2008 Woodie Awards
The Dark Evolution of Student Aid
Heshani Wijemanne
Issue date: 4/20/06 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Does anyone find it frustrating that only months after the Bush administration made suggestions to have standardized testing at colleges and universities, they began to propose bold changes to the way that the nation's countries are accredited and how federal student aid is administered? I do.
The panel responsible for these proposals is called the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. This commission, which was established last fall to examine college costs and accountability, includes both corporate and academic officials as members. It has been employed in "developing a comprehensive national strategy" for improvement in higher education, therefore servicing the well-being of our country's future. Unfortunately, they seem to have been lacking in their responsibilities.
One of the proposals offered by the commission asks for a more efficient aid system by replacing about 17 grant, loan and tax-credit programs with only one to three federal aid programs. By doing this the program is basically cutting back on already diminishing student financial aid. Also, what about the college and university standardized testing presented by this same panel, and compared to Bush's No Child Left Behind Act? Where are they planning on getting the money for that when they are plan to cut programs? The panel argues that we need to "entertain some bold perspectives," but is that really worth risking the financial aid system we have today, especially if we want the best for higher education and the future?
One of the commission's more significant proposals suggests the abolition of the current system of accreditation, most of which is currently done by private institutions. They plan to replace it with the National Accreditation Foundation, a government-run foundation created by Congress and the president. This is indeed a bold and drastic move on the part of the Bush administration and this panel.
However, to replace private accrediting with federal accrediting does not seem like the smartest move. This gives the federal government an even louder voice in educational affairs than it already possesses. Not that all government intervention is bad, but too much of it can be a problem. Also, since when did government intervention go from businesses to schools? Still, what I question the most is whether or not the federal government is even capable of managing issues of education and college aid. And more importantly, why would it want to?
The panel responsible for these proposals is called the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. This commission, which was established last fall to examine college costs and accountability, includes both corporate and academic officials as members. It has been employed in "developing a comprehensive national strategy" for improvement in higher education, therefore servicing the well-being of our country's future. Unfortunately, they seem to have been lacking in their responsibilities.
One of the proposals offered by the commission asks for a more efficient aid system by replacing about 17 grant, loan and tax-credit programs with only one to three federal aid programs. By doing this the program is basically cutting back on already diminishing student financial aid. Also, what about the college and university standardized testing presented by this same panel, and compared to Bush's No Child Left Behind Act? Where are they planning on getting the money for that when they are plan to cut programs? The panel argues that we need to "entertain some bold perspectives," but is that really worth risking the financial aid system we have today, especially if we want the best for higher education and the future?
One of the commission's more significant proposals suggests the abolition of the current system of accreditation, most of which is currently done by private institutions. They plan to replace it with the National Accreditation Foundation, a government-run foundation created by Congress and the president. This is indeed a bold and drastic move on the part of the Bush administration and this panel.
However, to replace private accrediting with federal accrediting does not seem like the smartest move. This gives the federal government an even louder voice in educational affairs than it already possesses. Not that all government intervention is bad, but too much of it can be a problem. Also, since when did government intervention go from businesses to schools? Still, what I question the most is whether or not the federal government is even capable of managing issues of education and college aid. And more importantly, why would it want to?
Be the first to comment on this story