It is the government’s blood surging through the veins of
American academia. The influence of the federal government drives
much of the action of the American education system, but the
government’s specific role is frequently changing and often
disputed. While the government has an obligation to keep the
academic infrastructure funded and functioning, it walks a fine
line between fulfilling its obligations and asserting immoderate
influence in areas best left to the schools. Educators routinely
battle bills that threaten to impose federal regulation on course
curricula or campus policies. Meanwhile, these selfsame educators
greet with open arms the prospect of legislation intent on
increasing educational funds or resources. With the upcoming
Democratic presidential primary, the role of the government is
taking center stage as many of the candidates are ironing out their
education policies. From funding to admissions to course curricula,
the government weaves its obligations with its agendas to create
the delicate fabric that is the relationship between the government
and education. As such, the role of the government as it pertains
to higher education is in constant flux.
A look back This year marks the 50th
anniversary of what many consider to be the most important Supreme
Court ruling in the history of education ““ and perhaps the
biggest ruling of the 20th century. In 1954, Brown v. Board of
Education overturned the controversial 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson
ruling that sanctioned large-scale racial segregation in American
schools, making racial equality possible in education nationwide.
U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige recently spoke of the resistance
to the Brown ruling, as people from all walks of life took steps to
undermine the decision. “Brown didn’t trickle down into
some states for more than 20 years,” Paige said. “Well
into the ’70s, there were still some states that practiced a
form of legal reasoned segregation, in defiance of the Brown
decision.” Though it took a long time, the decision did have
far-reaching and lasting effects, and the government was lauded for
its achievement in advancing the ideals of the Constitution. But
the influence of the government exists in education far beyond
issues of race.
Getting in Prospective college students are
familiar with the many difficulties of applying to college, which
include essays, grades and enrollment restrictions. And although
admissions is largely a concern of universities, the federal
government occasionally enters the process. As one of the elite
university systems in the world, it is difficult for students to
gain admission to the UC even in the most promising of economic
times. This year, about 32,000 new students enrolled in the
University of California. That number stands to be reduced by 10
percent next school year due to economic hardships facing
California. Most of the UC-centered legislation comes from the
state government. Often, the state acts in response to the
economics and politics of the time and within the legislative
boundaries set up by the federal government. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s recent budget proposal is seen by many as an
attempt to repair the state during economic crisis, rather than a
reparation of long-standing problems. But sometimes the problems
become so prominent that the federal government feels it has to
step in. One such issue is that of the low graduation rates of
minority students. In an effort to address this, Sen. Edward
Kennedy, D-Mass., recently proposed a bill to eliminate early
decision and legacy admissions programs and to punish schools with
minority graduation rates 10 percent or more below their overall
graduation rates. Senate Democrats considered including this bill
as part of their plan to reauthorize the Higher Education Act of
1998. Legacy admissions refers to the preference applicants receive
if they have had family members who previously attended the
university. The bill was founded on the idea that early decision
and legacy admissions programs hurt minority student enrollment.
Many minority students need to compare financial aid packages and
cannot afford to apply as an early decision candidate, Kennedy
said. But the bill has met with extreme opposition from schools and
higher education associations. The American Council on Education,
representing 11 higher education associations, objects to the bill
on the grounds that there is no evidence that early decision hurts
minorities. Furthermore, the council said the role of the
government should not be so intimately tied with admissions
procedures. “(The bill) would fundamentally alter the
longstanding independence of colleges and universities to admit
students without federal interference,” said David Ward, the
president of ACE, in a letter to Kennedy. The bill currently
remains in limbo. But raising the enrollment and graduation rates
of minority students remains a concern for members of the federal
government.
Affirmative action Last week, Texas A&M
University scrapped its legacy admissions policy because
administrators considered it inconsistent with the idea that
admission qualification was based solely on merit. The announcement
came in response to a December statement by Texas A&M President
Robert Gates that the university would seek to enroll more minority
students. The decision met with opposition from some local
politicians, who wanted the university to go a step further and
reinstate affirmative action. The university does not currently use
affirmative action in its admissions procedures. Texas A&M is
one of many schools throughout the country that has abolished
affirmative action from its admissions procedures. Over 15 states
have introduced legislation to end the use of affirmative action,
including California. In 1996, Proposition 209 eliminated the
consideration of race and gender in admissions and hiring by all of
California’s state agencies. A popular criticism of
affirmative action is that it promotes reverse racism by
discriminating against whites. But many politicians, organizations
and citizens have expressed support for affirmative action. ACE is
a proponent of affirmative action, because it encourages diversity
in the student population of U.S. colleges and universities. Last
June, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s
right to use affirmative action in two separate cases. Collectively
considered among the most important rulings on affirmative action,
these cases reaffirmed the right of colleges and universities to
operate without intrusion by the federal government. President Bush
expressed support for efforts to achieve racial diversity in U.S.
colleges and universities but was ambiguous about his stance on
affirmative action. “The method used by the University of
Michigan to achieve (racial diversity) is fundamentally
flawed,” Bush said in a speech at the time of the case. And
as the debate on admissions policy continues, the appropriate role
of the government in education again comes to the foreground. While
judicial rulings and congressional regulations determine many of
the policies, the will of the schools dictates their role in
relation to government.
The politics of education The nature of
politics influences education indirectly at times through political
discourse, as officials debate academic issues for political
posturing. The Bush administration recently celebrated the second
anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. The act, hailed by
supporters as the most significant legislation for education in
decades, created a network of accountability procedures that
measure student performance and demand improvement. In a speech at
the American Enterprise Institute, Secretary Paige likened the No
Child Left Behind Act to the Brown ruling. “Those who fought
Brown were on the wrong side of history, just like those who fight
No Child Left Behind will be judged so,” Paige said.
Democrats have a slightly different view. After receiving
bipartisan support in its infant stages, the act has grown into a
highly politicized and partisan issue, especially as the
presidential campaign heats up. The development of standards for
schools to ensure academic improvement across racial categories was
praised for its ideals, but the act was criticized for its
implementation. The Democratic candidates have come out in full
force to criticize the No Child Left Behind Act. For many
candidates, their criticism provides a platform on which they can
introduce their own education plans. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
criticizes the act for relying purely on test scores to determine
how well students are performing. He suggests using additional
indicators, like student attendance and graduation rates, to
determine relative success of school districts. “The quality
of our public schools should not be determined by a
“˜one-size-fits-all’ testing plan,” Kerry said in
a statement. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has, at times,
suggested a complete overhaul of the act. Dean, along with other
Democrats, have pointed out that the act rewards school districts
that set low standards because their students need not perform as
highly as they might otherwise. Kerry has suggested school
districts be rewarded for setting high standards. The act was
championed upon its unveiling, but it has gradually fallen out of
favor with educators and recently with some House Republicans, who
now argue that there isn’t enough federal funding for the act
to get students to meet the raised proficiency standards.
“The goals and requirements are just not attainable,”
said an unnamed House Republican in a Los Angeles Times article
Sunday. “It is going to hurt the president
politically.” Not all Democrats are against the No Child Left
Behind Act, though. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said he might
change some of the act’s requirements, but he would not
repeal it, because he believes that would be abandoning
students.
Education and the primary Beyond K-12 plans,
each of the candidates has his own ideas for higher education. Sen.
John Edwards, D-N.C., plans to pay up to a year’s worth of
tuition for students who take appropriate college preparatory
classes and participate in work-study programs with his
“College for Everyone” program. Retired Army Gen.
Wesley Clark has proposed $6,000 in financial aid for the first two
years of college. “Our system of financial assistance to
college students is both insufficient and unduly
complicated,” Clark said, expressing his desire to make
college more affordable and accessible. Kerry would trade military
service for college tuition. He also plans to help schools work
together to make operations more efficient. Dean’s proposed
“College Commitment” would give each student access to
$10,000 per year and relax requirements on student loan repayments.
Each of the presidential candidates places himself in the
crosshairs of critical Americans when he proposes academic
legislation. The political world weighs heavy atop the academic,
though in many ways both are reliant upon one another. The
government suffers its harshest criticism when its influence does
not permeate every corner of every school and when students fall
behind because of it. It is also criticized when it spends too
little to support children’s educations. It is in this
context that the daily struggles of teachers to work with the
resources they are given, politicians to divide up federal funds,
and students to gain acceptance to their favored schools will
continue.
The second of two articles examining governmental relations
with higher education will run Tuesday.