Search News


Browse Archives

News

Mixed Bag for Higher Ed

June 8, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Higher education lobbyists will take victories anywhere they can find them during these tight budget times, and they found some reason for optimism in the halls of a U.S. House of Representatives office building on Wednesday.

The subcommittee that allocates funds for education, job training programs and the National Institutes of Health approved a 2007 spending bill that would increase the maximum Pell Grant award by $100 -- to $4,150 -- and sustain (at their 2006 funding levels) multiple programs that were slated for extinction in President Bush's proposed budget.

The bill put forth by the Republican majority of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies was approved in a vote that stayed true to party affiliation and is set to go to the full committee, as soon as next week. The bill calls for $141.9 billion in discretionary funding, a slight increase from 2006 and a more than $4 billion increase over the President’s budget.

Bush's proposal recommended flat funding of Pell Grants for the fifth straight year, so the modest increase to the entitlement program in the subcommittee’s bill pleased the higher education contingent. “We’re grateful for the $100 increase,” said Cynthia A. Littlefield, director of government relations for the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. “We’re in a long lean streak, so any increase will go a long way, though we still have a lot of work to do.”

Many watched with interest to see how the subcommittee would handle some of the job training and college preparation programs that received no funding in the Bush administration request. The subcommittee's bill would restore to their 2006 funding levels the Federal Perkins Loan, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program and Gear Up -- all of which the Bush administration proposed killing.

The bill calls for flat funding for the TRIO programs for disadvantaged students, at $828 million. The Bush budget would cut the program by more than half. Littlefield said the flat funding for these programs was “as expected.”

Acknowledging that his hands are somewhat tied by limited resources, Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), the subcommittee’s chairman, said the bill addresses the needs of low-income families. “These are programs that help people -- it’s important to recognize them in allocating the nation’s reserve.”

Democrats proposed no amendments to the bill during the drafting session, known as a markup, saying that they simply didn’t have the votes to win. But that didn’t stop them from voicing their displeasure with what Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) called a “totally inadequate budget.”

After a few minutes of civility, House Democrats went on the attack, questioning their Republican counterparts’ commitment to helping working-class Americans afford a college education -- a theme the minority party is likely to hammer home during the fall election campaign, and one that may have contributed to the proposal to increase the Pell Grant. A few Republicans defended the legislation at Wednesday's session, but Democrats dominated the floor.

“Here’s the story as I see it: Families spend more to send their kids to college; their costs are not frozen,” said Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. “We’re not going to effectively deal with this by keeping the status quo. And this bill is worse than that. People who are supposed to be the focus wind up getting squeezed.”

Obey applauded the $100 Pell Grant increase but said Congress is still playing catch-up. Last year, Bush’s budget called for a $100 increase in the maximum Pell Grant amount, the House recommended a $500 increase and at final count, the funding remained flat. Obey said a $350 award increase from last year would be needed to keep up with the rise in college costs.

Regula said the boost in Pell Grant money is a step forward. “That’s a good incentive and I hope it [prompts] institutions of higher education to respond with tuition help so we give every student a chance,” he said.

The bill would set the overall Pell Grant funding at about $13 billion, a slight decrease from a year ago but a modest increase from what Bush’s budget proposes.

The National Institutes of Health would receive about $28.3 billion, with a variety of programs losing funding. Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Association of American Universities, called the overall bill “a mixed bag” and the NIH allotment “disappointing but not unexpected.”

Added Pat White, AAU’s director of federal relations: “We are continuing to throw away research capacity created by the NIH doubling," the several-year effort in the late 1990s and early 2000s that doubled the agency's budget. "In real terms, this is a cumulative loss over the past three years [taking inflation into account]. It means fewer investigators pursuing projects.”

David Baime, vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, said he is grateful for the proposed Pell Grant increase but disappointed that the Community College Initiative program wasn’t funded at the level proposed by the President. The bill sets funding at $125 million, the same as last year’s budget, while Bush’s proposal is $150 million. (The program was originally proposed for $250 million.)

Funds for vocational education, including the Tech-Prep progam, also remained at level funding.

The news was good for the Health Resources and Services Administration's health professions programs, which would receive $163.6 million in funding under the subcommittee’s bill, a modest increase over the 2006 level and a major increase from the $9.7 million Bush’s budget recommended.

Erica Froyd, a senior legislative analyst with the Association of American Medical Colleges, said her group appreciated that the House panel would give the health professions programs more funds than a year ago. She said the organization is still pushing for a return to the previous funding of $300 million.

The bill also calls for a $47 million cut to the AmeriCorps program, and flat funding for historically black colleges and Hispanic serving institutions.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet begun work on its version of the spending bill for education, labor and health programs.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Mixed Bag for Higher Ed

  • Budget bonanza
  • Posted by Advisor Ian , Program Advisor on June 8, 2006 at 9:25am EDT
  • Wow! A $100 increase to the Pell grant! I'm underwhelmed! That's almost a rate of inflation increase! I suppose now Bush is going to brag about being the "Education President?"

  • Colleges and Universities Need to Reduce Cost
  • Posted by AC on June 8, 2006 at 10:20am EDT
  • This is only compounding the more fundamental problem: increasing college costs. The $100 increase is a drop in the bucket compared to the tuition increases some colleges and universities are instituting for the 2006-2007 school year. The key problem here is the exorbitant cost of higher education (a state and instituional issue) and not federal subsidies. When a piece of paper costs upwards of $12,000 (for moderately priced institutions) and $50,000 (for the elites), a $100 increase barely even pays for a single textbook.

  • No textbook left behind
  • Posted by Advisor Ian , Program Advisor on June 8, 2006 at 11:46am EDT
  • What they don't tell you is that while there is this dramatic increase in the Pell grant, funding subsidies to *STATE* universities continues to decline in the part of the budget that students don't immediately see. Ok, now it's time for some of that math so many of us hated:

    If inflation happens - for example if fuel prices increase, which impact transportation costs of everything from food to human beings - then prices for everything goes up. This should not be a shock if you bothered with economics. If costs increase, but a major source of income is level or decreases, what do you suppose happens? In other words, your tuition hike is how universities are making up slack on the state side. You pay more for college and have less for anything else, so you buy less, hurting the economy, which worries the government, which apparently thinks that cutting more funding to state schools is the solution. This has been going on for years on a more subtle level, but these sorts of "increases" are more blatant. Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford an education, so that we have a more stable caste system here in the US. If you are in the group of people that cannot afford college outright, then you will have to settle for an associate's degree (assuming that is still affordable) and very likely never being able to afford to send your kids to college either.

    The bright side? Someone you will never meet will not be allowed to have an abortion.

  • Come now
  • Posted by Publius on June 8, 2006 at 1:00pm EDT
  • The fixation with year-to-year changes in subsidies ignores the larger issue: How much should students pay for their own education? College costs do keep going up...largely due to faculty and administrator salary increases (anyone read the papers about the University of California recently?) Even with fee increases, students are paying far less for their education that the cost of that education. So, it seems to me that there are two issues for the state to address: (1) how can we keep costs down (not just the cost to the student, but the overall cost of education), and (2) how can we focus our subsidies at truly needy students, rather than spreading finite resources to greatly subsidize all students -- rich and poor alike?

  • Posted by AC on June 8, 2006 at 1:25pm EDT
  • But the question remains: Who is responsible for making higher education more affordable?

    Education has always been a states issue. And it's the states that are shifting funding away from higher ed in order to meet other, sometimes very legitimate needs (and I have worked for two public universities in two states, so I've seen this first hand). And even though the federal government invests a lot of money in higher ed -- mostly in R&D -- it's still the states that hold most of the influence on the operation of state universities for the public good.

    But clearly, we won't solve anything by throwing money at it, because well, someone has yet to discover how to grow money on trees.

    But when tuition rate increases trump inflation rates -- especially in the privates and elites, you begin to wonder where all that money is going.

    Is it going to legitimate educational expenses that directly benefit students, or are students really just funding mini-Ben Ladners out there? Is it more important to have dedicated and engaged faculty who are compensated well or a multi-million dollar recretation facility so students can climb walls and work out? (See the boom of university amenities in Boston that started in the late 90's, for example.)

    And in a competition-driven "system" of higher education, the losers are those publics who may have as little as 17% of their budget from state governments but who must still uphold their public mission.

    How are the publics going to compete? Maybe they can't and should just stop trying. The $40K+ institutions will continue to survive because those who can afford it will continue to go. And the $6K institutions will attract those who can afford it.

    And higher education will be as complicit in reinforcing the growing divide between the haves and have nots in this country.

    It's a circuitous argument. In my experience, it's usually easier to identify easy targets to blame for such problems. I say let's blame the high cost of higher education on the bleeding heart liberal tree huggers.

  • Setting Publius Straight
  • Posted by Grad Student on June 8, 2006 at 6:25pm EDT
  • Publius, your comment blaming faculty salaries for most of the cost increases in college tuition is inaccurate.

    Consider the findings in the Commission on Higher Ed's working papers. They show that spending on instruction (of which faculty comp, including health care, is the greatest component) grew only 1% over inflation in the 1990s. This strongly suggests that compensation for faculty as a whole is being diluted by the addition of lower paid lecturers and part-timers. Either way, the tuition increases clearly don't stem from this input.

    In general, the rising generation of faculty are faced with problems similar to the rest of the American workforce: modest average compensation gains coupled with vastly increased variance, with most of the gains accruing to a small percentage of the population. This small percentage is very visible for their indecent riches, so they are easy to blame. But would you say all Americans are overpaid because our oil executives can cash out their retirement plans for $100 million? More importantly, would you blame high oil prices on their comp packages? Even if you think their compensation is exorbitant, and I think it is far more so than what professors get away with, the causality is the other way around!

  • Ugh!
  • Posted by elizabeth , doctoral student on June 14, 2006 at 5:00pm EDT
  • What's sad is NOT that Bush has pulled one over on the general public - we've come to expect that. What's really sad is that people are actually buying in. "We're grateful for the for the $100 increase" is the weakest, most absurd thing any leader in higher education could possibly say. How shameful.