August 4, 2008

Congress Creates Numerous New Grant Programs, to Secretary's Dismay

Margaret Spellings, the U.S. secretary of education, isn’t happy about the dozens of new grant programs tucked into a major higher-education bill that cleared Congress last week, and she’s making her displeasure known.

In a letter sent to lawmakers last week, Ms. Spellings said that while the White House supports many pieces of the bill, which would reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the Bush administration remains concerned that the legislation would create more than 60 “new, costly, and duplicative programs.”

Many of the new programs were requested by interest groups or coalitions of groups. The programs include:

• A program, sought by the conservative National Association of Scholars, that would provide grants to institutions to establish or strengthen programs that promote traditional American history, “the history and nature of, and threats to, free institutions,” and “the history and achievements of Western civilization.”
• A grant program, sought by the American Association of University Women, to support fellowships for women and minorities seeking doctoral degrees (see Page 6 of the association’s agenda).
• A grant program, sought by the National Court Reporters Association, to help colleges train writers to provide captioned, real-time information to the deaf and hard of hearing.
• A grant program, sought by the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, to help institutions develop, use, and evaluate sustainability curricula, practices, and academic programs.

President Bush has not threatened to veto the bill over its new programs and is expected to sign it into law. —Kelly Field

Comments

1. Many of these grant programs are costly. In addition to the funds that are awarded to colleges, universities, consortia, and other partners, the grant programs often require program managers and staff, administrative and techological infrastructures for announcing the funding opportunities and selecting the winners, and then only supervision and accounting of the grant programs.

   I suspect Spellings will be asked to absorb much of the work into the current infrastructure, which will be fairly difficult to do. Even with more and more grant programs going to online grant review and conference calls, the staff still have too many programs to run effectively and often not enough compotent reviewers. Add in the extra layer of technology and tech issues and you’ve got another 10 hrs a week, at least, of headache. And that’s just to review the grant applications.

   I’ve been trying to find a list of all the grant programs created by the new act but haven’t been able to find a thing. I get lots of highlights about the 2008 Higher Education Act, but not the real deal…

   — NYCEdPhD    Aug 4, 10:27 PM    #

2. The complete bill may be found at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4137. It is known as H.R.4137

   — GailB    Aug 5, 07:33 AM    #

3. pork is pork right? so why is there surprise when our congress caters to special interest groups..after all an election is an election…

   one of things driving up the cost of education are programs like these for the reasons cited by nycephe above. oh well it is America where 70% of the people have no idea what is happening.

   congratulations to those who recieve our tax dollars for their special interest.

   — Jim    Aug 5, 07:42 AM    #

4. I wonder how these “costly grant programs for education” compare to the costly war-programs sponsored by our government? Why are expenses for “bread” always measured as “costly” while expenses for war hardly measured in any terms, but simply expended instead?

   — BDL    Aug 5, 07:42 AM    #

5. Spellings was one of Bush’s “coffee girls” in the first four years. She has no background whatsoever in education. So who cares what she thinks.
   She can go back to Texas and be the secretary to the state school board association president a big time lobbyist where she was before going to the White House in 2001 to serve W coffee in the mornings like Myers, Chao, Peters and others who are now cabinet officers whatever that means now.

   — Fred D.    Aug 5, 08:12 AM    #

6. Spellings says the programs are “new, costly and duplicative” — let’s look at those three words:

   Yes, they are new — so what? New programs come about in response to someone identifying a need. If a need did not exist, there would be no “new” program to meet it.

   Yes, they may be duplicative — so what? If an idea is good, then its duplicate is good, too. The programs cited in this article are good — who can argue with strengthening programs in our nation’s history; giving chances for underrepresented groups to obtain an education; and looking at ways to preserve and conserve our natural resources?

   As for the cost — It is far, far more costly to have an un- or under-educated citizenry than one that avails itself of educational opportunities. The more chances we provide for scholarship, research, and education for our country, the better our country will be. An educated electorate is an informed and participatory electorate. The money spent on these programs is tiny compared to the cost of NOT having them.

   — JPS    Aug 5, 09:15 AM    #

7. Gee, Fred, do you hate all women, or just women in powerful positions?

   — dr    Aug 5, 09:18 AM    #

8. It is nice to see a conservative group like the NAS participating in the so called ‘pork’ that the neocons supposedly abhor. The new conservative agenda is not like the old one. I know the NAS mission is not to monitor how tax money is spent. Just to be the thought police and make sure no student is subjected to liberal indoctrination or non-traditional American history. Hilarious.

   — Jeff    Aug 5, 09:20 AM    #

9. While I love a good discussion about politics, this one should be less political and centered more on the efficient delivery of student aid. If the goal is to give more students the opportunity to pursue a college degree, then we know what works and we know what the barriers are. A major barrier is the complexity of our student aid system. The ever-growing variety of aid programs are not only costly to administer, but they are confusing to students.

   Prior to this bill we were given ACG, SMART, and TEACH grants in the last three years. ACG and SMART are too complex to explain here and the TEACH grant is a Cinderella-like grant that turns into a loan if the student doesn’t end up becoming a teacher (in the right school in the right subject area) like he thought he would back during freshman year.

   To overcome the complexity, we need to direct these additional funds to programs that work. The Federal Pell Grant is a proven program that is (relatively) easy to explain and reaches the students who otherwise cannot afford to go to school. However, it isn’t sexy to increase the Pell Grant – it’s much more politically advantageous (no matter your leanings) to create something new that you can say you spearheaded, cosponsored, or otherwise brought into existence.

   If we had something closer to one grant, one loan, and one work study program we could use the dollars saved to benefit the taxpayer or the student; and more importantly we could do a better job of helping students afford a college education in a degree program of their choosing.

   — Art    Aug 5, 10:01 AM    #

10. Interesting that the author felt it necessary to label the National Association of Scholars as conservative yet wasn’t inclined to label the American Association of University Women as liberal. I know, I know they are main stream. Right!

    — KC    Aug 5, 10:03 AM    #

11. Actually, gender-bias aside, I agree with Fred about Spellings. I’m a natural born (female) “Texican” and am well aware of Spellings lack of ability. I work at a Texas community college in an administrative service position directed toward students with disabilities; I abhor political appointments of individuals with little to no experience and/or knowledge of the position she/he is to fill. Community colleges across the country experience the results of inadequate academic preparation; community colleges enroll 47% (at last count) of all post-secondary attendees, so we’re not talking about a paltry number, folks. A significant number of these kiddos can’t read, write or solve algebraic problems. More importantly, these kids are not being taught to THINK OR REASON. To quibble about additional grant programs is a waste of time when so many more important systemic educational problems are on the doorstep. Oh, wait—we’re talking about politics; can’t blend reason, logic, or even common sense with “politics” – My bad.

    pat in texas

    — Pat Moran, Director Disability Services, Blinn College, Texas    Aug 5, 10:12 AM    #

12. Actually the first commentator was the most on point. The problem is that narrow categorical programs targeted at the few have disproportionately large overhead expenses, which rob other programs and priorities of resources.
    I rely on my self invented sage and wistful comment: bureaucracy killed the Soviet Union, and it is doing its best to get us.

    — dr    Aug 5, 11:07 AM    #

13. Folks:
    New and costly means nothing if funds are not appropriated for the programs. The PELL Grant is a great example of this. Bush can sign off and strangle it in appropriations. Spelling is either a front or just unaware.

    — Dr. Bill    Aug 5, 11:33 AM    #

14. Fred’s comments on Bush’s dim-witted political appointments are just as applicable to males. Just be grateful Michael (“Do I look good?”) Brown isn’t running these programs!!

    — REB    Aug 5, 11:49 AM    #

15. No, #13. The Soviet Union’s military industrial complex and secret government/police spying on citizens killed it. Thank you #4, #5 and #6 for putting this matter in perspective. I think the world is tired of all this “We-don’t-have-the-money” whining from certain quarters when it comes to education, while the same forces turn around and spend mountains of money on killing people or researching ways to kill people without blinking an eye. Some of us notice the contradiction and don’t appreciate the lies about how our security is being assured by spending on military adventures that enrich a few.

    If scholars write great proposals for needed projects, fund them. But build in the assurance that the research will benefit more than the researchers.

    — and another thing...    Aug 5, 11:59 AM    #

16. Assuming those who blog here are educated and involved in education, it is certainly amazing to see such quibbling over more programs to provide more grant money to students so they can get an education and keep you all employed.

    Consider the alternative: fewer dollars for fewer programs (and students).

    Are you people all nuts?

    — Mervyn Emrys    Aug 5, 01:13 PM    #

17. This appears on its surface to be yet another Bush Administration attempt to control higher ed and minimize access to anything but mainstream programs.

    — Al    Aug 5, 02:12 PM    #

18. Spellings should just go ahead and resign right now. Neither of the two presumptive presidential nominees want her in the office after Jan. 20, 2009. She like virtually all of “W’s” appointments was a misfit. She performed like a fish trying to swim in the desert. She had no clue on how to interact effectively with educators. She did not produce one single achievement and is consistently irritable in her public discourse. She is a “lame fish” and nothing will please or satisfy her between now and January – so please Peggy do one correct thing, resign now and leave.

    — Bill    Aug 5, 06:54 PM    #

19. Spellings should have resigned long ago. And as revealed in the investigative reports written by the Chronicle’s Paul Baskin Secretary Spellings has allowed massive over billing (some 250 million) of the USDOE by the corporate contingent.
    So there’s a hapless irony in Spellings complaining about high costs. Or hypocrisy…

    — Atana    Aug 6, 11:30 PM    #

20. “Specifically, how Bush and his administration is to blame”
    Not exactly over intellectual but perhaps politically charged, it is Fox news after all.
    http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245083,00.html
    All this money could have gone to students…or to pay for supposedly excessive grant programs.
    In regards to inappropriate use of funds some Bush DOE appointees could make William Marcy Tweed blush with envy…
    At least Tweed served some good as a fireman…

    — Atana    Aug 7, 12:48 AM    #

Previous: 2 Decades After Bombing of Pan Am Jet, U.S. Won't Pursue Probe
Next: $30,000 Reward Offered for Information in Santa Cruz Firebombings