The language of Senate Bill 86, which would implement a broad overhaul of Florida’s Bright Futures scholarship program, will be substantially changed during tomorrow’s meeting of the Senate Education Committee. However, a provision on reducing Bright Futures awards to students who earn college credits via AP, IB, AICE and dual enrollment programs in high school would still penalize college students majoring in engineering, the physical sciences and computer science who pass AP Physics 1 and similar algebra-based physics courses in high school.
The language in the “delete-all” amendment to Senate Bill 86 that is on tomorrow’s Senate Education Committee agenda is shown above. AP Physics 1, an algebra-based course which is arguably the best preparation available for the calculus-based physics courses required for college students majoring in engineering, the physical sciences and computer science, provides “postsecondary credit hours” that are “accepted toward the general education requirements of an associate or baccalaureate degree”. Therefore, the language would require that the number of credit hours covered by a Bright Futures award would be reduced for any student who passed the AP Physics 1 exam. This reduction would not directly harm a student majoring in life and health science majors like biology since AP Physics 1 would satisfy one semester of the physics requirement for such majors. But the reduction would harm engineering, physical science and computer science majors, who must take calculus-based physics courses to meet their graduation requirements.
I first laid out this argument in an Orlando Sentinel op-ed that appeared in the paper’s March 6 issue.
In the Sentinel op-ed, I also discussed the example of AP Computer Science Principles, which Florida leaders are using to encourage a broad range of students to consider careers in computing. That course does not satisfy any degree or general education requirements at the state’s universities, so under the new language students passing the AP Computer Science Principles course would not be penalized with a reduction in their Bright Futures awards.
The third example I cited in the Sentinel commentary was AP Calculus AB, which would satisfy the requirement for Calculus 1 that students majoring in engineering, the physical sciences and computer science must meet. Therefore, Bright Futures awards would be reduced for students who passed the AP Calculus AB exam. However, a few of Florida’s universities require students to pass a placement test to be registered for Calculus 2, even if they passed the AP Calculus AB exam. A student who passes the AP Calculus AB exam and who does not place into Calculus 2 on the university placement exam would suffer a Bright Futures penalty.
There are likely more landmines like these hidden beneath the surface of the AP/IB/AICE/dual enrollment language in Senate Bill 86. The only way to make sure that deserving students are not penalized would be to remove this provision of the bill altogether. Higher education policy should be focused on outcomes – in this case on giving students pursuing engineering, physical science and computer science majors the best possible opportunity to graduate in those fields. Given the value of graduates in these fields to the state and national economies, harassing these students with cockeyed disincentives makes no sense.
Of course, the bigger issue in Senate Bill 86 is the provision that would cut Bright Futures awards to college students who choose majors that – in the words of the “delete-all” amendment – “do not lead directly to employment”. Many of these majors will be in the arts and humanities, and that provision will dominate the debate tomorrow and in the coming weeks.
Bridge to Tomorrow 