Republicans in the U.S. Senate had the right idea when they created a new, five-year, $3.75 billion project to help low-income students pay for college. With other nations churning out twice as many college graduates, educating more of our young people is imperative to the nation’s future economic success.
But, as is often the case, the politicians took the initiative too far by inviting federal bureaucrats into the business of rating the academic rigor of each of our nation’s 18,000 high schools.
If approved by the House, the measure, backed by the Bush administration, would give grants as large as $1,300 to incoming college students who complete “a rigorous secondary school program of study,” according to a New York Times report. Junior and senior students majoring in math and science – important fields in our 21st century economy – could get more.
U.S. high school reform is overdue, and we agree that a more rigorous track is often needed. However, tying grants to the academic rigor of a school not only will penalize lower-income students for the schools they attend, it also sticks the federal government’s nose into what should be a local and state matter.
With all of the unfunded and unrealistic mandates of No Child Left Behind, states should eye this program skeptically, looking for hidden strings.
The term “rigorous” will be defined by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. That role makes some folks uneasy, since education has long been a state and local matter first and foremost.
Research dictates that poor students skip college because of a lack of funding and lack of academic preparation. Starting with the graduating class of 2008, Colorado students must take a rigorous academic load, including four years of English and three years of math, before they can enroll at a state college or university. It should suffice as rigorous under any new federal guidelines.
“If the federal government is going to be in the business of financing higher education, then it needs to make sure it’s using those dollars wisely,” says Rick O’Donnell, outgoing director of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. “It will force high schools to put more rigor in their curriculum, and that’s a good thing.”
Perhaps so, but we still think it would be better for local districts, working with their state institutions, to decide what’s rigorous. Washington may be holding some modest purse strings, but a centralized authority would be bad for public education.
