An analysis of SB 35, the intent of which was to mandate fair admissions of home educated students to college. This analysis explains why this legislation should not pass. This report was updated on 02-13-07. This bill died in committee as the end of the session. The following article is not current and is archived for reference only.
HEIR's board first gave notice through HEIR's e-mail loops about Senate Bill 35, legislation intended to enforce fai college admissions policy for home educated students. This analysis and the opinions expressed are those of the HEIR board.
You can read the text of SB 35 here at the Georgia General Assembly website. The full text is also included at the end of this article.
SB 35 has had a “first reading” which makes it known to the General Assembly and public. Now, the sponsors are open-mindedly considering the opinions of those of us who would be affected by this bill. We are sure that legislators have a thankless job proposing positively intended bills while trying to avoid unintended pitfalls.
We understand the issues some home educators have encountered with enrollment in University System of Georgia (USG) institutions - problems with joint and early enrollment for example - but legislation proposed as a possible remedy must be considered with great care to avoid unintended negative consequences. In our opinion, this bill should be withdrawn.
On Thursday, February 1, 2007, a few of us fellow home educators met with Senator Pearson, the primary sponsor of this bill, and Senator Williams, the Senate majority leader, and pointed out the pitfalls we find in SB 35. Even if this bill is ultimately withdrawn, it is important for us to critically consider it to understand some problems to avoid in the future. To that end, we submit this analysis.
Main Issues
The following bullet points identify the main issues. The remainder of the report provides a full explanation.
--SB35 would compel a change in USG admissions policy that would prove most detrimental to home educators: the effective elimination of the alternative admission path for people educated outside of professional oversight. It would thereby unintentionally force all high school students who desire enrollment in the USG into accreditation/standardization. This would affect the freedom we parents have in Georgia law to freely choose the best educational option for our children.
--SB35 implies that it is possible and desirable, for the purpose of college admissions, to evaluate all home-educated students in the same way/on the “same basis” as institutionally-schooled students. This directive is neither possible nor desirable, and it certainly isn't necessary in order to have a fair admissions policy.
--SB35 states, “…if the applicant has completed a home study program…” This unnecessary reference to completion of a home study program will prompt an unnecessary constraint in USG policy that does not already exist.
--The Board of Regents, per the Georgia Constitution, has the authority to set admission standards independently of the State Legislature; therefore, the language of this bill may be constitutionally ineffective. In this case, passage of SB 35 wouldn't create any negative outcomes through force of law, but it might unintentionally influence the Board of Regents to make harmful changes in policy, even while it encourages false hope of positive change.
Recommendations
The HEIR board believes this bill should be withdrawn.
If there is to be any further legislative attempt to promote good college admissions policy, then a discussion of a new bill with entirely different language should ensue. However, considering the fine points involved in codifying policy, the course of new legislation may not be prudent. Any bill introduced to codify policy could be “chipped away” with amendments, and correcting the resulting new policy would take yet another legislative effort.
We all must remember that any legislative effort designed to affect the University System of Georgia may be constitutionally ineffective, because the Georgia Constitution gives the Board of Regents, not the General Assembly, control over USG policy. Therefore, any adopted code on the subject might merely serve as a suggested model for good admissions policy. We certainly do not want such a model to have any pitfalls.
As a starting point for any admissions policy discussion, please refer to the suggestions under “What is good admissions policy?” at the end of this report.
Some More Detailed Background
These points should be considered in the context of today's USG admission policy, which offers alternative paths for admission. (See current admissions policy.) Though the bill speaks specifically of home study students, the alternatives do not discriminate based on whether an applicant prepared in a home study program. Today's USG policy discriminates based on whether an applicant prepared in an accredited program. Home study programs, like all non-public education programs, are either accredited or not, at the parent's discretion.
This paragraph was added 2-13-07:All applicants for enrollment to a USG institution have a few hurdles to clear before they can be considered for enrollment. The first is the USG's minimum SATI score requirement, which, for the top three college tiers is only 400 on the SAT math and 430 on the SAT verbal. This hurdle applies to all applicants. (The individual institutions have theoption of increasing the USG minimums.) Other hurdles follow. There are two basic admissions paths and the hurdles for one are different than for the other. (Other paths for exceptional cases are available- click here. We don't address these in this report.)
Those who are institutionally-schooled most commonly use the admissions path that is available only to graduates of accredited programs (including accredited home study programs). This path presents the "Freshman Index" (FI) hurdle. This standard is based upon transcript course grades, which the USG does not accept from unaccredited programs (including unaccredited home study programs and private schools). Course grades and aptitude test scores are used to calculate the FI, a score meant to predict an applicant's likelihood of success. There is no aptitude test cut score required for the freshman index. A higher GPA compensates for a lower test score and vice-versa.
In lieu of transcript requirements, the USG provides an alternative path for those who have prepared in unaccredited programs (including unaccredited private schools and home study programs). Most home-educated students, many of whom do not have course grades, benefit from this path. The alternative path involves aptitude tests and consideration of portfolios and other evidence of completion of the USG-defined “college preparatory curriculum”. (Note that course grades are more applicable to institutional schooling and education outside the home.) These applicants are required to have a better SAT I score than 50% of the other students (50th percentile) admitted to the respective institution in the previous year.
This alternative admissions path is subjective and needs improvement, but is important for two primary reasons:
--The desire to make unique educational choices is what drives large numbers of us to choose home study in the first place. Taking advantage of the freedom to educate our children in our own way-outside of the limitations imposed by standardization and accreditation-has produced an admirable record of results among home study students in Georgia for more than twenty years. Homeschoolers come to the University System of Georgia with portfolios that describe an incredible range of interests and accomplishments. Many come with mastery of diverse subjects, but without course grades.
--We wish to protect our right to educate our children without professional oversight (accreditation). The “freshman index” is only available to those preparing in accredited programs.
A Little History
Georgia's home educators have fought to continue to have an alternative path of admissions. The home educating community (in particular HEIR, and then the Coalition for Equitable USG Admissions, which was composed of unaccredited private schools, individual home educators and representatives from GHEA and HEIR) fought a former Chancellor for several years to change the alternative path from a grossly unfair testing rubric to today's more reasonable policy. The previous testing requirements were designed with the false premise that course-specific SAT II test cut scores could be considered “commensurate” with transcript course grades for the Freshman Index calculation. They presented a hurdle so high that only a tiny percentage of presently enrolled college students could clear it.
The present policy differs in principle on a few important points from that proposed by the Coalition, but it is certainly a superior policy to the previous testing rubric. (See HEIR's briefing for the USG Chancellor and HEIR's analysis of inequities in the old policy.)
Expanded discussion of the bill:
The first problem: SB35 would compel a change in USG admissions policy that would be most detrimental to thousands of Georgia home educators: the effective elimination of the alternative admission path for people educated outside of professional oversight, while the one remaining effective path would continue to be limited to graduates of accredited programs. This result would unintentionally force all high school students who desire enrollment in the USG into accreditation/standardization.
Two elements of the bill compel such a negative change:
(1) The bill states that “the applicant's scores on one or more nationally-recognized admissions tests are commensurate with those of entering freshmen in the institution;…” However, there are no defined test cut scores for clearing the FI hurdle, and the test scores for other students are all over the map. This would lead to one of three results, any of which would comply with the bill: a) the USG's Freshman Index concept would be radically changed; b) the alternate path would be eliminated; or c) the USG would reactivate the SAT II testing rubric.
Since the USG is heavily invested in the Freshman Index, it is very unlikely that they would choose to radically change that part of admissions policy. Since the old SAT II testing rubric would be a nearly impossible hurdle for any and all applicants, then either the second and third options would force all high school students who desire enrollment in the USG into accredited, standardized programs.
(2) The phrase “shall consider for admission an applicant to the institution as an undergraduate student on the same basis as any other student if the applicant has completed a home study program…” could be construed to indicate that an identical admissions standard for all applicants is required. Certainly the easiest way for a bureaucracy to comply with this requirement would be to simply eliminate diverse admissions paths.
If policy were changed in this manner, the USG's choice for the “same basis” of admission would undoubtedly be accreditation, thereby forcing all students who desire enrollment in the USG into accreditation/standardization. Even if accreditation were not a condition for transcript acceptance, a flexible means of evaluating portfolios and other non-transcript evidence for applicants of diverse educational backgrounds would be lost.
The second problem: The bill states, “…if the applicant has completed a home study program…” Currently, the alternative requirements for unaccredited applicants do not include proving completion of or graduation from high school. The USG is consistent on this point. If the USG will not accept transcripts from unaccredited programs, then obviously they will not accept diplomas from unaccredited programs. A high school diploma is irrelevant to college admission anyway, since the admissions decision is based upon achievement and aptitude beyond what can be demonstrated by diploma.
Home study programs are as varied as the people who choose this option, and their description need not include unnecessary definitions of beginning and completion, especially in law. Admissions advisors should have the experience and qualifications to evaluate college readiness when needed.
If this new requirement (“completion” of a home study program) were added, one of two negative outcomes could occur: a) The applicant would be required to submit a diploma which, since it will have been issued by an unaccredited program, would be considered just as invalid as a transcript from the program. This outcome would mean effective elimination of the alternative admission path. b) The applicant would be required to have a Graduation Equivalency Diploma. This requirement would be in addition to the testing already required and would be an unnecessary burden. Additionally, the State of Georgia cannot insure that the private publisher will continue to make the diploma available.
The third problem: The Board of Regents, per Article VIII, Section IV of the Georgia Constitution, has the authority to set admission standards independently of the State Legislature; therefore, the language of this bill may be constitutionally ineffective. In this case, passage of SB 35 wouldn't create any negative outcomes through force of law, but it might unintentionally influence the Board of Regents to make harmful changes in policy, even while it encourages false hope of positive change.
What is Good Admissions Policy?
We are amenable to legislation that advocates appropriate policy even if it is non-binding. Here are three excellent guidelines for policy:
(1) Georgia law and policy should not make the assumption that only those who have prepared in accredited or professionally staffed education programs can qualify for any benefits of the state. Specifically, the University System of Georgia should not make the assumption that only students who have prepared in accredited or professionally staffed education programs can qualify for, are prepared for, or can benefit from regular admissions, joint enrollment, or early enrollment. The USG's policies for REGULAR admissions meet this standard; however, the policies for joint and early enrollment do not.
The Georgia Accrediting Commission has developed a standard for serving as the government's proxy to regulate home education is Georgia. Their infrastructure of accrediting centers is being built and the growth is being fueled by demand created by government policy counter to this guideline.
Remember: “Accreditation as the only solution is NO solution.”
(2) “The admission standards of the University System of Georgia should involve multiple measures as appropriate for various student cohorts and should be based on their effectiveness in predicting college success for diverse students." - From the Board of Regents' Policy Direction on Admissions. "We must insure that increased accountability does not impede increases in entrepreneurship and risk taking." S. Portch, Chancellor's State of the USG Address, September, 1997.
Let's hold the USG to this.
(3) To be fair, the various admissions paths should present hurdles of equal challenge. Fairness can be tested by comparing the relative retention and graduation rates of the students enrolled under the different paths. Better performance by those enrolled via a particular path would indicate that that path presents a more challenging hurdle. A past Chancellor of the USG promised to track those students enrolled under each path and to periodically assess the performance in consultation with representatives of unaccredited programs.
This promise goes unfulfilled.
Text of Senate Bill 35 (as of 2/9/07)
Senate Bill 35
By: Senators Pearson of the 51st, Harp of the 29th, Weber of the 40th, Smith of the 52nd and Rogers of the 21st
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
To amend Part 2 of Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the University System of Georgia, so as to provide that students who have completed a home study program who apply for admission to member institutions of the University System of Georgia as an undergraduate student and who meet certain criteria shall be considered for admission on the same basis; to authorize the board of regents to promulgate rules and regulations regarding such admissions; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to provide for applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
Part 2 of Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the University System of Georgia, is amended by inserting a new Code section to read as follows:
"20-3-66.1.
(a) A member institution of the University System of Georgia shall consider for admission an applicant to the institution as an undergraduate student on the same basis as any other student if the applicant has completed a home study program and meets the residency requirements of the board of regents and if:
(1) The applicant´s scores on one or more nationally recognized admissions tests are commensurate with those of entering freshmen in the institution; and
(2) The applicant´s scores on the institution´s entrance or placement examinations would allow the student to be placed in freshman-level, nonremedial classes.
(b) The board of regents is authorized to adopt rules and regulations relating to the operation of admissions programs under this Code section. "
SECTION 2.
This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2007, and shall apply to all applicants on and after that date.
SECTION 3.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
----------------------------
