<p>I just saw on the news that there is a proposed change to this state scholarship program that would require students who take jobs outside of FL to repay the scholarship money. Is that not that the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard, particularly in this economy! I cannot believe legislators are evening considering this, these kids need to be able to take a job wherever they can find one, without the risk of penealty. My son didn't use a Bright Futures Scholarship, but he graduated last year and did take a job out of state, despite being offered one locally. One of the major reasons he chose the out of state job was the cost of living was so much cheaper where he relocated, not to mention the fabulous benefits package. He was actually offered a higher salary here, but his dollars go a whole lot farther where he lives! I sure hope this change doesn't get approved, but this is Florida we are talking about, lol!</p>
<p>I guess I don’t see it as being ridiculous. The state is offering the money, by keeping kids in the state after graduation they help fund these programs through taxes. It’s a choice kids have to make. Most kids do end up working near where they go to college, especially if that is their home state. I don’t see a problem with this.</p>
<p>You are making the assumption that these kids can get a job in state. My son was the only one in his graduating class of electrical engineers that had a job at graduation. Of the ones who have found jobs since, only two have stayed in state, one working a temporary assignment. More than half of his classmates have gone to grad school, not because they had a burning desire to continue their education, because they could not find a job! And this scholarship program is funded by lottery sales, not taxes.</p>
<p>This bill, which was just filed yesterday, first needs to be assigned to a series of committees, which will consider it sequentially only after the Florida Legislature opens on March 5. If you would like to guarantee that this bill dies in committee and never reaches the House floor, much less consideration in the Senate, now is the time to organize. Alert your friends and associates, together or individually contact your local legislators (they are not scheduled for anything formal in Tallahassee until the week of January 14), and express your displeasure politely, but forcefully. Repeat as necessary. About two days’ notice is given that a bill will be heard by a specific committee/subcommittee.
Last year was the first time I followed education legislation blow-by-blow, and there were a number of proposed bills that horrified me, but that nonetheless were never even scheduled to be heard in committee.
Just be vigilant. There will certainly be other bills proposed before—or even after—March 5 that will attempt to monkey with the current structure of Bright Futures.</p>
<p>Bright Futures was initially proposed as a 100% merit based scholarship for FL high school graduates. It was intended to be available to all, funded by taxpayers for the benefit of residents. Students cannot qualify for Bright Futures if they are not FL residents. </p>
<p>It seems terribly unfair to students to saddle them with what amounts to a student loan of unknown size/term simply because they choose a job out of state. They were children of taxpayers, attended school in FL, probably worked in FL at some point prior to graduation. Their contract with the state is that they get money for school as long as they meet their academic requirements. </p>
<p>Sometimes the people in Tally make me crazy.</p>
<p>I just checked the final report (Nov. 6, 2012) of the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform, and noted that their Recommendation #4 under “Funding” is that both Bright Futures and Florida Prepaid require further “analysis.” which may lead to specific recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. Judging from last year’s legislative discussions, this may mean stiffening requirements (including income ceilings) for BF, as well as requiring further parent contributions for FL Prepaid.</p>
<p>Thanks for the update.</p>
<p>This proposal is stupid. It won’t become law.</p>
<p>I’d pay for many Florida legislators and elected officials to leave Florida.</p>
<p>The entire point of “bright futures” is to provide a future work force for the state of Florida. One of my daughters did take advantage of the program. However, it is also true that the job market in Florida is pretty bad, especially in certain industries. The solution is pretty easy it seems to me: Require those taking advantage of the scholarship to prove that there does not exist a position in their field. To be honest? If they have not used reasonable efforts to find employment within their field in Florida, then they should reimburse the taxpayers for their education.</p>
<p>It seems as if Bright Futures goal of keeping top students in FL was too successful. The state flagships became so competitive that almost every student admitted qualified for Bright Futures, although one of my daughter’s high school teachers facetiously referred to it as a “one year scholarship” since many students weren’t able to meet the college GPA requirements to maintain and lost it by their sophomore year.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s realistic for the state to continue to fund the program in its current form with Florida’s declining economy.</p>
<p>Update: the bill in question, HB 35, has yet to gain additional legislative sponsors at a point where other bills (texting while driving bills, resident status for tuition purposes bills, for example) are beginning to do so. No companion bill has yet to be proposed in the Florida Senate. There is likely to be action on Bright Futures at some point this coming legislative session, but this particular option does not appear to be attracting much interest.</p>
<p>I may be a little late, but if this bill were to become a law, even though it looks like it won’t, I don’t know how I’d feel about it. It makes me wonder if they’re going to even use the money that the students paid back for future educational purposes. It most likely wont affect me. I’ll be most likely living in Tampa where the salary is going strong for my career and then relocate to Arizona or Colorado a few years down the road.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt this is constitutional. States do not have arbitrary power to interfere with interstate commerce, and penalizing people for working out of state is interference.</p>
<p>^It’s not a penalty if they (the students) agree to the conditions before accepting the money. I don’t see a problem with it.</p>
<p>It’s a really dumb idea, unless the concept was applied to athletic scholarships, especially the best athletes that leave Florida for a professional athletic career.</p>
<p>The type of athletes that have professional options? espcially the ones that appear in bowl games? help schools make money. If you’re talking diving and gymnastics? I agree. Otherwise, Apples/Oranges</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could the “scholarship” be restructured such that it is a loan that is forgiven if the person works in Florida for some X amount of time after graduation? If so that is essentially the same thing without that issue, right?</p>
<p>I understand the motivation for it. It’s the only sensible reason someone for centralization of education could ever have. The reason why we use tax dollars to fund education is so that the educated can become better producers in the future and repay the money used for their education in the form of paid taxes and innovation. But if that investment is destroyed because the newly educated leaves the political area, it only harms the state, taxpayers, and all citizens of that political area. Greater centralization reduces this loss. But Florida cannot integrate it’s education system with another state’s, so it’s stuck. This is an attempt to unstick it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While easy in concept, it can be very difficult to prove or disprove that there does not exist a suitable job for the new graduate within the state (and who gets to judge whether a job is “suitable”?).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A state may assume that some students will leave the state upon graduation, but that enough will stay after graduating, so that their upgraded skills from education will be a net positive return on investment in terms of improving the state’s economy (from the state’s point of view with respect to scholarships and in-state tuition subsidies).</p>
<p>Indeed, some states like Alabama offer attractive scholarships for out-of-state students, hoping that they will attend the state university; some of them will stay and contribute to the state economy, even if some of them will leave the state at graduation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe that’s not what’s happening in Florida. Maybe it’s not a net positive. Or at least the people proposing this change don’t view it as a net positive. What should the state do in that event? Either they remove the subsidies or they attempt to reform them by doing something like this. Just because greater subsidization works in Alabama doesn’t mean that this subsidization works in Florida.</p>