乔治亚希望奖学金计划的政治史:批判性分析

Michael Lanford
{"title":"乔治亚希望奖学金计划的政治史:批判性分析","authors":"Michael Lanford","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2017.1305258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since its first announcement on 22 September 1992, the HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) scholarship program’s influence on state policy and American higher education has been remarkable. Nevertheless, the Georgia HOPE scholarship is also worthy of critical interrogation. This paper examines the conception and implementation of the HOPE scholarship program by demonstrating how political agents made numerous changes to the scholarship to gain votes from their middle- and upper-class constituencies. Drawing upon primary sources (including oral histories and newspaper articles), I argue that these changes have crippled the HOPE scholarship’s effectiveness, damaged its ability to serve equity goals, and potentially endangered its future. This historical analysis is conducted through three theoretical prisms. The first draws upon the work of List and Sturm, who argue that ‘secondary policy issues’ that affect a limited number of people (e.g. a scholarship program) are still subject to the ‘disciplining effect’ of elections. The second concerns policy-focused political science, of which Hacker and Pierson's theory of ‘politics as organized combat’ plays a primary role. The third draws from Alon, S. (2009. “The Evolution of Class Inequality in Higher Education: Competition, Exclusion, and Adaptation.” American Sociological Review 74 (3): 731–55) theory of inequality in higher education, in which scholarship allocations are dependent upon a ‘shifting meritocracy’ that favors privileged socioeconomic groups.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The political history of the Georgia HOPE scholarship program: a critical analysis\",\"authors\":\"Michael Lanford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23322969.2017.1305258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Since its first announcement on 22 September 1992, the HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) scholarship program’s influence on state policy and American higher education has been remarkable. Nevertheless, the Georgia HOPE scholarship is also worthy of critical interrogation. This paper examines the conception and implementation of the HOPE scholarship program by demonstrating how political agents made numerous changes to the scholarship to gain votes from their middle- and upper-class constituencies. Drawing upon primary sources (including oral histories and newspaper articles), I argue that these changes have crippled the HOPE scholarship’s effectiveness, damaged its ability to serve equity goals, and potentially endangered its future. This historical analysis is conducted through three theoretical prisms. The first draws upon the work of List and Sturm, who argue that ‘secondary policy issues’ that affect a limited number of people (e.g. a scholarship program) are still subject to the ‘disciplining effect’ of elections. The second concerns policy-focused political science, of which Hacker and Pierson's theory of ‘politics as organized combat’ plays a primary role. The third draws from Alon, S. (2009. “The Evolution of Class Inequality in Higher Education: Competition, Exclusion, and Adaptation.” American Sociological Review 74 (3): 731–55) theory of inequality in higher education, in which scholarship allocations are dependent upon a ‘shifting meritocracy’ that favors privileged socioeconomic groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":212965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Reviews in Higher Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Reviews in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2017.1305258\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2017.1305258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

自1992年9月22日首次宣布以来,HOPE(帮助优秀学生教育)奖学金项目对国家政策和美国高等教育的影响是显著的。然而,佐治亚霍普奖学金也值得批判性的质疑。本文考察了HOPE奖学金计划的概念和实施,展示了政治代理人如何对奖学金进行大量改变,以获得中上层选民的选票。根据第一手资料(包括口述历史和报纸文章),我认为这些变化削弱了HOPE奖学金的有效性,损害了它为公平目标服务的能力,并可能危及它的未来。这种历史分析是通过三个理论棱镜进行的。第一种观点借鉴了List和Sturm的研究成果,他们认为影响少数人的“次要政策问题”(例如奖学金计划)仍然受到选举的“纪律效应”的影响。第二部分涉及以政策为中心的政治学,其中Hacker和Pierson的“政治作为有组织的战斗”理论起着主要作用。第三部分来自Alon, S.(2009)。高等教育中阶级不平等的演变:竞争、排斥与适应。美国社会学评论74(3):731-55)高等教育不平等理论,其中奖学金分配依赖于有利于特权社会经济群体的“不断变化的精英统治”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The political history of the Georgia HOPE scholarship program: a critical analysis
ABSTRACT Since its first announcement on 22 September 1992, the HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) scholarship program’s influence on state policy and American higher education has been remarkable. Nevertheless, the Georgia HOPE scholarship is also worthy of critical interrogation. This paper examines the conception and implementation of the HOPE scholarship program by demonstrating how political agents made numerous changes to the scholarship to gain votes from their middle- and upper-class constituencies. Drawing upon primary sources (including oral histories and newspaper articles), I argue that these changes have crippled the HOPE scholarship’s effectiveness, damaged its ability to serve equity goals, and potentially endangered its future. This historical analysis is conducted through three theoretical prisms. The first draws upon the work of List and Sturm, who argue that ‘secondary policy issues’ that affect a limited number of people (e.g. a scholarship program) are still subject to the ‘disciplining effect’ of elections. The second concerns policy-focused political science, of which Hacker and Pierson's theory of ‘politics as organized combat’ plays a primary role. The third draws from Alon, S. (2009. “The Evolution of Class Inequality in Higher Education: Competition, Exclusion, and Adaptation.” American Sociological Review 74 (3): 731–55) theory of inequality in higher education, in which scholarship allocations are dependent upon a ‘shifting meritocracy’ that favors privileged socioeconomic groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Peeling the multiple layers of inequalities in free higher education policies Intermediary organizations and their role in advancing the SDGs in higher education Provincial government and institution level strategy setting: the case of building Chinese ‘world-class universities’ POLICY REVIEWS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: EDITORIAL, Volume 7, Issue 2, September 2023 Isomorphic tensions and anxiety in UK social science doctoral provision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1