On candidates' minds: funding higher education

It's an issue with which most Penn students probably think they're well acquainted. After all, those $30,000-plus tuition bills could make an expert out of just about anyone going through four years of college education. But to the two candidates vying for the White House -- as well as a slew of experts and educational leaders around the country -- the issue of higher education funding is a lot more complex than just writing a check. And with just six weeks left until Election Day, the candidates and pundits alike continue to debate about not just what plan best meets the needs of America's college-bound students, but also whether the higher education discussion has truly taken the proper course during this political season. "This may be the first presidential campaign in American history when both candidates have placed a high priority on higher education funding," said Rhodes College President William Troutt, a former chairman of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. "Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore have, in different ways, expressed how important they see access to higher education," he added. In recent weeks, both George W. Bush and Al Gore have released detailed plans for making college more accessible to a greater number of American students. The plans, which focus almost exclusively on easing the heavy financial burden associated with a college education, offer different prescriptions for funneling federal money out to defray educational costs. Democratic nominee Gore, for example, has proposed offering a $2,800 tax credit to families with a college-bound child, while increasing the maximum level of Pell Grants offered to individual students under federal law. The Pell Grant program currently provides federal funds for financially needy students to attend college. "In an economy where what you earn more and more depends on what you learn, college and continuing education has become more important than ever," Gore campaign spokeswoman Devona Dolliole said. Bush's proposal, by comparison, gives more power to the states to decide how to make college more affordable. It would focus on state-based merit programs, as well as an increase in Pell Grant funding. "The governor's proposals -- including College Challenge grants, Pell Grants and special grants for promoting math and science study -- reach out and offer assistance to the low- and moderate-income families who need the help with college the most," Bush campaign spokesman Ken Lisaius said. Lisaius added that the proposed $1.5 billion College Challenge grant program is modeled on a system enacted in Bush's home state of Texas, and they would provide states with funds to disperse to financially needy students who follow a mandated course of rigorous study in high school. But according to the Gore camp, the Texas governor's proposal for a sweeping, across-the-board tax cut would drive too heavily into the federal budget surplus to make his college funding plan economically feasible. "George Bush's tax cut pretty much squanders the surplus and leaves no room for education funding," Dolliole said. "There's nothing left in his plan for credits." But the Bush camp, not surprisingly, disagrees. "That's a ridiculous charge," Lisaius said. "When you look at the surplus, the governor's proposal fits very clearly into his detailed budget. These are charges from people trying to run away from the fact that their program provides no real relief for people who need the assistance." He added that the Gore plan offers relief only for those families paying federal income taxes, a population that, Lisaius said, does not include about 5.5 million students from America's poorest families. As Bush and Gore continue to exchange their fiery campaign rhetoric, though, a number of experts across the country remain undecided on what direction the education debate should follow. Some, like Penn Public Policy and History Professor Ted Hershberg, see the entire focus on education as something that has changed fundamentally during this election cycle. "While there have been lots of educational reforms before, those in the past have been driven largely by educators," Hershberg said. "While this one is driven by governors and legislators and corporate leaders who say we need a school system that will educate well and educate everybody." Hershberg continued to say that while candidates focus primarily on the issue of college funding, they miss the more pressing need to support simple post-secondary training. "The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported... that 55 percent of the new jobs will require more than high school but less than college," he said. "It's too complicated to explain that people shouldn't be investing in college -- they should be investing in post-secondary education." Other experts offer even more fundamental disagreements on whether Bush and Gore are really paying enough attention to the detailed policy demands of higher education. "Education has been a major issue, but I don't think [the candidates] are talking much about higher ed," Graduate School of Education Dean Susan Fuhrman said. "Access remains important -- and that's mainly an economic issue -- but the debate on the substance of education policy remains on K-12."