It's really unsettling to read the following sentence: "The other people who might see themselves as having been thrown overboard by the administration to sustain Pell are the nation's graduate and professional students with student loans, who would lose the benefit they now enjoy of having the federal government pay the interest on those loans while they are in graduate school."
Especially when they use the word "enjoy". From my personal story, my graduate funding is limited and if I did let my loan interest keep growing (I had private loans as an undergraduate), I would have to pay ridiculous amounts of money. I can see how this will affect students who had federal loans as undergraduates.
It shouldn't be about enjoy. I see it more as a right. Compared to the engineering colleagues I graduated with back in '07, I bring home a slice of what they do.
The "College Completion Incentive Awards" for high schools seems like a nice touch, but I would assume that the high schools that are already at the top would get stronger and the ones that aren't would be left to struggle. That's my personal view.
This is ridiculous. It seems like the plan does not care about graduate students. This demonstrates that later on down the road we will be hearing how the United States does not have enough graduate students in specific fields. I wonder why?....... Now its about us not being good enough in math and science so lets invest in these disciplines.As the article talks about Obama being at the Baltimore math and science school, I wonder if the other subjects will be given the same amount of time to learn as the subjects they consider to be more important....What about the other disciplines? What about students that cannot read? We should focus on all disciplines if we want to see improvement. As for graduate students having to pay interest on loans while they are in school is not good. I would not support that rule. It seems that every time the government seems to give something away, somehow they always seems to take it back. Education is always suffering. I guess people are feeling bad when they should have voted a couple of months ago. These are definately issues that need to be investigated deeper. Students should have a strike. That would get their attention.
At the bottom are some items I saw outlined in the House leadership's Continuing Resultion. I know that there are definite problems with the budget (and working for Illinois Connection and seeing the legislators try to decide what to cut is not easy)...but a 78% cut for HSIs- WOW, eliminating federal support for tribal colleges?!, and cutting HBCs substantially...and of course grad students, very very drastic. I do not have the answers, and I see how much politics go into these bills (who is scratching who's back?!), but that definitely puts institutions and students in tough spot. As Obama is looking towards 2020 and the goal of having the highest proportion of college students (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education), it will take a lot to get there, and looking over the whole act, it looks like they are starting from the bottom and moving up. I do agree that we need to figure out a way to move these children up to higher education, and have them be prepared. I just hope that by the time they get to college, the institutions will be ready for them and there will be funding for them to continue. You can't give them hopes as a child, only for them to do everything they can to prepare, but then not have the funding for them to go to post-secondary or have the postsecondary schools be unprepared for them.
-Eliminates the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG) program. -Reduces federal funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions by 78% -Eliminates federal support for tribal colleges. -Cuts a third of federal funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. -Eliminates operational funding for AmeriCorps.
There are things that we can do: -Join organizations supporting higher ed (Illinois Connection is the grassroots for U of I, www.illinoisconnection.org and Lobby Day is coming up on April 6th...if you haven't gone to Springfield and seen the legislature at work, I highly encourage it, impacted my way of thinking about government).
-Write legislators (state and US)...enough letters from constituents and they do listen
-I like the US Student Association, they have good information on higher ed: http://www.usstudents.org/
After reading this provocative article there seemed to be divergent attitudes and perspectives regarding the distribution and subsidization of popular Pell Grant funding. The GOP (in the article’s surface level reference) is portrayed as fiscally conservative –and evil. Yet, Obama’s current proposition will also scale back funding because of the Pell Grant’s estimated $20 billion deficit by the end of 2012. In retrospect, while one side of the isle is arguing for the stability of the Grant, the other side exclaims that the Grant’s critical financial mass must be tamed for the good of our larger economy. Once again, we see another caveat within a larger government experiment gone wrong. For example, “The department’s 2012 budget calls for ending a three-year experiment that allows students to qualify for two Pell Grants in a calendar year, to attend college year round.” Even more disturbing are the 23,000 students in the California Community College system (112 schools) who received Pell Grant year-round funding assistance. The students (more than half of whom are Latino/Latina, African American, or Asian) will face the daunting reality that their ability to subsidize the inflated costs of summer school will no longer be able to do so. In addition, programs such as “AmeriCorps” will no longer be funded under Obama’s proposed budget. The most controversial remarks, arguably, are those of Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. Secretary Duncan argued, “administration officials had seen no evidence yet that the 2008 change in the Higher Education Act” that afforded students the chance to receive 2 Pells in one year warranted benefits as it relates to graduation. I suspect that their observations and research efforts don’t allow for substantive qualitative data. If so, there may be compelling evidence that suggest that students who received 2 Pells in one year benefited greatly from the acquisition of funding. Relying on officials who propose plans and strategic initiatives that are “10 times costlier than anticipated” seem common in the American enterprise of education, whereby, funding is cut based on inconclusive data, marginal statistics, and erroneous projections. When will the chaotic incongruence and elitist posturing end? When will American civilians forfeit personal resources for the benefit of the greater good? When will “education” truly become the great equalizer and authentically adopt what Martin Trow (1973) refers to as “universal higher education?” I believe that time will expose the gaps in our educational rhetoric and challenge us to be reactionary rather than innovate in the context of public policy. Until that “time” I challenge government officials, administrators, and the larger higher education community to reflect on what the Roman Philosopher Seneca stated when he mentioned, “Time discovers truth.” If we start to scale back critical programs because of our ancestral mistakes, what will be left for the generations to come?
I couldn't help but notice more cuts in programs providing Federal money to states. With the situation the State of Illinois already faces, cuts in Federal education money is very bad news. However, I am heartened by continuing and new "College Completion and Incentive Grants" whereby states must compete for Federal dollars by making improvements to graduation rates (explained below). "The program would make grants to States, which would then provide payments to schools as a positive incentive to encourage better outcomes for students. Participating States would be required to align high school graduation requirements with participating institutions' expectations for academic preparation, create stronger articulation agreements, facilitate transfers, and match Federal funds or provide their own performance-based funding for institutions. States also would set goals for increasing the number of students completing college and for closing gaps among different student groups. All postsecondary institutions in a State would be eligible for the program; participation by public institutions would be mandatory."
It's really unsettling to read the following sentence: "The other people who might see themselves as having been thrown overboard by the administration to sustain Pell are the nation's graduate and professional students with student loans, who would lose the benefit they now enjoy of having the federal government pay the interest on those loans while they are in graduate school."
ReplyDeleteEspecially when they use the word "enjoy". From my personal story, my graduate funding is limited and if I did let my loan interest keep growing (I had private loans as an undergraduate), I would have to pay ridiculous amounts of money. I can see how this will affect students who had federal loans as undergraduates.
It shouldn't be about enjoy. I see it more as a right. Compared to the engineering colleagues I graduated with back in '07, I bring home a slice of what they do.
The "College Completion Incentive Awards" for high schools seems like a nice touch, but I would assume that the high schools that are already at the top would get stronger and the ones that aren't would be left to struggle. That's my personal view.
This is ridiculous. It seems like the plan does not care about graduate students. This demonstrates that later on down the road we will be hearing how the United States does not have enough graduate students in specific fields. I wonder why?....... Now its about us not being good enough in math and science so lets invest in these disciplines.As the article talks about Obama being at the Baltimore math and science school, I wonder if the other subjects will be given the same amount of time to learn as the subjects they consider to be more important....What about the other disciplines? What about students that cannot read? We should focus on all disciplines if we want to see improvement. As for graduate students having to pay interest on loans while they are in school is not good. I would not support that rule. It seems that every time the government seems to give something away, somehow they always seems to take it back. Education is always suffering. I guess people are feeling bad when they should have voted a couple of months ago. These are definately issues that need to be investigated deeper. Students should have a strike. That would get their attention.
ReplyDeleteAt the bottom are some items I saw outlined in the House leadership's Continuing Resultion. I know that there are definite problems with the budget (and working for Illinois Connection and seeing the legislators try to decide what to cut is not easy)...but a 78% cut for HSIs- WOW, eliminating federal support for tribal colleges?!, and cutting HBCs substantially...and of course grad students, very very drastic. I do not have the answers, and I see how much politics go into these bills (who is scratching who's back?!), but that definitely puts institutions and students in tough spot. As Obama is looking towards 2020 and the goal of having the highest proportion of college students (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education), it will take a lot to get there, and looking over the whole act, it looks like they are starting from the bottom and moving up. I do agree that we need to figure out a way to move these children up to higher education, and have them be prepared. I just hope that by the time they get to college, the institutions will be ready for them and there will be funding for them to continue. You can't give them hopes as a child, only for them to do everything they can to prepare, but then not have the funding for them to go to post-secondary or have the postsecondary schools be unprepared for them.
ReplyDelete-Eliminates the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG) program.
-Reduces federal funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions by 78%
-Eliminates federal support for tribal colleges.
-Cuts a third of federal funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
-Eliminates operational funding for AmeriCorps.
There are things that we can do:
-Join organizations supporting higher ed (Illinois Connection is the grassroots for U of I, www.illinoisconnection.org and Lobby Day is coming up on April 6th...if you haven't gone to Springfield and seen the legislature at work, I highly encourage it, impacted my way of thinking about government).
-Write legislators (state and US)...enough letters from constituents and they do listen
-I like the US Student Association, they have good information on higher ed: http://www.usstudents.org/
After reading this provocative article there seemed to be divergent attitudes and perspectives regarding the distribution and subsidization of popular Pell Grant funding. The GOP (in the article’s surface level reference) is portrayed as fiscally conservative –and evil. Yet, Obama’s current proposition will also scale back funding because of the Pell Grant’s estimated $20 billion deficit by the end of 2012. In retrospect, while one side of the isle is arguing for the stability of the Grant, the other side exclaims that the Grant’s critical financial mass must be tamed for the good of our larger economy. Once again, we see another caveat within a larger government experiment gone wrong. For example, “The department’s 2012 budget calls for ending a three-year experiment that allows students to qualify for two Pell Grants in a calendar year, to attend college year round.” Even more disturbing are the 23,000 students in the California Community College system (112 schools) who received Pell Grant year-round funding assistance. The students (more than half of whom are Latino/Latina, African American, or Asian) will face the daunting reality that their ability to subsidize the inflated costs of summer school will no longer be able to do so. In addition, programs such as “AmeriCorps” will no longer be funded under Obama’s proposed budget. The most controversial remarks, arguably, are those of Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. Secretary Duncan argued, “administration officials had seen no evidence yet that the 2008 change in the Higher Education Act” that afforded students the chance to receive 2 Pells in one year warranted benefits as it relates to graduation. I suspect that their observations and research efforts don’t allow for substantive qualitative data. If so, there may be compelling evidence that suggest that students who received 2 Pells in one year benefited greatly from the acquisition of funding. Relying on officials who propose plans and strategic initiatives that are “10 times costlier than anticipated” seem common in the American enterprise of education, whereby, funding is cut based on inconclusive data, marginal statistics, and erroneous projections. When will the chaotic incongruence and elitist posturing end? When will American civilians forfeit personal resources for the benefit of the greater good? When will “education” truly become the great equalizer and authentically adopt what Martin Trow (1973) refers to as “universal higher education?” I believe that time will expose the gaps in our educational rhetoric and challenge us to be reactionary rather than innovate in the context of public policy. Until that “time” I challenge government officials, administrators, and the larger higher education community to reflect on what the Roman Philosopher Seneca stated when he mentioned, “Time discovers truth.” If we start to scale back critical programs because of our ancestral mistakes, what will be left for the generations to come?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but notice more cuts in programs providing Federal money to states. With the situation the State of Illinois already faces, cuts in Federal education money is very bad news. However, I am heartened by continuing and new "College Completion and Incentive Grants" whereby states must compete for Federal dollars by making improvements to graduation rates (explained below).
ReplyDelete"The program would make grants to States, which would then provide payments to schools as a positive incentive to encourage better outcomes for students. Participating States would be required to align high school graduation requirements with participating institutions' expectations for academic preparation, create stronger articulation agreements, facilitate transfers, and match Federal funds or provide their own performance-based funding for institutions. States also would set goals for increasing the number of students completing college and for closing gaps among different student groups. All postsecondary institutions in a State would be eligible for the program; participation by public institutions would be mandatory."