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.”