Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush.

by Jeff Vincent
What a difference four years can make.

During the 2000 presidential contest, the central education issue was improving the performance of the nation’s public schools, primarily at the elementary school level. George W. Bush seized the issue – some pundits say he successfully co-opted it from the Democrats – and made it a centerpiece of his campaign.

After the election, the new Congress made President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act” the very first piece of legislation, HR 1, to be addressed by lawmakers.

Four years ago, candidate Bush also promised to complete the final phases of a five-year doubling of the annual budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The successful completion of that pledge helped drive hundreds of millions of dollars in health care-related research at U.S. universities. Other research disciplines benefited, too, as they sought “balance” with the NIH budget surge. In 2000, the federal government was not engaged at all in stem-cell research.

Today, President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., are in the final days of a hard-fought and closely contested election for the White House; and campaign issues have changed in many ways, including several areas of immediate interest to colleges and universities.

“No Child Left Behind” is again very much a hot topic, but the current debate revolves around questions of adequate funding and whether the program has been successful in lifting student performance. Meanwhile, higher education has achieved new visibility as a campaign issue, with Bush and Kerry taking substantially different approaches to federal involvement in this arena. Both in terms of student aid and university-based research, the candidates are reacting to a changed world.

College Affordability Takes Center Stage
Last year, driven by funding cutbacks from cash-strapped state legislatures, the average tuition for in-state students at public, four-year colleges increased by a whopping 13 percent, according to the College Board. Just-released figures for the current year show another 10.5 percent increase. These are the kind of numbers that get the attention of many parents and, therefore, many politicians.

During Bush’s first term, the maximum Pell Grant – the federal government’s most visible direct aid for needy students – has increased by only 8 percent for the entire period. “At the same time,” according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, “the administration has largely ignored most of the government’s other important student aid programs.” Early this year, the White House sent Congress a budget that generally would keep student aid programs at their current levels next year.

On the campaign trail, however, Bush has proposed giving low-income students $5,000 grants to study math and science while enrolled in college. He also would initiate a pilot program to give low-income students an extra $1,000 in grants during their freshman year if they take certain college-preparatory courses while in high school. In addition, he would extend a number of tax breaks enacted during his first term aimed at easing the burden of college costs.

Indeed, the president has touted the effects of his Pell Grant increases and other proposed financial aid policies. According to the Republican platform, “Republicans are working to ensure that college is affordable for American low- and middle-income families through increased funding of grants, low-interest student loans and tax breaks for working families … These grants will help an estimated 5.3 million low-income students pay for higher education – one million more students than when President Bush and Vice President Cheney came to office.”

But Bush’s main thrust in higher education during the campaign has been aimed at improving college access and affordability for non-traditional students. This is closely aligned with his belief that education – including vocational training, two-year college programs and distance learning – is the key to improving employment numbers and keeping America competitive in the world job market.

Thus, the president has said he would allow Pell Grant recipients to use the money on a year-round basis; allow federally backed student loans to be used for short-term job re-training programs; provide $125 million to community colleges to help improve student services, such as “dual-enrollment” programs that let high school students earn college credits; and establish a $250 million federal program for job training at community colleges.

Like the president, Sen. Kerry also supports tax breaks for students and families and incentives for colleges to offset rising college costs. In an effort to cut tuition costs, Kerry would offer $10 billion to states that limit tuition increases. He also would extend current Hope and Lifelong Learning tax credits to those who pay little or no taxes and increase the full tax credit for tuition payments from $1,500 to $4,000.

While Kerry has not promised increases in the maximum Pell Grant, currently $4,050, or in the overall Pell Grant budget, he has advocated for incentives to reward colleges for the persistence of Pell Grant recipients. Kerry would allocate $100 million to colleges with improved graduation rates provided that students receiving Pell Grants make up at least 10 percent of the institution’s student body.

Kerry has attempted to draw the clearest distinction in college financing policy on the issue of student loans. A special report issued by the Democratic National Committee suggests that Republican loyalties lie with lenders rather than students:

“House Republicans are considering adding a provision to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to switch student loans from fixed to variable interest rates, meaning higher payments for millions of college graduates over the next few years.”

In response, Kerry has challenged the current practice of government guaranteed loans to lenders and instead has proposed that banks and other lenders compete for student loans through a government sponsored auction. This policy is aimed to reduce inefficiencies and, hopefully, interest rates for students at the expense of lenders’ profits. The Kerry campaign has estimated a savings of $12 billion.

Kerry has earmarked these savings for his Service for College plan. This program aims to expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 500,000 within the next decade. Its participants would include 300,000 students enrolled in college serving part time to earn money toward tuition and 200,000 students serving full time two-year commitments to earn grants equal to tuition costs over four years. Student would serve in schools, health centers and in other capacities related to homeland security.

Divergent Views on Research Priorities
Just as the playing field for college costs has changed dramatically over the last four years, so too has the environment for federally sponsored research at universities. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – less than nine months after President Bush took office – shifted the primary focus of government research to an agenda that supports the overseas war on terror and protects the homeland. The emphasis is on advanced technologies that yield near-term benefits that aid in these efforts.

Meanwhile, fiscal pressures – including a sluggish economic recovery, the cost of the war on terrorism, record deficits and the cost of personal and corporate tax cuts – have put a crimp in those federal research programs that don’t directly support national security efforts. This includes much basic or “fundamental” research, which is largely the province of universities, as well as some applied research that is seen as less pressing than dealing with the threat of terrorism.

Candidate Bush’s plans for federal research funding are best revealed by examining President Bush’s budgets for the last three years, as well as the funding for fiscal year 2005, now being finalized by the Republican-controlled Congress. The budgetary outlook remains less than rosy for non-defense agencies that fund university-based research, particularly in the physical sciences and engineering.

Even at NIH, officials are recalibrating their previously high expectations to now work with budget increases at about the rate of inflation. This comes after scrambling to ramp up the agency’s programs and accommodate five years of increases that averaged 15 percent annually, ending in 2003.

Bush recently told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), “America’s economy leads the world because of our system of private enterprise rewards innovation. Entrepreneurs, scientists and skilled workers create and apply the technologies that are changing our world.”

When asked by AAAS to list his top three priorities in science and technology, Bush named: ensuring every American has access to affordable broadband by 2007; performing next-generation hydrogen fuel research; and recruiting science and technology.

Sen. Kerry has called himself “the candidate for science” and has called for major new federal investments in science and technology over the next decade. The initiative would be funded, at least in part, by a one-time infusion of funds from the government auction of part of the broadcast spectrum. He also has said he would place greater emphasis on basic research.

He has placed particular emphasis on the National Science Foundation, saying it would be a priority in the Kerry White House. Specifically, he has said that he would double the NSF budget, although the timing would be subject to how quickly the federal deficit is reduced. He also has pledged to “support sustained growth” of the NIH budget.

Kerry’s response to the AAAS question about his top three priorities for science and technology included the following:

• Restoring and sustaining the preeminence of American science and technology, based on “a strong, well-balanced federal program of basic and applied research across biological, physical, engineering, mathematics and other disciplines”;

• Ensuring that Americans are prepared for the jobs of the future, which depend increasingly on a grasp of science and mathematics; and

• Ensuring that all decisions made by his administration are “informed by the best possible science and technology advice.”

The third item was a dig at the Bush administration, which has come under repeated fire from many scientists for its position on a number of important policy issues, including climate change and air pollution. A number of individuals and organizations have charged the White House with misrepresenting or distorting scientific data to support its goals. The administration has vigorously denied these accusations and has said such accusations are motivated by partisan politics.
 
Stem Cell Debate Reveals Clear-Cut Differences
Often the differences between the candidates are blurry or a matter of degree. However, one of the clearest distinctions between Bush and Kerry is over the federal role in embryonic stem cell research, an area of great interest to many research universities.

In August 2001, President Bush issued an executive order permitting federally sponsored embryonic stem cell research – the first time a president has provided such funding for this relatively new research area – but only on some 64 cell lines already in existence. No federal research on any cell line created in the future would be allowed so as to prevent the federal government from acting in a way that could be viewed as encouraging the destruction of human embryos.

Subsequently, many scientific and health experts have raised concerns about the viability of these lines. They argue that the restriction is too strict and question whether this will stifle research – especially in the areas of Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s diseases.

Throughout the campaign, Bush has stuck with his position on the stem cell issue. Kerry has charged that the president “turned his back on science” by limiting the government’s role in this research. The Democrat has promised that he would open up the field to more federal funding and additional stem cell lines.

The flames have been fanned on this issue by a number of developments in recent months, such as the stem cell advocacy speech by Ron Reagan at the Democratic National Convention and the recent death of actor Christopher Reeve, who was a strong advocate for stem cell research. Opinion polls have shown that a substantial majority of Americans favor an expanded federal role in stem cell research.

However, it will be just one of many issues that voters weigh when they enter voting booths on Nov. 2. The outcome of the election will certainly affect the future of many higher education issues, not to mention America’s course on even more fundamental questions of national policy.

Jeff Vincent is the assistant vice chancellor for federal relations and executive director of Vanderbilt’s Washington, D.C., office. Erik Ness, Peabody Fellow in national education policy, contributed to this story.

Posted 10/25/04