• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

President Bush has emphasized education, but has no specific programs in place.

President Bush has pledged to leave no child behind, but higher education may be lagging on his priorities.

Bush has continued to fund existing higher education needs such as financial aid and institutional development, but has not devoted the same attention or the publicity given to younger students.

Though Bush, like many presidents before him, has not focused on higher education, he has continued and even increased the typical funding instituted by previous administrations.

“For all the students interested in seeking higher education there is now money to help them get there,” said Jane Glickman, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education. “That’s what the federal government’s role is: to provide money for needy students.”

But it seems money is the only real source of aid the federal government has provided higher education for the past several years.

Since 2001, the budget for higher education programs has increased from $10.47 billion to a projected $38.3 billion in spending for 2004. Bush has plans to continue to increase the higher education budget in 2005.

Though Bush makes statements stressing the importance of higher education, he has no specific programs or acts in Congress to support his words.

But traditionally, the federal government is not expected to play a substantial role in higher education, so many people do not see this as a fault.

Former President Bill Clinton submitted a proposal to Congress that included increased benefits for higher education, but the proposals were also purely monetary – including an increase to Pell Grant money, new scholarships, tax deductions and financial aid. The work done by Bush has been comparable.

“The Bush administration has not done much at all, but I would expect that of him or any other president,” said Clara Lovett, president of the American Association for Higher Education. “Higher education is primarily the responsibility of the state. That is where the action is and that is where it’s going to be.”

But Bush’s negligible effect on higher education extends beyond the presidency. As governor of Texas, his impact at the state level was also small.

He served as the governor of Texas starting in 1994 until he became president in 2001. During that time, there was little work done on higher education.

“His focus tended to be more on public education for more K-12. That’s my recollection,” said Ray Grashoff, a spokesman at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. “Here in Texas the position of the governor is relatively weak. ... The main authority is in appointments.”

Grashoff added that Bush appointed the members of the coordinating board who developed a new higher education plan known as Closing the Gaps by 2015.

During Bush’s term, Texas’ national rank for the college continuation rate of high school graduates dropped from 26th to 40th. Also, the rate of students who both graduated and continued with their college education was 31.3 percent in 1998. This put Texas between 44th and 47th out of the 50 states from 1992-1998.

Bush’s record in secondary and elementary education is also one surrounded by skepticism. He has spent the majority of his time working with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The program, originally backed by bipartisan support, now has many people up in arms.

The act aims to guarantee quality education for every student by instituting standardized tests to gauge student progress.

In many states, including California, there were already tests in place to measure student progress, but the act breaks down the scores by background, ethnicity and other factors to see how specific groups of students are doing.

But people say the problem with this philosophy is that the government has not provided enough money to ensure that each group, especially disadvantaged groups, can meet standards.

“There is widespread agreement that there is not sufficient funding to cover the cost of the program,” said Rick Pratt, the assistant executive director of the California School Boards Association. “It is underfunded by about $70 billion. Even if No Child Left Behind were fully funded it would still be flawed because of the details.”

One of the details is the fact that the different groups of students learn and progress at different rates. For example, students who are disadvantaged or have special education needs cannot, according to critics, be expected to progress at the same rates as students who do not face the same obstacles.

Additionally, though there is a national test that compares scores between states, there is no national standard set by the federal government.

“It actually has a perverse incentive because it provides disincentives for states to set high standards,” Pratt said. “The state of Arkansas had zero schools in need of improvement because their standards were lower.”

What was once hailed as Bush’s primary asset on the domestic affairs front, No Child Left Behind may now be a vulnerability for him in the upcoming presidential campaign.

Higher education will likely not play a large role in the November election because attention will be largely dedicated to national security, foreign policy and the economy.

But Bush has little he can point to for his education policies save for the hotly contested No Child Left Behind.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, almost all the candidates designed plans to improve higher education, including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the likely party nominee.

Bush does not have a specific plan except for increasing the money allotted to existing programs.

Since 2000, funding for student financial aid has increased by $4.4 billion to $73.1 billion. This money is divided between work-study and grant and loan programs.

There is also an increase to Pell Grant program in the 2005 budget to bring funding levels to $12.9 billion. But even with this increase there would still be an approximate $3.7 billion needed to fund the projected number of students eligible to receive Pell Grants.

The other part of the proposed 2005 fiscal budget addressed to higher education calls for $2 billion to be spent to further institutional development, assure that all students have equal access to higher education, and provide students with increased opportunities for international education.

“There has been legislation in Congress for years to increase funding to institutional development programs, and it looks like they got it done,” Lovett said.

“That did come out of the administration. It is not a new idea; it was pursued by the previous administration as well.”

Comments

Post a comment