Public higher education in Georgia began in 1784 when the General
Assembly set aside land for the endowment of a college, which
was to become the University of Georgia. At the end of the 19th
and beginning of the 20th century, the state established a number
of additional institutions, including the School of Technology,
the Georgia Normal and Industrial College for Girls, and the Georgia
State Industrial College for Colored Youths. In addition, the
Assembly established agricultural and mechanical arts (or A &
M institutions) in each congressional district. The institutions,
established "in response to local needs," were scattered throughout
the state.
In 1929, Governor Hardman called for a committee to recommend
the reorganization of higher education. As part of a larger effort
by the General Assembly to simplify the operations of the executive
branch of government, the Board of Regents of the University System
of Georgia was established in 1931. The board was established
with eleven members appointed by the Governor. The Governor served
as an ex officio member. The system originally consisted of 26
institutions, ranging from universities, senior colleges, junior
colleges, A & M schools, black colleges, and agricultural experiment
stations.
The original statement of plan for the University System of Georgia
said that the institutions should no longer function as separate,
competitive entities. The intent was to unify and coordinate the
work of the institutions, to integrate the educational program,
and to free the state from wasteful duplication while still providing
maximum educational opportunity.
The Board of Regents operated under statutory authority from its
inception until August 1943, when the state ratified a constitutional
amendment establishing the board as a constitutional body. The
vote came after ten institutions were disaccredited by the Southern
Association of Schools and Colleges because of "unprecedented
and unjustifiable political interference," particularly on the
part of Governor Gene Talmadge. Talmadge is said to have requested
the dismissal of several administrators and to have become very
angry when the Regents failed to fulfill his request. The Governor
called for the resignation of several members of the Board of
Regents in order to replace them with men who would "do his bidding."
A committee of the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges
called for the disaccreditation of the institutions as a result
of their investigation. In the gubernatorial election that followed
the committee's report, Talmadge was defeated by Ellis Arnall,
who "was committed to the university's re-accreditation." Soon
after taking office, Arnall submitted the amendment to grant constitutional
authority to the Board of Regents.
The new constitutionally autonomous board consisted of 15 members
(ten from congressional districts, five from the state at large)
and no longer included the Governor as an ex officio member. Board
members were appointed by the Governor for seven-year terms.
The new constitutional status, meant to insulate the University
System from undue political interference, gave the board the constitutional
authority to govern, control and manage the system. This authority
included: program approval or discontinuation, allocation of the
budget, facilities construction, and decisions on adding, closing
or merging institutions.
The system continued to change and grow over the next several
decades. The composition of the University System changed significantly
in the 1960s with unprecedented growth. New junior colleges, new
degree programs and new facilities were all part of this expansion.
Carl Sanders, the Governor at this time, has been referred to
by many as an "education Governor" because his state budgets invested
heavily in higher education facilities and helped to triple the
size of the system.
When Georgia revised its state constitution in 1982, slight modifications
were made to the constitutional status of the board. One of the
main changes is that vacancies on the board can no longer be temporarily
filled by appointment of the Regents; this is now the responsibility
of the Governor. In addition, the General Assembly must approve
the establishment of any new public college or university and
any changes in the missions of such institutions. Assembly approval
is not required for changes in institutional status for those
institutions established before 1982.
Most of our respondents agreed that since the Talmadge era, no Governor in Georgia has sought to interfere with the Board of Regents or to stack the board. Respondents did agree, however, that the Governor does have tremendous influence on higher education, and that the type of people the Governor appoints to the board determines the relative role of the board and the chancellor's office. For example, according to one long-time university administrator, when Jimmy Carter was Governor, he appointed a very activist Board of Regents, which resulted in a weak chancellor's office. Regents are subject to approval by the Senate, but this is said to be a pro forma confirmation. Only one individual has been turned down after being nominated by the Governor.
Board of Regents
The Board of Regents includes 16 members, all appointed by the
Governor. This includes one representative of each of the 11 congressional
districts, as well as five from the state at large. Regents serve
seven-year terms. The board meets monthly, typically at the Regents'
office in Atlanta, though occasionally meetings are held at individual
institutions.
The board is organized into six standing committees (executive;
education, research and extension; real estate and facilities;
financial and business; audit; organization and law; and strategic
planning), with special committees created as needed. Committees
make recommendations to the full board.
Several respondents agreed that in general, the Regents do not
micro-manage, nor are they a rubber stamp for the chancellor's
office. According to most of our respondents, the Regents primarily
consider statewide concerns, leaving the day-to-day details to
the central office and the chancellor. Generally, most significant
decisions and negotiations are made between the Regents, the chancellor
and the Governor. It is rare to have legislation approved by the
Assembly if it has not been worked out with the Board of Regents
in advance, according to one legislative staff member.
Chancellor
The system chancellor is appointed by and serves at the pleasure
of the Board of Regents. The chancellor is the chief administrative
officer of the system and the chief executive officer of the board.
Institutional presidents report to the chancellor.
The chancellor has very broad powers and responsibilities, as
defined by the bylaws of the University System of Georgia. The
bylaws state that "all institutional recommendations regarding
faculty, research, administrative, and other employee appointments
shall be subject to the approval of the chancellor before being
submitted to the board." The chancellor also makes recommendations
to the board concerning the appointment of institutional presidents
and all employees of the central office.
The bylaws further state that the chancellor "shall be the medium
through which all matters shall be presented to the board," including
the suggested allocation of state appropriations to the institutions.
The chancellor also has the power to "limit the matriculates to
the educational facilities at the institutions of the system."
The chancellor participates in all meetings and committees of
the board, but does not have the authority to vote.
The current chancellor, Stephen Portch, took office in the summer
of 1994. The arrival of Portch in Georgia was hailed by most of
those we interviewed as a very significant moment for Georgia
higher education. It had been over 30 years since the Board of
Regents had gone outside the state for their chancellor (Portch
came from the University of Wisconsin). Second, Portch came in
with a very aggressive agenda for change, something that the Regents
welcomed. Third, he was well respected by the Governor and Assembly,
and has been able to "get what he wants" from them in his first
two years, according to one legislative staff member.
Portch is credited with communicating well with the political
system. He "walks the halls" during the legislative session, staying
in touch with the leadership and giving them confidence in him,
according to one legislator. In addition, Portch has regular conversations
with the Governor.
One of Portch's first actions was to assess the organization of
the system office. Every process was reviewed to see what value
was added, and as a result, some processes were discontinued.
The new chancellor believed that too many vice chancellors had
been appointed in response to specific problems, and the reorganization
eliminated some of those positions. The chancellor's office was
reorganized to send two primary messages, according to the chancellor.
First, he wanted to emphasize the setting of priorities through
out the system-in terms of academic programs, human resources
and capital development. Second, he wanted to establish a habit
of working across organizational units.
The principle role of the system office is to provide leadership,
especially in the area of strategic planning, to advocate for
resources for the system, and to make sure that money is spent
well for higher education in Georgia. The system office has the
authority to approve or deny new programs.
Institutional Presidents
Institutional presidents in Georgia are a step or two removed
from the political process. Presidents are referred to as the
chancellor's "policy advisors." Presidents serve on an advisory
council that makes recommendations on educational and administrative
matters to the chancellor and, through the chancellor, to the
Board of Regents. The advisory council meets at least once a quarter
and holds special meetings at the request of the chancellor.
The chancellor expects campus presidents to establish a consensus
opinion for each major issue, speaking "with one voice" for the
system. Presidents are asked to lobby individual legislators "in
the name of the system" rather than for their own institution.
"We are all a part of a single vision and we understand our individual
role and mission within that vision," argued one campus president.
The chancellor meets in a retreat format with presidents both
in large groups and by institutional type (presidents of research
universities, two-year colleges, etc.). Agendas at these meetings,
said one president, are "very tangible and real," dealing with
issues like budgets and planning. The last meeting, he said, dealt
with strategies for working with public officials (i.e., how to
talk with elected officials about past and future state investments
in higher education).
These systemwide meetings do not appear to work as well for other
groups of administrators. One administrator suggested that the
structure does not necessarily lend itself to productive collaboration
between institutions. For example, he said, there are many meetings
with vice presidents from the 34 institutions that have no agenda,
and when there is a substantive issue to discuss, the needs of
the different institutions are so far apart that no decisions
are made.
Several respondents noted that it is difficult for a board to
get to know 34 individual institutions, particularly when institutional
missions are so diverse. One observer suggested that the Regents
would be hard-pressed to know much about the individual campuses,
particularly since presidents do not always attend board meetings
unless called in by the chancellor for a specific purpose. Another
respondent suggested that while there are some tensions and difficulties
in working with a centralized board, "It's worked reasonably well"
in Georgia. One president said that there are times when he would
like to be able to act more entrepreneurial and have more freedom,
but "we've been able to work that out pretty effectively."
Because of the centralized nature of the system, the role of the various parties is very dependent on the individuals in the leadership positions. In periods in which there have been weak chancellors in the central office, institutional presidents have much more authority, according to one long-time administrator. A weak chancellor in the early 1990s, according to a number of our respondents, led to a great deal of mission creep among institutions as presidents sought to improve the "status" of their institutions, moving from two- to four-year institutions or from senior college to regional university.
As Table 3 shows, Georgia is below the national average (but average
relative to other study states) with regard to its enrollment
per 1,000 population and its enrollment per new high school graduate.
This may reflect the fact that the state has not traditionally
placed a great deal of emphasis on higher education.
System Characteristics for Georgia Compared to Selected States (Numbers in Parentheses Represent Rank Among the Seven Study States) |
||||
(1-2) |
(3-5) |
(6-7) |
Average |
|
| Total Degree-Granting Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| Public Four-Year Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| Public Two-Year Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| % of Enrollment in Public Institutions (1994) | ||||
| FTE Students per 1,000 Population (Public Institutions Only) (1995-96)* | ||||
| Participation Ratio: Public FTE Students per New High School Graduate (1995-96)* | ||||
| % of High School Graduates Going on to Higher Education Anywhere (1994)* | ||||
| State Appropriations plus Tuition per FTE Student (1995-96)* | ||||
| Sources: Unless otherwise noted, data are drawn from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (September 1996), pp. 51-52. * From Halstead, State Profiles: Trend Data (1996), pp. 21, 24. * From K. Halstead, Higher Education Report Card 1995 (Washington D.C.: Research Associates of Washington, 1996), p. 37. |
||||
The number of new high school graduates in the state is expected
to grow from 70,930 in 1996-97 to 91,930 in 2006-07, an increase
of 30 percent. The chancellor's office projects that higher education
enrollment will increase by approximately 11 percent by the year
2000. Growth in higher education enrollments is projected because
of a growing population and a population of people moving into
the state that tends to have higher college-going rates than native
Georgians. In addition, the state is making a concerted effort
to increase aspirations for college among high school graduates.
The institutions in the University System are divided into four
categories: research universities, regional universities, state
universities and senior colleges, and two-year colleges (see Table
4). The research universities include the University of Georgia,
the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Medical College of Georgia,
and Georgia State University. The two regional universities include
Georgia Southern and Valdosta State. The state universities and
senior colleges include 13 four-year institutions. There are 15
two-year colleges.
Institutions in the University System of Georgia |
|
| Georgia Institute of Technology | Georgia Southern University |
| Georgia State University | Valdosta State University |
| Medical College of Georgia | |
| University of Georgia | |
| Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College | |
| Atlanta Metropolitan College | |
| Albany State College | Bainbridge College |
| Armstrong State Colleges | Brunswick College |
| Augusta College | Dalton College |
| Clayton State College | Darton College |
| Columbus College | DeKalb College |
| Fort Valley State College | East Georgia College |
| Georgia College | Floyd College |
| Georgia Southwestern College | Gainesville College |
| Kennesaw State College | Gordon College |
| North Georgia College | Macon College |
| Savannah State College | Middle Georgia College |
| Southern College of Technology | South Georgia College |
| West Georgia College | Waycross College |
| * In 1996, the University System began to refer to most of the senior colleges as "state universities" to reflect more accurately this type of institution. Several of the institutions' names were changed as well. The change was made after an external committee reviewed the mission of the entire system. This change does not reflect a change in mission of any of the institutions, only a change in nomenclature. | |
There is great variation in the size of Georgia's institutions
of higher education. The two largest institutions, the University
of Georgia and Georgia State University, have enrollments of 29,000
and 24,000 respectively. Of the senior colleges, only one institution
(Kennesaw State) enrolls more than 10,000 students and most have
enrollments of less than 5,000. DeKalb College is the largest
of the two-year institutions with over 16,000 students; all other
two-year colleges have enrollments under 5,000.
The growth in enrollments in Georgia over the last ten years has
occurred primarily in the two-year colleges. These institutions
saw a 156 percent increase in enrollment from 1985 to 1994. During
this same period, the research institutions grew by 14 percent,
the regional universities by 73 percent and the senior colleges
by 49 percent. While the research institutions' overall share
of enrollments has declined, they still award the largest proportion
of degrees in the state, as shown in Table 5.
Distribution of Enrollments and Degrees Awarded In the University System, 1994 |
||
| Research Universities | ||
| Regional Universities | ||
| State Universities and Senior Colleges | ||
| Two-Year Colleges | ||
| Source: University System of Georgia, Information Digest, pp. 22, 46. | ||
In fiscal year 1995, the total budget for the University System
was $2.2 billion, with $1.1 billion coming from state appropriations.
This accounted for approximately 12.5 percent of the state budget.
In fiscal year 1995, the system's four major research universities
accounted for over 47 percent of the system's budget, compared
with 19 percent for the senior colleges and 11 percent for the
two-year colleges.
The system plan adopted in 1990 defined the broad general roles
of the different types of institutions in the system. Comprehensive
universities are responsible for graduate education, professional
education, research, and public service. Regional universities
can establish doctoral programs, but they should be in specialized
areas, responsive to the demands of the communities and compatible
with institutional missions. Senior colleges offer baccalaureate
programs that are not as comprehensive as those of universities;
their faculty research is to be oriented toward instructional
effectiveness. Graduate programs at the senior colleges are confined
to the master's level in high demand areas. Two-year colleges
offer the first two years of academic course work and are the
primary provider of developmental studies.
The division of responsibilities between these institutions, argued
one president, is an example of the efficient allocation of resources
that the system tries to accomplish through its different institutions.
"Within reasonable limits the missions and programs of each institution
are laid out pretty carefully so as not to conflict with the other
institutions." In the research universities, this means that the
system offers one public medical school, one substantial graduate
engineering program, and one institution with a strong investment
in life sciences.
The category of "regional university" was established in 1990
with the designation of Georgia Southern to university status.
Prior to this, the system had only research universities, four-year
colleges and two-year colleges. The concept for this multi-campus
regional university was proposed in 1989 as part of an effort
to develop a strategic plan for higher education. The plan included
several institutions in the southern part of the state, with the
notion of forming a regional university to expand educational
opportunities in the region, increase the prestige of the institution,
and respond to the requests of the southern part of the state
for a university. The plan adopted in July 1990 designated Georgia
Southern as a "regional university" with two additional colleges,
Armstrong State and Savannah State, designated as "affiliates"
of Georgia Southern. Each institution would remain independent,
but would participate in the graduate and research activities
of the new regional university. Presidents of the two colleges
would also be "provosts" of Georgia Southern. In 1994, a report
from the chancellor's office suggested that this affiliated arrangement
be changed, and recommended several alterations. The new arrangement
removed the designation as "affiliate" and authorized Armstrong
State and Savannah State to offer graduate programs and confer
graduate degrees. This change was not designed to eliminate cooperation
among the three institutions, but rather to "vest" program authority
more clearly. According to the chancellor's recommendations, "The
modified arrangement holds the promise of meeting the original
objective of providing the coordinated, regional approach to graduate
programming."
There is some concern in Georgia about the multiple distinctions
between institutional types. Many of those we interviewed believe
that the distinctions, particularly between senior colleges and
regional universities, have very little meaning. According to
an historian of the University System, "The University System's
fifth growth period (1984 to 1990) witnessed a rapid turnover
in institutional leadership, a loosening of centralized control,
and a re-emergence of institutional aspirations. . . . Enrollments
expanded in unprecedented ways, and institutional missions changed
with or without deliberate planning or policy decisions." According
to this historian, this type of unexpected development was common
throughout the system's history: "No observer, critical or uncritical,
would contend that the University System of Georgia is the work
of a master planner or the result of grand design."
The constant push for change in institutional status, according
to one administrator, is the result of a piecemeal approach to
the coordination of higher education in the state. He said that
without a plan for service delivery in a given area (for example,
the Atlanta metropolitan area), "Institutions will just continue
to define their own service areas and their own destinies." In
response to concerns like these, the chancellor has recently established
a Council of Presidents consisting of presidents in the Atlanta
region to engage in collaborative planning.
"It is somewhat problematic to try to distinguish between regional
universities and senior colleges," said one administrator. As
a result, senior colleges are arguing that they should be accorded
this "increase in status." Part of the University System's mission
review process was aimed at updating the nomenclature of institutions,
and resulted in renaming most senior colleges as "state universities."
The continued tendency toward mission creep in the early 1990s
angered the Board of Regents and led them, according to one administrator,
to threaten changing the system, possibly by breaking it up and
moving to more of a regional organization. Rather than carrying
through with these threats, the board, once it became stronger
with some new appointments, was successful in bringing in a new
chancellor. The new chancellor and prominent legislators argue
that they are trying to put a stop to these change-in-status efforts,
and to try to get away from the terminology of status altogether.
Two-Year Colleges
There are 15 two-year colleges in the University System of Georgia.
These institutions are considered to be more like traditional
"junior colleges," providing the first two years of the baccalaureate
curriculum. The colleges also offer vocational programs, but they
have never been called community colleges and not every community
has access to a two-year institution.
Including the two-year institutions in the University System has
been a source of controversy almost since the establishment of
the system in the 1930s. The Strayer Report, a commissioned report
on the state of higher education in Georgia written in 1949, recommended
separating the two-year colleges from the University System. The
report suggested that the two-year colleges would be better served
as local institutions under the supervision of the state Board
of Education.
Different views on the benefits of keeping two-year and four-year
institutions in the same system remain. Some administrators said
that the state has never "bought" the traditional community college
system and this is a weakness. The two-year institutions are said
to "hold the University System back" on many issues. The system
spends an inordinate amount of time on transfer and the core curriculum,
according to one administrator. He said that rather than looking
at undergraduate education as a whole, system officials must look
at the "lowest common denominator," general education. Others
describe a sort of "leveling effect" when you have institutions
of such widely different mission in the same system.
In contrast, others said that Georgia benefits from keeping two-year
colleges within the University System. They said that since the
consolidated system allows for greater cooperation, it is helpful
to keep transfer and articulation within one statewide system.
A faculty member said that there has been genuine system leadership
in terms of the collaboration, especially regarding transfer,
the establishment of a rising junior test, and mandated developmental
studies. These efforts have made the system a more unified whole,
he argued.
A senior system administrator argued that the system underuses
and perhaps undervalues the two-year colleges. He said that there
is a lack of clarity in the mission of the institutions. There
is also, he said, a persistent belief that the two-year colleges
are less important or less prestigious than their four-year counterparts.
The chancellor and the Regents, meanwhile, see the two-year colleges
as the "cornerstone of access" and have made some efforts to encourage
more students to begin their careers there. Last year, the system
increased tuition at the four-year institutions by five percent,
while reducing tuition at the two-year institutions by five percent.
This change was partly in response to the fact that two-year college
tuition in Georgia was high relative to the rest of the country,
while four-year tuition was low. The chancellor was also trying,
however, to encourage more students to start at the two-year institutions
because there is capacity at those institutions that may not exist
at other state institutions-such as the University of Georgia.
According to one university official, defining more sharply the
roles of two-year institutions and increasing the number of students
starting at those institutions are attempts to align institutional
welfare with public policy priorities. One of the challenges of
statewide planning for a large, diverse system has been not only
to keep some separation in terms of institutional mission, but
also to have an orderly plan for growth.
Tuition Policy
Tuition policy in Georgia states that tuition should be 25 percent
of the cost of instruction. As well as reducing tuition at the
two-year colleges and increasing it at the four-year institutions,
the system is also moving to significantly raise tuition for out-of-state
students, asking those students to pay the full cost of their
education by 1998. In fiscal year 1995, tuition averaged $1,995
at the research universities, $1,494 at the senior colleges and
$1,020 at the two-year colleges. There were double-digit increases
in tuition in the mid-1980s, but annual tuition increases have
averaged about four percent for the past seven years. In general,
students and their families in Georgia pay a smaller proportion
of the cost of education (measured by state appropriations plus
tuition) than the national average. In Georgia, students and their
families contribute 24 percent of the total allocation, compared
to a national average of 32 percent.
There are differences of opinion as to the relationship between
the public and private institutions in the state. "Georgia does
not have as much history of animosity between public and private
institutions," said one representative of the private institutions.
But according to a representative of the University System, "There
is a fair amount of tension" between the two because of competition
for state dollars.
Private institutions have a lobbying organization called the Association
of Independent Colleges and Universities in Georgia. Approximately
25 institutions belong to this association. This group focuses
primarily on maintaining information on and support for the tuition
equalization grants, on keeping the General Assembly informed
about private institutions, and on fine-tuning the HOPE scholarship
program.
The Governor recognizes the value of the independent colleges
and universities and the role that they can play in the state,
said one state official. He said that in general, the University
System is dominant and that most native Georgians assume that
higher education is the University System of Georgia. He said, "The orientation of
the Legislature is also toward the University System and not as
much tied to the privates."
There has been some evidence, said one institutional administrator,
that private institutions are becoming more entrepreneurial and
attracting students to their campuses, relieving some of the increased
demand in the state. However, financial aid awards brought about
by the lottery (see section on financial aid) may make Georgia's
private institutions look outside of the state for enrollments.
According to one private college president, many Georgia residents
who may have opted for a private institution before are now looking
to the public institutions because it is so economically effective
to do so. He said that some private institutions may become increasingly
less Georgia-focused as a result.
There are some collaborative arrangements between public and private
institutions in Georgia, including some cross-registration programs
and some sharing of library resources. Representatives of the
private colleges and universities predict even greater cooperation
over the next decade to prevent duplication of programs. One University
System administrator discussed a collaboration that occurred when
the state ran short of slots in medical school and they bought
some slots from the private institutions. Most collaboration between
the publics and the privates, however, occurs locally. One University
System official said that since there is no uniform data collection
in the independent colleges and universities, it is difficult
for the state to know how effectively those institutions are being
used.
One of the best examples of collaboration between public and private
institutions is through the organization called the University
Centers of Georgia. This organization is composed of public and
private institutions in the Atlanta area, and also includes the
University of Georgia at Athens. There are 17 to 18 institutions
of all types in the University Centers organization. Presidents
of the member institutions act as chair of the organization, with
the position rotating annually. The purpose of the group is to
bring institutions together and to find areas for collaboration.
The group has been well received by deans, librarians and faculty,
said one respondent, but it has been less well received among
the presidents.
Activities of the University Centers organization include: a cross-registration program, through which students can transfer credits back and forth between member institutions; a speaker series; and an inter-library loan program where schools within the area arrange to loan their materials to other institutions.
The Governor is said to "jealously guard" the use of lottery money
for three specific initiatives: a focus on pre-kindergarten at-risk
children; an emphasis on technology; and the scholarships for
students in higher education called Helping Outstanding Pupils
Educationally, or HOPE. The Governor was said to be interested
in two things with these scholarships: increasing participation
in post-secondary education while simultaneously improving performance.
HOPE scholarships were described by the chancellor as "Georgia's
GI Bill." Students who earn a 3.0 grade point average (GPA) in
high school are eligible for full tuition, fees, and books at
any University System institution, or any institution in the Department
of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) system. If a student maintains
that 3.0 average in college, they continue to receive the scholarship
for four years. Initially there was an income cap on students
who were eligible (students had to come from families where the
family income was $100,000 or less) but that has since been removed.
In addition, changes made in 1996 (to go into effect for the entering
class of the year 2000) call on students to have a 3.0 GPA in
the core disciplines in high school, an attempt to further increase
the standards and improve the preparation of students for college.
Currently, about 50 percent of high school graduates have an average
of B or better in all courses, and thus would be eligible for
HOPE scholarships under today's guidelines. The change to requiring
this average in the core disciplines is expected to significantly
reduce the percentage of graduates who are eligible.
HOPE scholarships are also available to Georgia residents who
attend private institutions. Initially, students did not need
to maintain a certain grade point average to be eligible for the
$1,500 award, but this was the subject of a great deal of debate
during our visit. Many legislators and others said that there
were standards that students at public institutions were being
held to that students at the privates were not. As a result of
these concerns, changes will be made to the program beginning
in fall 1996. Under the new requirements, students will have had
to maintain B averages in high school to be eligible for HOPE
scholarships at private institutions. By the year 2,000, students
at private institutions will have to maintain B averages while
in college in order to retain their HOPE scholarships.
In fiscal year 1995, there were approximately $86 million in the
HOPE program, with approximately $119 million projected for fiscal
year 1996. Approximately $159 million are expected for 124,000
HOPE scholarships in 1996-97.
For the most part, those we spoke with were not concerned about
what would happen when the lottery begins to dry up; people expect
the lottery to continue to grow in the foreseeable future. There
are some provisions, however, for dealing with shortfalls, including
two reserve accounts. State law calls for the establishment of
a "scholarships shortfall reserve subaccount" to be maintained
to address possible shortfalls in lottery proceeds from year to
year. The law says that ten percent of the total lottery proceeds
disbursed in the form of scholarships or grants for higher education
in the preceding fiscal year must be deposited into a reserve
subaccount. This must occur every year until the subaccount equals
50 percent of the disbursements from the previous year. This money
can then be drawn upon in any year that net proceeds from the
lottery are not sufficient to meet the amount appropriated for
scholarships. A second reserve subaccount is to be maintained
in the amount equal to ten percent of the total amount of lottery
proceeds for the previous year. This account can be drawn upon
in any year when the net proceeds from the lottery are not sufficient
to meet the amount appropriated for education purposes.
Since its inception in 1993, over 191,000 students have received
HOPE scholarships. In 1995-96, 43,150 students at University System
institutions, 43,840 students at technical institutes, and 29,640
students at independent institutions had HOPE scholarships. Approximately
20 percent of the students (by head-count enrollment) at University
System institutions received HOPE scholarships in 1995-96. In
addition, over 90 percent of the Georgia resident freshmen at
the University of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology
received HOPE scholarships that year.
Additional HOPE dollars are given to students who plan to go into
teaching (and maintain a 3.6 or better GPA), as well as to graduate
students in a small number of high-demand teacher education areas.
The goal of these programs is to attract the best students as
teachers in Georgia.
The HOPE scholarships are significant because they represent the
first time the state has placed a high priority on attending college.
The scholarships are "the most dramatic thing that has happened
in terms of public policy for higher education in recent years,"
according to a private college president. While the evidence is
still primarily anecdotal, several of our respondents said they
believe that the HOPE program has increased awareness about higher
education and has improved participation in a traditionally low-participation
state. Parents have also become more concerned about student performance
in high school and college, said one state official. There have
been some enrollment increases, but as yet there is no statewide
analysis to determine the real impact of HOPE. Some people argue
that there has been some grade inflation in the high schools as
a result of the HOPE program, but most of our respondents said
they are not concerned with that. The priority, they argued, is
to increase aspirations and expectations about attending college,
and they believe that HOPE is doing that.
Ironically, the success of the HOPE program may counteract some
of the efforts of the current University System administration
to encourage more students to utilize the two-year colleges. Since
HOPE pays for full tuition, the students have less of a financial
incentive to begin their college careers at the two-year institutions
if they are eligible for a four-year institution.
The impact of the HOPE program on financial aid in Georgia has
been significant. As Table 6 indicates, the advent of lottery
funds in fiscal year 1994 led to growth of more than 700 percent
in total state dollars for student financial aid in Georgia between
1990 and 1996.
State Fund and Lottery Fund Expenditures for Financial Aid |
|||
| * State funds include those distributed by the Georgia Student
Finance Commission. There are additional funds for student financial
aid given directly in the Board of Regents and DTAE budgets. Source: Georgia Student Finance Commission, 1997. |
|||
There is no direct state aid to independent colleges in Georgia,
but students attending the independent institutions receive state
grants in two ways. Tuition equalization grants provide Georgia
residents who attend an independent college or university with
$1,000 from the state for that purpose. This program had "languished"
for many years, according to one state official, and "was becoming
almost irrelevant." That changed somewhat when the HOPE scholarships
were introduced and a provision was put in for students who wished
to attend private institutions. Georgia residents who choose to
attend private colleges and universities receive $1,500 per year
from the HOPE scholarship fund (in addition to their $1,000 tuition
equalization grant). With the addition of this money, argued one
state official, the use of aid to encourage students to attend
private institutions has been somewhat "revitalized." In fiscal
year 1996-97, the HOPE grant for students at private institutions
will increase to $3,000, further revitalizing the effort to make
the private institutions more attractive to students. However,
many of our respondents still believe that the HOPE scholarships
make public institutions so attractive (because tuition is free
to those who qualify for the scholarships) that students are less
likely to take their HOPE scholarship to an independent institution.
In addition to HOPE and the tuition equalization grants, there
are a number of smaller grant programs operated by the Georgia
Student Finance Commission. Most of these are targeted to particular
areas, such as military scholarships, law enforcement grants,
and other small, legislative initiatives.
Interestingly, the Georgia Student Finance Commission has not seen a decline in the volume of loans being taken out by students, even with the implementation of the HOPE scholarships. Interviewees speculated that the HOPE scholarship may serve a clientele that was not taking out loans before. Respondents also said that students are still borrowing to pay for room and board expenses.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]