Letter to Governor asking for increased spending on financial aid to college students

 Governor J.B. Pritzker

Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706

Dear Governor Pritzker,

I hope this letter finds you well. My name is [Student Name], and I am a student at the University of Illinois Springfield (UIS). I am writing to express my concern about the recent Executive Order proposing cuts to financial aid for Illinois students, which will directly impact my ability to continue my education.

I understand that financial decisions are often difficult and that budget constraints must be considered. However, I urge you to reconsider these cuts, as they will have a significant negative impact on students like myself and our communities. 

Here are a few points I ask you to consider:

• Impact on Low-Income Students: Many students, including myself, rely on financial aid to pursue their education. Cuts to financial aid will disproportionately affect low-income students, preventing them from attending college and stifling their potential.
• Increased Student Debt: With fewer financial aid options, students will have no choice but to take on more debt, which will create long-term financial burdens. This will make it even harder for us to contribute to the state’s economy after graduation.
• Impact on Workforce Development: Illinois has a vested interest in producing a highly educated workforce. Cutting financial aid will reduce access to higher education, ultimately impacting the state’s competitiveness in industries that rely on skilled labor.
• Community Impact: Many students come from communities that already face challenges. Financial aid is often the only thing that allows students to break the cycle of poverty and give it back to their communities. The cuts would not only harm the individuals affected but also hurt the communities they would otherwise help to uplift.

As a student and future contributor to Illinois’ workforce, I strongly believe that investing in education is essential to building a stronger, more prosperous state. While I understand the need for fiscal responsibility, I urge you to consider the long-term economic benefits of a more educated population, which ultimately pays dividends for the state. By cutting financial aid, we risk creating a less educated workforce that is unable to contribute effectively to the state’s economy.

I appreciate your time and consideration of my request, and I hope you will reconsider the proposed cuts to financial aid. Thank you for your service to the people of Illinois, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
[Student Name]
University of Illinois Springfield

It is a well-crafted letter to the Governor.  

I think it would have been better to specify whether you were concerned that cuts to federal financial aid would harm Illinois college students, and you were asking the governor to increase state funding to replace the lost federal funding, or whether the Governor had announced cuts to financial assistance to Illinois students, and you were asking the governor to reconsider this budget allocation decision. Your use of “Executive Order” suggests to me that you are referring to a presidential cut to student financial aid, in which case you ought to have made some sort of a suggestion that Illinois needs to provide a counter-example to what is happening at the federal level   Aside from that, let me focus on the many things these letter does well.

I like how you politely acknowledge why the Governor might not follow your advice.  You write that you understand the need for fiscal responsibility, which shows that you have empathy for the position of your audience.  Also, you directly address this objection by making an argument that the long-term benefits of financial aid for college students will be greater than the cost of providing financial aid. This is actually fairly well-supported by research.  Funding for transportation infrastructure, higher education, K-12 education, and prevention (preventing STDs, violence, crime, unwanted pregnancies, substance use disorders and addiction, etc.) are all the sort of government spending that brings in cost-savings in the long-run. 

I think it is generally a good move to provide a bulleted list of points in favor of whatever you are advocating. The points should be brief and convincing, and this is true of the four points you provide in your list.

You make an argument about fairness, but you are not explicit in your case.  Yes, it is wrong that a cut in financial assistance will disproportionately harm students from lower-income households.  Why is that wrong?  There are three points you could make.  Education should be available for everyone to pursue their potential as far as they can, and their financial means should not determine how far they go in their education—only their ability or interest should limit their educational progress.  That is one assumption (one shared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) about access to education.  And another point regards the purpose of public higher education in a democracy.  That is, public higher education is a tool in a democracy for persons from lower incomes to receive the training and expertise that will help them enjoy upward mobility and a move into an adulthood with higher incomes.  That is, public higher education allows for a meritocracy where individual merit, rather than individual wealth, will be the primary determination of how much income a person earns.  The governor to whom you have written is a person who has enjoyed inherited wealth, and has a demonstrated sense of obligation to create a society where other people can also rise up to wealth.  Thus, he stands in contrast to those with inherited wealth who prefer to have wealthy families keep all their wealth and create barriers to prevent the rise of new wealth out of the lower classes.  The other point is that persons with higher educations tend to earn more money and generally cost the government less in terms of welfare spending.  So, it makes good sense to educate young people from the bottom half of the income distribution so that they will earn higher incomes in their careers, pay more taxes, and be less likely to suddenly become poor and need use of the social welfare safety net during economic downturns. 

These points could have been added, but really, you already cover several good points in this letter.