Coalition's Open Letter to Georgia Parents

February 1, 1999

The Georgia Coalition for Equitable USG Admissions was formed in March, 1998 to give a voice to the 60,000 students in home study and unaccredited private schools whose access to the University System of Georgia was severely restricted by new admissions policies adopted in March, 1997. Many individuals had attempted to convince the Chancellor and his staff that the new policy was unfair, without success. The Coalition, with participation from AAEN, FRN, GHEA, HEIR, HHE, and a number of local support groups, worked for six months, carefully considering the needs of both the affected students and the USG. The Coalition's proposal was widely discussed in the community, and is available on the internet at http://www.heir.org/coaleqad/.

On January 20, 1999, Chancellor Portch responded to the Coalition. On receiving his letter, we immediately shared it with as many of our constituents statewide as possible given the short response time that he imposed. Because of the geographic dispersion of our roughly 60,000 constituents and the ambiguities in his letter, we are not prepared at this time to either accept or reject his counterproposal as a whole. We view his willingness to re-open joint enrollment to our students as a step in the right direction. However, it is fair to say that, overall, the consensus of community opinion leaders is that his letter falls rather short of the mark primarily for the three reasons explained below.

To begin with, he stated in his letter that he "accepts in principle" the Coalition Proposal ("Proposal"), yet his counter-proposal appears to diverge in important respects from the fundamental principles of the Proposal. Here are two examples (there are a number of others): First, his proposal would require that the Academic Studies Report ("ASR") designed by the Coalition parallel the elements of the College Preparatory Curriculum ("CPC"). In contrast, our Proposal, consistent with BOR policy statements, recognizes the value of curricular innovation and diversity. The Proposal allows non-traditional students, whose curriculum may vary in some respects from the CPC, the option to tailor their ASRs to their individualized courses of study. Second, while his letter expresses a willingness to temporarily eliminate SAT II tests as an admissions criterion, he would still require our students to take SAT II tests for other purposes. In contrast, our Proposal clearly delineates (a) why we view the SAT II exam as ill-suited for any purpose connected with the admissions policy and (b) why it is unfair to single out the Coalition’s educational system for discriminatory SAT II treatment when available nationwide data demonstrate that the alternative approaches to education which we employ reliably produce college-ready graduates. Although the Chancellor would like to accuse us of "quibbling," we believe that it is reasonable and responsible to ask for clarification about what we see as arbitrary or discriminatory treatment at the hands of a state agency.

The second reason for the overall negative reaction to the Chancellor's counter-proposal is that it is so ambiguous with respect to major issues of principle, fact, policy, and details of implementation that it is impossible for us to thoroughly and responsibly evaluate it. For example, in the first paragraph of his letter, he alludes generally to his disagreement with some facts asserted in the Proposal, but he does not identify any particular fact as disputed. Likewise, he does not explain why our students should be required to take the SAT II tests when incoming foreign nationals and other non-traditional students--who in most instances do not have transcripts which parallel the CPC--are not required to do so. Why should the admissions process be more burdensome for Georgia's citizens than for citizens of foreign countries? For the citizens affected by the Chancellor's proposal to give it due consideration, they need to know the factual findings upon which it is based, the principles which it represents, and the plan for its implementation.

Finally, there are the issues of timing and exclusion from the policy-making process. The current policy was formed without any substantive input or dialog with the affected community. Since it was instituted in 1997, various members of our community have informally raised with the Chancellor their concerns about the discrimination inherent in the new policy. Since April, 1998, the Coalition has worked diligently to craft a proposal which addresses the problems in the current policy with thoroughness and clarity in principle and detail. We find it extraordinary that after delivering the Proposal on September 30, 1998, the Chancellor would remain silent until January 20, 1999, at which time we received a counter-proposal of the nature described above, and which contained essentially a "take it or leave it" ultimatum and a ten-day response deadline. While it goes without saying that we want to see this issue dealt with expeditiously, we are equally concerned that it be dealt with fairly and responsibly.

In summary, while the Chancellor's letter leaves us generally unsettled, we are pleased to have received a direct communication from him and would welcome an invitation to engage in a process involving genuine, face-to-face dialogue which might efficiently serve to settle this matter in a satisfactory way for all concerned.