is, a simple application to handle students as they come into or leave a district will not be available. And the idea of reading assessments every year to make sure a child is on grade level (at least) will line the pockets of the testing companies (yet again) and the new reading curriculum developers (again, ie. Reading Street brouhaha) while adding another test to the school year that is already taken over by ridiculous testing requirements. How many actual days of instruction are there in a 180 school day year? A lot less than 180! And what about those kids who are in first grade reading at a fifth grade level (both fluency and comprehension)? Can some kids opt out? There do need to be changes, and eliminating the HOPE funding to be exclusively used for Pre-K and college is a bad idea, but I would rather see the current funding kept for K-12 schools and limits on the college aspect of the program instituted.

By bwhit

January 30, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

I taught at a technical school in Americus and saw many students drop out after using the Hope money for tuition. That is a waste - reimburse for tuition at the end of class for passing students. They pay up front. I would bet that half of the Hope money is wasted on students that drop out.

By SonnySucks!!

January 30, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

SONNY SUCKS!!

By Ernest

January 30, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

I understand why Perdue is asking for an amendment however KA’s suggestion is one that could really have a long term, positive impact on our education system. As ECLB said, there could be waste with this also so perhaps it could be doled as a grants based on need. A portion of the revenues generated from hope could be set aside for school systems that need additional assistance for reading comprehension programs, especially for ES students. A criteria would need to be set as to who is eligible for the grants along with specifics as to how the grants would be used. Perhaps it could be a minimum of 3 years and renewable if measureable improvements are demonstrated. Whatever funds are unused go back into the general pot.

We the people approved the Lottery in its current form. If we believe ‘tweaks’ are needed, we should appeal to our legislators in making suggestions for improvements.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this

KA,

While I agree in principal, that reading skills are paramount to learning. I often wonder when we will place the reponsibility back where it belongs?

There are basically six areas where parents can provide early interest in reading that have proven to make a world of difference in a childs ability to learn to read.

http://www.ala.org/ala/pla/plaissues/earlylit/workshopsparent/bwearlytalkbro.pdf

All six are methods that can and should be used by pre-school age kids parents to stimulate an interest as well as an ability prior to the child ever entering school.

Personally I favor placing that responsibilty at the feet of parents over taking from college bound students to pay for a public school boot camp for kids whose parents don’t give a rats a— if their children succeed in the first place.

Sorry if that sounds a bit cold. While I do believe in helping those that are willing to help themselves I just tire of supporting people that don’t give a damn.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

I fail to see how making enormous amounts of lottery proceeds available to graft by our local school systems would improve education.

By Hick from the sticks

January 30, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this

Man, I’m glad I got in on this one early.

Morning, all.

I’m half with KA, and seventy-five percent with Jim on this one.

God knows, public schoolin’ worked wonders for my math. :)

KA, I’m all for reading—my issue here with your proposal is that with any standardized tests, is that we ( or at best the educrats) constantly lower the standards in some vain effort to fleece the public into this static lullaby of “everything’s gotten better with education under the close tutelage of (insert politico name here)”.

I don’t know that there is a quick fix. HOPE was started with fantastic intentions.

I think there’s a road somewhere paved with the same material.

Quite frankly, if someone flakes under HOPE, they should be paying it back. College is a huge transition, both socially and academically.

In the words of my dear momma: “If you wanna dance, boy, you gonna pay the band”.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

KA,

Rather than swiping funds from college bound students why not just eliminate all the hiring of part time advisors (prviously employed educrats that come back for large salaries) This would more than fund your boot camp. Or we could quit handing supers. large sums for not taking all of their sick days (ie: Wilbanks) or perhaps request that our school system (GCPS) become more transparent by posting their checking ledgers on the internet so we could actually see the waste.(it is being done elsewhere around the country.

Cut the waste not the programs!!

By Lisa B.

January 30, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

I haven’t reviewed financial data on HOPE’s solvency, but if this is what it takes to preserve HOPE for Pre-K, college, and technical college students, I am for Sonny’s plan. I never envisioned HOPE money being spent on Georgia Public Broadscasting Headquarters! I still enjoy the classroom computers purchased several years ago with HOPE funds, but can live without that funding. In the past our school system always found technology money somewhere.

Preserve the money for students.

By Lisa B.

January 30, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this

Good idea Jim!

By jim d

January 30, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Thanks Lisa, but it’s not an origional.

There was an article at EDNEWS recently regarding schools posting their checks on line. Persoanlly think it’s an idea whose time has come!

http://www.ednews.org/articles/6968/1/How-difficult-is-it-to-get-your-local-school-district-to-post-its-checks-online-each-month-JUST-ASK/Page1.html

By KA

January 30, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. As most of you know I am not a teacher, but I have tutored adults and children in reading. I agree that parents should be assuming a lot of the responsiblity in the reading department. However there are many illiterate, semi-literate and foreign speaking households where reading is not on the agenda. Heck there are plenty of parents who can read who don’t have any reading material in their homes. All you need is a 30 minute reading assessment, not an all day standardized test deal that would line testing companies pockets. These tests are readily available and not expensive! Schools or school systems could have a lottery funded Reading specialist who would organize the testing. Schools that have many poor readers could have a fulltime reading specialist. And the good schools who have few or only occasional poor or non-readers could have weekly circuit riding teachers visit the school. If schools don’t identify and help the poor readers, then these students are doomed to poor performance.

By KA

January 30, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

jim, yes we need to eliminate the high salaried admins that micromanage their teachers, saddle them with endless paperwork, then fail to provide their teachers with professional backing or support. However, I think my Reading Railroad has a greater possibility of happening than the overhauling of bloated school administrations.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

Shew, KA,

That could become quite costly in a system the size of Gwinnett. I forsee another administrator or two at each school standing around four or five hours a day doing nothing and collecting a handsome salary.

I still contend there’s enough fat that could be trimmed to subsidize such a program though.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

KA,

We agree.

“I think my Reading Railroad has a greater possibility of happening than the overhauling of bloated school administrations.”

No one other than taxpayers would want such to happen—hence, it won’t!

By Not Ernest

January 30, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Ernest was really KA agreeing with himself with a different screen name. Clever girl.

By Dick

January 30, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Schol systems and our elected officials in Atlanta and Washington over look one very important item I think. They want the supers, principals, Educational dept heads to have the highest degree available and after that, they don’t care. To me, the one that I want in my school system to have the highest degree available along with common sense is the guidance counselors. The interact with stgudents day to day and they are the ones who are leading students in right direction. As far as our super doing anything, he takes up air.

By Janine

January 30, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

By KA

January 30, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Not Ernest, I am not Ernest, and don’t know him. What’s your point?

By C

January 30, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

While I understand that everyone feels strongly about their own idea, I disagree that HOPE money should be used to fund remedial programs. If the question is whether the money should come from the school system’s budget or HOPE’s, the school system should foot the bill. HOPE is a bonus. It is for students who have earned it. If the schools and parents are doing their jobs, there should be so few remedial students that this discussion becomes unnecessary.

By Ernest

January 30, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

JimD:

In fairness, I can’t argue with your point @ 9:23. My point is that while how we use those revenues have evolved since the Lottery began, we should be willing to consider solutions that would have a direct impact on our students. The Pre-K program began to give a ‘leg up’ to students who might not have been prepared for Kindergarten. While there are legitimate concerns about the ‘return on investment’ we get for the Hope Scholarships, I believe most of us feel it is worthy and has had an impact in keeping local talent home.

IMO, reading comprehension skills are important for succeeding in life. We can debate on how to pay for it but hopefully we can agree on its importance.

By Cilla

January 30, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Most of the people talking about HOPE don’t even play the lottery. But I’m like KA the kids need to learn how to read if they can read the sky is the Limit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Lisa B.

January 30, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

KA,

I like the Reading Railroad idea.

About ten years ago, I remember an “Immersion” program in my elementary school. It seems that every year, we have kids show up in 3rd or 4th grade who have never been in school. Some were “homeschooled” but not actually schooled, some live in crack houses and were unnoticed,one was even found in a brothel. These kids sometimes don’t even know their ABC’s. A 10-year-old “homeschooled” child we got this year couldn’t read words like, “and, the, cat or dog.”

In the Immersion class, these untaught children were self-contained, and literally read, and worked on phonics, and word attack skills all day long. A little math was involved. The classes were VERY small, and students were multi-aged. It worked beautifully. Children often caught up to their 4th grade peers in one or two years!

Of course, funding was cut, and the program no longer exists.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Cilla,

I’m not too sure I agree. Wooten has some litterate idots posting on his blog. That would seem to disprove your theory. :-)

By jim d

January 30, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

I fear you’ve fallen into the same mind with a few other posters. My point is that Hope money never was intended to “give a leg up to our public schools.” Let’s cut through all the crap, it was implemented to help industry find a method of getting someone else to train future empolyees that would need college degree’s. It’s really that simple.

By Johnson is a Johnson

January 30, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

i lived in Athens for years and saw a LOT of students who didn’t need the funds and just used the extra cash to party. I’d rather see the college funds earmarked to students who can show a true financial need while still maintaining the grades and continue to use part of the funding for k-12. Let’s face it, a lot of our kids do not ever go to college and our public schools are still in dire need of many essential teaching tools that either the schools have to constantly fund raise for, teachers have to purchase from their own pockets or just do without. It doesn’t make sense to fund a wealthy college students education while mid and lower class kids in K - 12 do without.

By Rob Smith

January 30, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Take a look at The New Gwinnett County teachers organization’s, Teachers Alliance of Gwinnett, (TAG) Website!

At the following Link to their Webpage and consider giving them support or becoming a member!!!

Link: http://www.talkgwinnett.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=88888895&Itemid=88888904/

By Ernest

January 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

JimD:

You might want to take a look at this: Hope History Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly but a portion of the proceeds was to help those entering school, hence the Pre-K program. If citizens don’t feel Lottery revenues should not be used for anything outside the original 3 programs, so be it.

Think where we would be if we hadn’t made the changes to it over the years.

By fed up

January 30, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

I agree with attaching an SAT or ACT component to the HOPE. We have too many low ability kids going to college and partying their butts off then dropping out. Way too many kids go to college as it is. A kid that can’t clear 1500 on the new (1000 on the old) can’t make good use of a college education and would do better in a trade school.

I’d also be all over making HOPE a reimbursement or loan system. Loan the kids the money and have HOPE repay the loan when and only when the kid maintains a B average. That would quickly scare off some of the losers and partiers and would make kids think twice about whether they were really cut out for college.

That raises a question. Does HOPE cover trade school?

By JustMe

January 30, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

I guess I am shocked by the statement that the “HOPE money dried up.”

When did this happen? I thought that the lottery money was continuing to flow?

Without pointing fingers, can anyone verify this statement with facts?

By erica

January 30, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Re only allowing poor kids to use HOPE….. My understanding of one of the reasons for HOPE was to get the best and brightest to stay in Georgia. It has worked well to do that, and standards at state schools have gone up dramatically as a result.

When I was in college 25 years or so ago, no one with a half decent academic record I knew would even consider going to a GA public university with the exception of Tech. Now, people are breaking down the doors trying to get in - all because we are keeping our best and brightest.

To take HOPE away from kids just because their parents have it together enough to earn a decent living would guarantee that these kids would flee the Georgia University system for greener pastures. Parent and alumni giving would also drop dramatically as the socioeconomic status of the state school students dropped. Then even our universtiy system would be the laughing stock of the nation - just like our K-12 system is now.

By truth

January 30, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

I hate to say it but some of the people who post comments are idiots. There needs to be a program to give students a chance without having to prove themselves first. It gives those students a chance from backgrounds not conducive to 3.5 GPAs but have the ability. When you give those kids the opportunity, you will see their potential. You will always have people who abuse the system, but tightening the belt will make harder on those students who need and others will still abuse the system. Crooks will always find loopholes in the system. There is no need to tighten the restictions on college bound students.

By jct

January 30, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

While I agree with many of the comments, I think it is crazy to tie HOPE to SAT scores. The SAT is only one of many predictors of how succesful you will be in college and life there after. I did not score even the average score on the SATs, however, I did accomplish to graduate from college in 4 years with good grades. I have even successfully completed graduate school. Both degrees were financed by myself without the benefits of loans or parents. (I attended school in another school over 15 years ago so there was no HOPE type program.)

Why not take the entitlement out of HOPE? We all realize that there is grade inflation in high school. Students and parents see HOPE as an entitlement program where you don’t have to work that hard to receive funds. Parents have to impress on their children that HOPE is a privilege not a right that will be taken away if you don’t study hard and act right. Parents can also be involved in this decision by stating that they will not fund the rest of the education if the student is not mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with HOPE money. It’s time to turn the mirror around. It’s not just the students.

By prof

January 30, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

I teach math at a two-year college that is part of the University System of Georgia. From my perspective, it looks like at least half of the HOPE dollars spent at my school are wasted. We see hordes of students who have just graduated from high school, are barely literate, and have no desire to learn. Yet, the majority are using HOPE. I like the suggestion that students pay up front and get reimbursed by HOPE funds only upon passing a course.

By local student

January 30, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Prof, I’m a student at a two-year college, and I totally agree with you about the tremendous wastage. When money is sitting there, and there are no consequences for wasting it, why wouldn’t slackers just use it up?

I’ve tried to convey the extent of the problem before. You really have to go on campus to get an idea of how many of these students make the “scholar” part a joke.

I’d prefer a standardized test such as the SAT. While the SAT doesn’t predict your success in life, there needs to be one universal standard to ensure HOPE recipients have grasped basic skills like reading and math.

By holdingAJCaccountable

January 30, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

To C: Re: “…but has anyone addressed MY kid?…the one with the 4.0 in the GIFTED classes!” Hell no! Shut up talkin’ to me! Your child could “pass the test” the first day of class. You want your child to learn something? Let ‘em watch the History Channel.

Sadly C, that is what public education is saying to your child, thanks to NCLB…

PS To be clear, teachers aren’t saying this…public education is

By Kerry

January 30, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this

In Florida there are more requirements than just GPA to get Bright Futures, their equivalent of HOPE. To get 75% tuition paid, you have to get a 3.0 GPA and a 25 on the ACT. For 100% students have to have a 3.5 GPA and at least a 28 on the ACT. It makes it a lot more competitive and for students to actually have to try in high school for college to be “free”.

By jct

January 30, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

To Kerry:

Thanks for that information. However, what happens if the student has a 3.2 and 24 on the ACT? Do they still receive help with tuition?

By Teacher Here

January 30, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

Sony Purdue when running for president had a talk with Mr. Jackson. When Mr. Jackson asked him how much he would give to intercity schools Purdue replied: “First we will see what they do with what they get now. We may find that they do not need anymore money. But, then if we find they need money we will give them everything they need.” I agree with some of the others that the waste needs to be cut. I know that many schools lights are left on in closets 24/7 Doors are left open all day with heat and air just running out etc. etc. The copier expense in most school system would make the public go crazy if they only knew. Many places to cut waste without cutting programs. But a course a few of the programs may be part of the waste and need to go also.

By 30 Year Teacher

January 30, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

Jimd, Just a little clarificaton on FL’s Bright Futures Scholarships: there are three levels kids can earn. to receive 100% aid (FL Academic Scholar) a student must earn a 3.5 GPA, receive either a 1270 SAT or a 28 ACT and have completed 75 community service hours. to receive the next level covering 75% (FL Medallion) a student must earn a 3.0 GPA, 970 SAT or 20 ACT, and community service. To receive a Gold Seal Vocational Scholarship a student must have a 3.0 GPA and I think a minimum SAT (880 maybe?). There are different requirements for the Gold Seal depending on the program; 4, 3,or 2 year. Don’t know how this compares to the HOPE in GA.

To keep them once in school they must achieve at least a 2.5, I think. Not too sure about that.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Let’s just take a look at where Hope has historically been on sonny’s “DO LIST”

October 1990 – Perdue campaigned against the lottery

February 1991 – Perdue wanted the lottery, and HOPE, to be only temporary

January 1992 – Perdue again voted to ensure that the lottery would be temporary

February 1992 – Perdue voted against the establishment of the lottery, and against allowing lottery funds to fund solely education: The Georgia Lottery for Education Act

June 1992 – Perdue vowed to cast a personal vote against the lottery in the referendum vote

March 1993 – Perdue voted against allowing certain advertising of the lottery

October 2002 – Perdue vows to “protect and strengthen” HOPE and promises HOPE will be “available for those who want it, even if lottery revenue turns down.”

September 2003 – Perdue pushes to tie HOPE to SAT scores, threatening to cut the number of eligible students in half.

January 2004 – Perdue unilaterally cuts HOPE funds

May 2004 – Perdue backs efforts to retroactively limit HOPE benefits

February 2005 – Perdue raids HOPE funds for pet project

While I agree with his premise that these funds should not be marginalized by paying for k-12 expenses, I question his true motives.

By Disgusted

January 30, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

I taught in two-year colleges in Georgia for ten years, and I can testify to the sheer waste inherent in paying for unqualified students to go to college. Georgia has the lowest Hope standards I’ve encountered. Provided a student can acquire a high school diploma somehow and get admitted to a school of higher education in Georgia, there are no restrictions. The B average is a joke. The pressure of parents will ensure that no student graduates with less than a B average. The attrition rate among these students during the first two years is atrocious.

If a state as poor as West Virginia can run its Promise Scholarship program and have a 60% college graduation rate for recipients, why can’t Georgia? The answer is that West Virginia requires a good ACT or SAT score for entrance to the Promise program. Georgia does not set such a floor on the Hope program. We keep throwing away money to allow students to party for a year or two before dropping or flunking out.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Teach here,

“Sony Purdue when running for president”

Did I sleep through that one?

By TMF

January 30, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

To Fed Up,ECLB,and others who seem to believe that SAT and ACT scores should be attached to the scholarship, I believe that you are way off base!

I was a Hope recipient back in the 90’s and I for one am glad that there was no SAT/ACT attachment to receiving the grant because I probably would not have qualified for the scholarship. Although I excelled academically and was at the top of my class, I only scored around 900 on the SAT and 21 on the ACT. Even though such exams are supposed to be an indicator of how well you are likely to do in college, for me, that was not the case. I actually found myself out performing many of those students in the classroom who had the higher test scores on the nationally recognized exams. I graduated from college with over a 3.0 GPA and I am proud to say that in May, I will receive my MPA from a prestigious institution of higher learning with a cumulative GPA of 3.85 (not too shabby for a girl that only scored 900 on the SAT).

I think that I am an example of how, in spite of classroom success, some people just don’t do well on national tests. Thank God people who think like you all weren’t in positions of authority when I was in high school because I would never have been given a shot at college if you were.

By Father Focker

January 30, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

I would like to see them impose limits on how they award the HOPE. They need to raise the GPA to 3.5. It’s too easy to make a 3.0 in Georgia high schools. A lot of these kids go to college and wind up flunking out in their freshman year anyway because they realize that college is way tougher than georgia high school is. those who earn a 3.5 may actually be able to keep HOPE when in college.

By prof

January 30, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

RE Father Focker’s suggestion:

When getting HOPE money depends on how good your high school GPA is, the major result is an across the board increase of all high school GPAs. It’s sad how little students have to know in order to graduate with a high B average. It wouldn’t help at all to increase the requirement from 3.0 to 3.5.

What we need to do is hold the high schools accountable for their graduates’ learning. What if a high school has 100% of their students graduating with 3.0 or higher, but 90% of those graduates place below college level on the college placement tests? How about refusing HOPE for any of their students for the next 5 years?

By jim d

January 30, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

Grade inflation earning kids HOPE?

I’m not too sure. Here’s an interesting statistic.

in the first 8 years of HOPE, the average SAT score for entering freshmen at the University of Georgia rose about 100 points.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Not to say that grade inflation isn’t happening. Merely that the increased SAT AVAERAGE score went up. Which would lend itself to a primary purpose of the HOPE schoalarships to keep our brightest high school grads in state.

I guess what really needs to be determined is if the cost of keeping the brightest here, is worth the expense of funding HOPE for anyone that qualifies under the current rules?

Personally since only idiots are funding it. I’d say yes.

By catlady

January 30, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

I have my doubts about the reading bootcamp idea. Here is why: Our school particpates in REading First, which gives ALL our readers 2 1/2 hours of intensive reading instruction in a day (no spelling, no language arts, no nothing except straight up instruction in decoding and some comprehension). This is our third year of it, and our scores just keep going down. Why? I think it is because we still blithely send every student on, whether they can read or not, whether they pass the CRCT or not,whether they put any effort into their work or not, year after year. I think, absent accountability, we could teach reading 20 hours a day, and it would not have a measureable effect. Unless there is a consequence for not achieving, some students will not make an effort to improve. On the other hand, if, like swift and sure discipline, parents and student knew that they child would not “pass” I think more student and perhaps parent, effort would take place. No one wants the stigma of their child repeating a grade, but unless it is guaranteed unless a child can and does do the work, the emphasis on working hard may not be there. This is just my opinion, based on the horror wrought by Reading First.

On HOPE, I am in support of tying it to SAT/ACT OR letting it be reimbursed. If your SAT isn’t so good, you can have HOPE reimburse you for your expense if you succeed. YOU take the risk. Now, that does not mean that everyone with a 1300 (old SAT) will succeed, but they have a better chance of success than a student who can only pull a 950. And isn’t chance what the lottery funded HOPE is about?

By catlady

January 30, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

jim d, I think the average UGA entering frosh SAT went up because the kids going to UGA changed. More of the highly qualified that would have gone out of state stayed in and went to UGA, thus raising the average SAT. Grade inflation is a real, widespread, consistent, serious problem in Georgia high schools.

By Ed

January 30, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Not all families produce traditional college prep students. HOPE should offer just that, hope. HOPE offers countless families the opportunity to forge ahead, perhaps break through barriers, distractions a non-treditional family might inherently create, an opportunity to not have kids work while going to college, etc.

The poor contribute mightly to the profits that create the scholarships. Why would you want to place more hurdles in the way of their children getting a shot of the good life? Those who are blessed to have it all, the grades, the tutors, the expensive SAT prep courses, and the likely support of a traditional, highly educated family, probably don’t need HOPE to make it. Yet these type of blessed folks are surely over represented in the HOPE program. You want to break the vicious cycle of poverty? Give their kids a chance, give them HOPE!

By jim d

January 30, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Here’s a bit more informative stats on Georgia’s higher education that explains that a lot of HOPE is going to two year programs. Accordingly we might be able to assume that is also where a larger percentage of those attend that lose HOPE.

Total enrollment in University System of Georgia (USG) schools rose 21.4 percent over the last 10 years, which is slightly greater than the percentage increase in high-school graduates. State and two-year colleges experienced the greatest percentage gains (46.2 and 38.4, respectively), increasing their shares of USG enrollment. The state and two-year college gains came primarily at the expense of the research and regional universities, whose enrollment shares (32 and 10.5 percent) dropped slightly since 1995. Overall, USG class enrollment shares remained relatively stable. From a broader perspective that includes the Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) schools, this stability is somewhat misleading. From 1995 to 2003 (the latest year data are available), the DTAE share of all postsecondary enrollment rose from 33.4 to 61.2 percent as the number of students enrolled in technical schools more than doubled from 69,057 to 153,444. While this is a period marked by the introduction and expansion of Georgia’s HOPE program, the bulk of the enrollment increases for both USG and DTAE schools occurred after 2000, when the state and national economies entered a recession. One apparent outcome of the economic downtown was a substitution away from relatively more expensive private and out-of-state colleges to in-state public institutions. Given Georgia’s relatively large African-American population, an important subset of the “state university” class is its three public historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs): Albany State University, Fort Valley State University, and Savannah State University. Combined with the state’s five private HBCUs (Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Morris Brown College, Paine College and Spelman College) they account for a significant fraction of its four-year college enrollment and over 45 percent of all blacks attending college in Georgia. Georgia has 31 private four-year schools, five of which are for-profit institutions such as the DeVry Institute of Technology. Only one, Emory University, is highly selective with a market that extends beyond the region. The vast majority are small liberal arts colleges with costs of attendance far less than Emory and more on par with the out-of-state charges at public four-year institutions.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

Cat,

as you can see in the above post there were a couple of factors contributing to the increased enrollment in Ga. and the use of Hope funds over the past 6-7 years.

bulk of the enrollment increases for both USG and DTAE schools occurred after 2000, when the state and national economies entered a recession. One apparent outcome of the economic downtown was a substitution away from relatively more expensive private and out-of-state colleges to in-state public institutions.

By HS Teacher Too

January 30, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

My biggest problem with the HOPE is the sense of entitlement it has created. Since when should students be ENTITLED to a “free” college education? I agree with the people who think that it ought to be a reimbursement program. If you’re lucky enough to get a job that offers tuition reimbursement in the “real world,” that’s typically how they work, and the risk and reward balance nicely. And really, if the financial burden is that serious, college kids can do what the rest of the country does: get a loan. As I knew it when I was in school, kids from low-income families can get subsidized loans. Kids whose parents meet a threshold income are still eligible for loans, but they are not subsidized (I believe that means that the interest accrues, whereas in the subsidized loans the government pays the interest, but I am not an expert.) The “I deserve the HOPE” thing boggles my mind.

In any case, reimbursement seems to solve all sorts problems: it reduces the pressure for grade inflation (at least in high school — I am sure the helicopter parents would just move their targets to professors); it still encourages the best and brightest to stay in Georgia; and it has the potential to eliminate a good bit of “wasted” semesters. An added bonus? It still doesn’t require tying SAT or ACT to the eligibility.

Now may I introduce a new question that no one has addressed? Is there any “scale” for weighing difficulty of majors and maintaining the 3.0? For example, is an electrical engineering major at Tech still required to hold a 3.0, just the same as a psychology major at Georgia Southern?

If so, I suggest that there ought to be a system in place to acknowledge difficulty tracks. At my alma mater, for example (a top university), to make dean’s list an engineering major needed a 3.3 for one semester, while a liberal arts major needed a 3.5 for two consecutive semesters.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

“the DTAE share of all postsecondary enrollment rose from 33.4 to 61.2 percent as the number of students enrolled in technical schools more than doubled from 69,057 to 153,444”

I’m sorry folks, what ever happened to on the job training and Apprenticeship programs paid for by the employer of someone wanting to break into a trade? These kids are coming out of a two year program, without enough knowledge to really be of use, expecting top pay and in dire need of retraining that we must still pay for. I personally own a business that ends up investing in a 5 year (BAT) training program to teach these kids how to do it right. They are truly wasting their time getting a two year degree to do what we do.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

HS@,

Don’t make light of the 3.0 at Ga. Southern. Many find that more difficult in as much as they are rated the #2 PARTY SCHOOL in the nation.

By jim d

January 30, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know if the loop hole was fixed where kids could reduce there hours in order to make up the grade to remain qualified for hope?

By jim d

January 30, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

just joking about Ga. Southern HS2,

But it is something that should be considered if requiring different standards.

By HS Teacher Too

January 30, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

Jim D —

I’m sure you’re giving me a hard time, but you’re probably right that I ought have clarified that I used Southern as an example of a not-top-tier university. In doing so, I meant to imply that it was less competitive than other schools, and maybe being a psych major at a lesser-competitive school is easier than being an engineering major at Tech. Nonetheless, I am sure I offended someone, somewhere with my comments. To them, my apologies.

By HS Teacher Too

January 30, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

JimD —

I ought to clarify, too … I don’t mean different standards by university. I mean different standards by major. Engineering, for example, might have a lower threshold for keeping the HOPE than a different major. I know it opens a can of worms, but it can be done … I am guessing from your answer to my original post that such a system doesn’t already exist with the HOPE, though, right?

By Angel

January 30, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this

As a recipient of HOPE, I want to share that it is a good thing for the most part, but like most programs, it needs some work. I agree that there is grade inflation on the HS level b/c teachers are afraid that kids won’t be able to pay for college if they don’t make the grade. However, due to more stringent rules for classes graduating in the last couple of years, you have weeded out some of the group that I graduated with who took weight lifting, floral design and “work-study” to bring thei GPAs up to a 3.0 just to go to college.

However, I also see a lot of kids dropping the advanced and AP courses now b/c they are no longer weighted… might as well take the average class and get a 3.0 than have to bust your butt and actually get prepared for college.

Even some of the kids who I graduated with that were in the Advanced/AP/Gifted courses and scored fine on the SAT, didn’t fare well in college. Why? In my opinion students aren’t taught how to study in HS. They are given a bunch of busy work or projects that their parents do for them. Then they get to college (half of them having to take remedial courses) and their final grade is made up of 3 tests and if they are lucky a project or class participation.

The HOPE Scholarship is another reason why I think Georgia rates so low for SAT scores. Hardly any other state has the same percentage of kids taking the SAT. Why? Because we have a bunch of kids who shouldn’t be going to college taking it b/c they know they can go for a year.

The Hope Grant for vocational school is abused as well. Unless the rules have changed in the last couple of years, any citizen of GA can go to vocational school as long as he/she wants. Just keep changing programs until you find something that interests you. At least Hope Scholarship has a limit on the hours you can take.

Also, let me give you my 2 cents on the state funded Pre-K: it’s a waste of money in its current form. My son’s daycare offered it when he moved from his 3-year old class to 4. They have this lovely curriculum called “Child Centered Learning”. This means they can’t actually teach your child anything. It’s basically play time. My son lasted 3 weeks in the program. I was paying only $15 a week less than full-time daycare. (I’m quite sure they were making more than $15 a week from the state). It ended up being cheaper for me to send my son to a private school, where they taught him how to read & write than it was for before/after school at the daycare. I say put the money to better use.

Put more resources online so that when kids come home and need help with homework, they can get it. This should be available to EVERY student, whether they are in home, private or public school. Teach reading class past 5th grade. Georgia public schools no longer teach reading as a course in middle school. Teach the teachers how to use technology. My son’s school is wired out the wazoo but he has teachers who barely know how to post grades and respond to e-mail.

By catlady

January 30, 2007 06:36 PM | Link to this

jim d— a lot of DTAE’s increase in enrollment is due to hours generated by mini courses sponsored in conjunction with needs of local industry. Some students do go for 2 year degrees (AAS), but many go for minicertificates to boost their job opportunties within the company. HOPE grant is the state’s way of passing the cost of apprenticeships, etc, on to the public via lottery money. A great thing for some employers, and some students, too. And a small number of these students get so turned on by their success that they aspire and work toward more advanced certifications or diplomas. And you are right about the economy having an effect on enrollment. It does at every level, but is especially acute with marginal students.

There used to be a backdoor way for a tech student to earn hours for a bs degree through the HOPE grant but that was closed in the late 1990’s.

The idea of scale of difficulty idea is an interesting one, but since program choice is self-selected, I think students naturally sort themselves into more skilled/intelligent folks go for engineering or nuclear biology vs. others with a different set of skills go for graphic arts vs. others major in hairdressing. There are certainly exceptions to this—some very bright folks go into education! Hahahaha (falling on floor)

The rules for HOPE Grant have been tightened, so you cannot go forever, nor can someone with a B.S. go and get a degree in something else. A diploma or certificate for a holder of a BS is okay. It is no longer the perpetual goldmine it was.

I don’t know the answer about reducing hours to redo courses.

Remember, students in many other states get along just fine without HOPE. They can still go to college, etc., and no one claims they don’t have a chance. They just have to make choices that the HOPE frees them from here in Georgia.

By OldSchool

January 30, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Angel, we teachers endured the mind-numbing InTech course that was supposed to “teach the teachers how to use the technology” but instead taught many how to misuse the software. At our school some really poor excuses for teachers seized on PowerPoint, not as a means of instructions, but as a way to get out of teaching. They assigned chapters in the texts to students and demanded far too many slides in their presentations. Then they sat back and let the students put together AWFUL “presentations” loaded with every sound and animation known to man. Far too many days were spent having the students show their handiwork to the class.

You see, we were taught how to use software…not what makes a good presentation. I chose to opt out and take the test on which I scored very well. I use technology everyday…AutoCAD, Inventor, Flash, 3D Studio Max, etc. and I work very hard to use it EFFECTIVELY and sparingly. My students need and get the basics from me and then explore and create on their own.

And by the way, the majority of the software forced upon us in the InTech classes was not even available to all of us in our own classrooms. Fortunately, I’m dual platform and well versed in many programs. I teach on PCs but LOVE my Macs!

I say just let us teach. We know our area of expertise and have our own teaching style. If a teacher is failing in his/her classroom, deal with that person one on one and stop taking a shotgun approach to “fixing” things. One size does not fit all.

(Yeah, I’m completely off topic and happy about it.)

By catlady

January 30, 2007 06:43 PM | Link to this

Oldschool—Macs forever! Yeah!

By catlady

January 30, 2007 07:03 PM | Link to this

Bridgett, a TON of money was wasted on those technology things that HOPE paid for, and a TON was made by someone with important friends. Shouldn’t happen.

What about the article in the weekend AJC about Virginia refusing to go along with part of NCLB that requires testing ESOL kids? As it stands now, if a non-Engish speaking kid enrolls in May of 2007, in August of 2007 they are required to take the full battery of tests in English. Used to, they had an exemption for a year, except for math sections (‘course, you have to be able to read and understand English to take those sections, too). Also, we have been told that we have to give the ACCESS (ESOL exit) test to a kid at our school who not only does not speak English, he is so mentally handicapped he does not speak at all! He is in an MO classroom all day (or inclusion will a full time parapro every minute). However, we have a severely handicapped Latino child who cannot sit up, walk, use the bathroom, or eat, and at least we don’t have to go through the charade of testing him. Praise God for small mercies.

By luvs2teach

January 30, 2007 07:14 PM | Link to this

The lottery should be restricted to its original three programs - pre-k, HOPE and industrial tech (with the focus on job skills to those not college-bound). That’s what the voters voted for - that’s what should stay - no money going to school systems and GPB for “sundry” items.

As far as the disproportionate number of the “poor” playing - well, it’s their choice, and they have plenty of college funding opportunities such as the PELL grant.

Angel - I don’t know where your son goes to school but my middle school has reading - it’s just not in every grade. Part of the problem came with NCLB - a GA middle school certificate used to qualify you to teach reading as well as your content areas. Because of the “highly qualified” label, MS teachers must have a “reading endorsement” added to their certificate in order to call it a reading class. Schools have gotten around that by calling it things like “Language Arts Enrichment” or lengthening the periods and having “Reading Across the Curriculum” in subject areas. Personally, I think that if you can’t read well by middle school, then you take some special classes until you do - then get back on track with the regular curriculum. Also, teacher prep programs include technology now - most teachers have to create an electronic portfolio to graduate. If you have teachers that don’t know how to read e-mail (and I do find that hard to believe based on my personal experience), I have to think that they are nearing retirement (and not to imply that all teachers nearing retirements are technophobic). Just because you see technology, it doesn’t mean it’s there for your child either - we have an entire computer lab devoted to ESOL students.

By Ernest

January 30, 2007 07:42 PM | Link to this

Angel:

Interesting points you raise. One correction, AP courses are still weighted thus an A still results in 5 points.

Your comment regarding the Pre-K program reminded me of my frustration with it. I didn’t believe there was enough rigor in it and seemed to focus on teaching kids how to get along and follow instructions. I also sent my next kids to a private Pre-K program.

Count me in the camp that favors some type of reimbursement program. For those who truly cannot afford college, perhaps a short term loan can be made using the lottery payment as collateral. You make the grade and the lending institution gets the money. You don’t make the grade, you are personally on the hook for repayment. I’m not sure how this would work as far as any interest charged. Anyone have ideas?

By Janine

January 30, 2007 08:13 PM | Link to this

ANgel. In Dekalb my school was unique in that , thanks to our principal,one of the core classes was reading. Novels and skills were the central theme. THe county completely ignored us. Even though students, parents, and test scores validated the need for it. As things “progressed” [using that term loosely], the program was replaced with the scripted reading program in which there is not a shred of involvement…of the teacher or the student.

By Jim in Marietta

January 31, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

The public schools don’t deserve a dime of HOPE money, and neither do the pre-K programs. You want free babysitting? Think long and hard about who you want taking care of your kids. You get what you pay for and your kids will be the ones to suffer for it.

By mrieophd lqbzdxa

February 6, 2007 01:56 AM | Link to this

svbhy ohuywipf lftno balxrchy yxjifa bqztsgjni wrud