Mixed signals

Academe, May/Jun 2003 by Smith, Mark F

The president introduced his fiscal 2004 budget proposal on February 3, more than two weeks before he signed the final eleven appropriations bills for fiscal 2003. The oddity of starting work on one year before finishing the previous year's budget only begins to illustrate the political difficulties facing federal policy makers as they confront an economy still in recession, a deteriorating international situation, and partisan differences over the president's proposed tax cuts.

While holding the increase in overall spending to less than 4 percent, the 2004 budget proposes increases in several areas. The public rhetoric surrounding the proposal highlights specific initiatives beneficial for higher education. But every silver cloud has a dark lining. Just two examples illustrate this ambiguity.

The president has proposed a $1.9 billion increase in the Pell Grant program, raising its funding level to an all-time high of $12.7 billion. But according to the U.S. Department of Education's official explanation, this increase is meant "to retire a shortfall related to the 2002-03 award year while maintaining a $4,000 maximum award"-that is, maintaining the status quo. And that goal assumes a quick economic recovery. The shortfall resulted from an unexpectedly high surge in applicants attributed to the weakness of the economy.

The AAUP, as a member of the Student Aid Alliance, is calling for an increase in the maximum award to $4,500. Such an increase would only begin to meet the problem of "unmet need" outlined in a recent report, Empty Promises: The Myth: of College Access in America, issued by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. The report concludes that this unmet need results from a combination of rising tuitions and a shortage of student aid, and that financial issues, not academic underpreparedness, are the major barriers to access to college for less well off students.

The Pell Grant program will also have to deal with a widening of eligibility standards. The administration has dismantled some quality-protection measures-such as a rule setting the amount of class time required for financial aid-to remove barriers to the delivery of education by electronic means. A finite bundle of Pell dollars will now go to a wider group of institutions with no guarantees that the students receiving that aid will receive a quality education.

Another program receiving ambiguous benefits in the proposed budget is the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The president has proposed a 22 percent increase in funding for the NEH, from $124.9 million in fiscal 2003 to $152 million. The proposal targets $25 million of that increase for the WE the People initiative, which encourages the teaching of American history and civic education. The initiative includes projects that explore significant events and themes in our nation's history; an annual "Heroes of History" lecture by a scholar about an individual whose heroism has helped to protect America; and an "Idea of America" essay contest for high school juniors. In endorsing We the People, NEH chair Bruce Cole commented, "When a nation fails to know why it exists and what it stands for, it cannot be expected to long endure."

The AAUP welcomes this increase in the funding of humanities programs and the emphasis on the teaching of history in our schools. In fact, the Association joined other members of the National Humanities Alliance in endorsing the president's budget request for the NEH at the recent Humanities Advocacy Day. Nevertheless, there are questions about the government's promoting such specifically defined programs of historical education.

Given the level of uncertainty surrounding budgetary matters generally, the academic community needs to support increases in educational programs wherever they arise, and continue to work to improve the situation. In this budget climate, maintaining the Pell Grant program is better than cutting it, and an increased emphasis on the value of historical education is welcome-despite the limitations of the "great man" theory of history promoted by We the People.

The bad news is that cuts in state spending will hurt higher education, and relief from the federal government will not be available. Governors have been lobbying the administration for increased federal aid. Their lack of success is symbolized by the administration's decision to discontinue publication of the report Budget Information for States, which detailed how much money states get under various federal programs. Now state governments will not only not get money from the federal government, but they will also find it more difficult to point out how much they are not getting.

Mark Smith is AAUP director of government relations.