August 14, 2008

President Bush Signs Legislation to Renew the Higher Education Act

Washington — President Bush signed legislation today to renew the Higher Education Act, the major law governing federal student aid.

The White House announced the action unceremoniously and without comment, simply listing it among two other bills that Mr. Bush also signed today.

After five years and 14 extensions, Congress finally passed the legislation, HR 4137, last month. The 1,158-page law sets federal higher-education policy for at least the next five years.

Among its provisions, the law creates dozens of grant programs for colleges and students while imposing hundreds of new reporting requirements on institutions. It cracks down on conflicts of interest in student-loan programs, presses institutions and states to rein in tuition, and makes it easier for for-profit colleges to become, or to remain, eligible to award federal student aid.

It also seeks to prevent students from taking out private loans unnecessarily, and it prohibits the secretary of education from dictating how colleges measure student learning for purposes of accreditation.

Margaret Spellings, the secretary of education, had voiced her displeasure about the dozens of new grant programs Congress included in the bill. In a letter she sent to lawmakers after it passed, Ms. Spellings said that the White House supported many parts of the bill but remained concerned about the more than 60 “new, costly, and duplicative programs” that the legislation would create. That criticism appears not to have been so deeply felt as to warrant a veto. —Sara Hebel

Comments

1. W told Margie he’d rather sign it than read it. After all, he’s watching the Olympics.

   — Hnaef    Aug 14, 01:39 PM    #

2. Margaret Spellings…what a fine job she did. We now have her to thank for what will be the mountains of paperwork sure to come. (BTW, she barely made it through 4 years of undergrad, so she and Bushie are surely qualified to be signing off on this. )

   — Centropi    Aug 14, 03:28 PM    #

3. What else could one expect of an education secretary chosen by an anti-intellectual president?

   — Retired Dean of College Admission    Aug 14, 03:44 PM    #

4. Puh-lease. You’d think readers of the Chronicle wouldn’t stoop to ad hominem satire. Like the next batch aren’t going to make our lives any less difficult. “Yes please, I’ll sign that ridiulous piece of legislation signed by my fellow party members.”

   — Blah Blah    Aug 14, 03:48 PM    #

5. True, 8 years of this clown act did nothing to further education in this country, but let’s not ignore the mountain of garbage that Congress included in this bill, so there’s plenty of bipartisan blame to go around. It seems the extra time they spent beyond when this should have been passed 5 years ago was spent thinking up new ways to make colleges focus on just about everything but educating students or making it easier for students to access/afford an education. Now we’re recording industry enforcers and textbook watchdogs, all subject to having to wear a scarlet letter if we have to raise tuition just to be able to comply with these laws that do nothing to provide access to education. And I can’t wait to see the regulations.

   — DS    Aug 14, 03:57 PM    #

6. The bill had over whelming bi-partisan support and sufficient numbers to override a veto. Please look at the facts of who was behind this before you cast your stones. The Associations, collectively did not have enough influence to address the real issues.

   — Richard Heath    Aug 14, 04:07 PM    #

7. I love the way the President is castigated for everythingthat is wrong. Remember, it’s the Congress that orivides us with these fine opportunities. But really, it’s not your representative that produces the mountains of B.S., it’s the 25 year old staffers who decide what way their rep of sen should vote. They just don’t have time.

   — Steve    Aug 14, 04:29 PM    #

8. Steve #7, You are so right after graduation from Williams my sister worked for a Congressman a couple of years doing just what you said before she went off to grad school. Now she’s one of the professors out there.
   I want to say hee hee but the truth is too sad.
   Bubba

   — Good ol' Bubba    Aug 14, 04:46 PM    #

9. Bush had no choice put to pass Kennedy’s bill. Oh by the way didn’t he fail out at one point… at least bush passed.

   — Look who krafted the bill    Aug 14, 05:00 PM    #

10. Yeah! And on another note, I think college subject course descriptions should work together for the good of saving tuition fees and added student loans.

    — Zenobia    Aug 15, 05:43 AM    #

11. Would someone enlighten me as to the section of the U.S. Constitution that authorized the Congress to pass and fund this bill?

    — Steve    Aug 15, 09:02 AM    #

12. Hey, at least they’re not getting themselves into trouble.

    — Man in Your Back Pocket    Aug 15, 09:14 AM    #

13. And how much pork do you suppose was in this? At least if McCain were president, he would have vetoed it, despite the probably of an override. Obama would have been only too glad to sign it, no doubt. Tell me again which presidency would be an extension of the Bush administration?

    — Tracy G.    Aug 15, 09:57 AM    #

14. To #11, Congress generally gains this authority only when an institution agrees to receive federal funds. If a private school doesn’t want to follow most of the provisions of the higher ed act, it is free to opt out of all federal funds (see Grove City College v. Bell), however there are some provisions that can’t be gotten out of (the civil rights stuff) since these are under the auspices of Congress’ 14th Amendment powers. Colleges with campuses in multiple states may get caught in the inter-state commerce clause as well.

    Short answer: For most of it, our colleges have made the agreement that we want the money for our students and faculty and we’re willing to put up with the regulations in order to keep it (and them quite frankly)

    — JS    Aug 15, 12:49 PM    #

15. Surely it is a coincidence that Congress passed this big barrel of pork just before a major election. It is certainly beyond their ethical mores to use taxpayer money to buy votes, now isn’t it? Is there a special interest group that didn’t get a grant? Seems the lobbyists earned their bloated pay…

    — Shazamm    Aug 19, 01:01 PM    #

Previous: U. of California Provost Heads to United Arab Emirates
Next: American Embassy in Iraq Now Processing Student Visas