Tennessee's first scholarship lottery will begin this fall, but some odd arguments are being made about the scholarship's requirements:
Current law says high school students with either a 3.0 grade point average or a 19 score on the ACT college entrance exam qualify for one of the lottery scholarships, which range from $1,500 to $4,000 a year.
The first version of the lottery scholarship bill that passed last year required both a 3.0 GPA and a 19 on the ACT, with the standardized test score intended as protection against grade inflation. But the standard was changed in the last days of negotiations to an either/or proposition.
The discussion at the time was that the state should avoid erecting too high a barrier to earning a scholarship. But the 19 ACT standard may open the door for thousands of students whose readiness for college is questionable. According to a study by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, "many of these students may require remedial and developmental instruction."
Sen. Steve Cohen, who fought for nearly 20 years to get the lottery approved by the voters, said last week he thinks the ACT standard should be eliminated and the scholarships awarded on the basis of GPA only.
I'm confused. The ACT score of 19 (which is, we should note, below both the national average and Tennessee's average) was made optional because it was thought to be "too high" a barrier. Yet Sen. Cohen claims that kids with ACT scores that low will struggle in college. What's going on here?
If the assumption is that anyone with a 3.0 GPA will be prepared for college, then by Sen. Cohen's arguments, we could expect those students to score higher than a 19 on the ACT. The ACT requirement would be useless, but not an impediment; the GPA/ACT requirement would produce the same scholarship pool as the GPA alone. There's no reason to use it, but by the same token, there's no reason not to use it.
That is, unless the state fears a backlash from minorities who have a 3.0 GPA but turf on the ACT, which is what I bet is at the root of both the original change to the either/or and Sen. Cohen's insistence. Sure enough, "adverse impact" gets mentioned later in the article:
Larry Miller, D-Memphis and a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, which met with Cohen over his proposal last week, said the choice puts him "between a rock and a hard place." Legislators have questioned if removing the ACT standard would have a disproportionate impact on black students. According to THEC's figures, it would not. Of the students predicted to be eligible under the current standard, 11.5 percent are black; of those predicted to be eligible without it, 12 percent are black.
"My question would be, Who do we adversely impact?" Miller said.
Is that the right question to ask, or should the question be, how does Tennessee give the money to those students who are most qualified to make good use of it? The warning bells were ringing back in December, thanks to Georgia's experience with such lotteries; will Tennessee's governor listen?
And do my Devoted Readers from Tennessee (who were pessimistic back then) have any updated information on this?
Posted by kswygert at April 26, 2004 04:10 PM