Inside Higher Education provides this overview of our president-elect's stance on higher education as gleamed through the campaign.

Obama on Higher Ed
Many higher education leaders had hoped to see college issues, or education generally, emerge as a major issue in the 2008 race. That never quite happened. And with the war in Iraq and the collapse of the economy, that may not be surprising. But over the course of two years leading up to his election, Sen. Barack Obama has given many policy addresses and issued many proposals about education that may guide his work in office — at least after he deals with the economy, Iraq and Afghanistan. Here are some of the highlights:

Loan programs: Obama responded to a scandal last spring about student loan programs by proposing a series of reforms. In a May 2007 proposal, he called for eliminating subsidies to lenders and pushing all borrowing into the direct lending program. He said that eliminating subsidies would allow for a significant boost in support for Pell Grants. At around the same time Obama made his proposal, similar ideas were unveiled by Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who were at that time emerging as top competitors in the race for the Democratic nomination. In part because all of the leading candidates were more sympathetic to direct lending than to the guaranteed loan program, and the Republicans at the time were largely ignoring higher education issues, there was little sustained debate about these proposals.

Access to higher education: While Obama started with a focus on loan programs, he went on to issue more detailed proposals on college access, saying repeatedly that he worried about the challenges families faced paying for college. Included in his college access plans:

• A fully refundable tax credit to cover the first $4,000 in college costs — enough for two years of community college tuition in most cases — for everyone. The only requirement would be 100 hours of public service a year; this could be performed in the summer or between semesters.
• Simplification of federal aid applications. (There has been some progress on this issue, which attracts bipartisan support, since Obama spoke on it and prior to the election.)
• A pledge to keep Pell Grant maximums rising at the level of inflation or higher if possible.

Community colleges: Obama has proposed a new grant program that would provide funds to community colleges to conduct more thorough analysis of the types of skills and technical education that are in high demand from students and local businesses; to create new associate of arts degree programs that cater to emerging careers; and to reward institutions that graduate more students and also increase their numbers of transfer students to four-year institutions.

Science and technology: During the campaign, the president-elect repeatedly linked investments in science and technology to improvements in the economy, and he made a number of specific proposals. Obama has called for expanded financing of federal research programs, with special efforts for those academic scientists starting their careers; the creation of new programs to improve math and science education and to attract more students to them — with special efforts to recruit minority and female students to fields where they have been underrepresented; and special efforts to promote research and education related to climate change and health care. Obama has backed stem cell research and opposed Bush administration limits on such funds.

Further, he has pledged to “restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.” A more philosophical outline of Obama’s views on the link between education, science and economic competitiveness may be found in his speech in June at Kettering University.

Affirmative action: Obama has repeatedly said that affirmative action should not be eliminated, but he has suggested a combination of class and race as factors. In a 2007 interview with ABC, asked if his daughters will deserve affirmative action when they apply to college, he said that they “should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged.” Further, in Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race, he noted with sympathy the frustrations of some while people “when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed.” But in that speech, as in others, Obama has also repeatedly stressed that the economic and educational gaps between some minority individuals and others are real and need attention.

While presidential candidates prepare policies on issues such as education and research, they also end up speaking on other higher education issues when they are asked surprise questions on the campaign trail or in debates, or when they happen to be campaigning in an area that is focused on a particular issue. In these situations, Obama has:

• Called for colleges to lift bans on Reserve Officers Training Corps programs. Obama opposes the military’s discriminatory policies against gay people — the source of much campus opposition to ROTC. But in an appearance at Columbia University in September, he said that “the notion that young people here at Columbia or anywhere, in any university, aren’t offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake.”


• Criticized the cost of college textbooks and professors who assign their own books. In an appearance in Texas, he said: “Books are a big scam.... I taught law at the University of Chicago for 10 years, and one of the biggest scams is law professors write their own text books and then assign it to their students. They make a mint. It’s a huge racket.”


• Backed the right to attend community college for those without legal status to be in the United States. Obama spoke on this issue in North Carolina, where this has been the subject of much debate. In an interview, he said: “For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, at least as far as they can tell ... is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up.”

Money, Money, Money, Money

Before the Wall Street financial crisis hit the Hill like Hurricane Ike, congress and the president addressed the federal budget--well a temporary fix for the most part.


Last week the president signed into law the FY09 continuing resolution (CR). [Note last blog entry below]. This will fund the federal government through March 6, 2009. After the new session of Congress begins in January we should have a better idea of how they will go about funding the rest of FY 09...or at least that's the plan.

In short, the CR freezes funding for most federal agencies at their FY08 levels during that period, including those federal agencies of major interest to A&M researchers: the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and NASA.

Regarding financial aid, the CR includes an additional $2.5 billion to help address a projected $6 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program over three academic years (07-08, 08-09, 09-10) and maintain the maximum award at its current level. Some $750 million of the appropriated amount is a down payment on the shortfall.

Funded for the full fiscal year “minibus” of three national security full-year appropriations bills—Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-Veterans Affairs.
Within the Department of Defense (DOD) bill, funding for basic research (budget function 6.1) is $1.842 billion, a 12.7-percent increase above FY08 and higher than either the House or Senate subcommittee-approved levels.

Let's Get Fiscal

With the federal fiscal year ending next Tuesday, this is what we know:

1. There will be some humongous bailout for troubled financial firms.

2. Congress must approve funding to keep federal agencies and programs running beyond September 30 into the new fiscal year (FY09). That process is in flux.

3. What’s being discussed is a “minibus,” instead of an “omnibus,” of the three national security appropriations bills (Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-Veterans Affairs) and a continuing resolution (CR) to fund agencies and programs covered by the remaining nine appropriations bills. The combined measure would also fund a number of other priorities, such as disaster relief, etc. The minibus of three appropriations bills is expected to run for the entire fiscal year and increase funding for national security agencies and programs above their FY08 levels. The CR, as currently drafted, would run through March 6—and the start of a new Administration and Congress—and freeze funding for most of its agencies and programs at their FY08 levels.

Now of course this could all change.....developing.

Science Policy Anyone?

You wonks that are having trouble sleeping at night not knowing the presidential candidate's position on science and technology issues pressing the nation, restful slumber is around the corner!  

OK maybe not.  But the science related issues don't always emerge in the national debate so here's a link to questions that should be of interest to most university researchers and those that care about science policy in America.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com

HEA Implementation

Couple of points relating to the new higher education act. The federal education department will be holding hearings across the country regarding the implementation of the act and rules the department may create. If anyone on campus has any comments regarding implementation--now mind you that does not mean we can voice if we think the new law is good, bad or ugly; rather the implementation of the law as passed and signed by the president--then please let me know.

For a really nice side-by-side analysis of the new law's key provisions, here's a link to the AAU site noting issues of interest. http://www.aau.edu/education/Comparison_HEA_Conf_Side-by-Side_09-02-2008.pdf

So, what's in this zillion page bill?

The good folks at ACE have put together a summary of the major provisions of the new HEA--it became law on Aug. 14 after President Bush signed it.

For the mildly curious, here's a PDF of the analysis. And as always, if you have any questions please let me know.

http://www.acenet.edu/e-newsletters/p2p/ACE_HEA_analysis_818.pdf

Off to the President's House.....

Last night both House and Senate voted favorably for the Higher Education Act reauthorization. No word on what the president will do...developing.

So what does it all mean and what does higher education say about all of this? Under the unmbrella of ACE the major university associations sent this letter to the leadership of the House and Senate (http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=LettersGovt&CONTENTID=28138&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm)

Peter McPherson, NASULGC President sent out a nice overview of the compromise legislation--the good and the bad. Here it is...

After more than five years of work and for the first time since 1998, the Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization bill passed both the House and Senate today. The House adopted the measure by a vote of 380 to 49. The Senate followed suit tonight and passed it by a vote of 83 to 8. The President is expected to sign the legislation.

The bill includes provisions that will benefit students. It implements year-round Pell Grants and reauthorizes critical student aid programs, such as the Pell program, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Perkins Loans, Federal Work Study, Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships (LEAP), TRIO, and GEAR UP programs.

As a result of your active engagement and outreach to your representatives and senators, the final bill addresses or at least partially mitigates many of the concerns that we in the academic community had with earlier versions of the bill. These changes and improvements would not have been possible without the significant input of NASULGC members weighing in with Congress. While we saw positive changes during the legislative process, the legislation still contains some of provisions that we do not like.

Changes to bill language regarding accreditation represent a significant accomplishment for the community. The bill language would now explicitly prohibit the Secretary of Education from dictating standards for accrediting agencies to use in academic areas.

In other areas, the bill tempers many of the earlier proposals but problems remain. Examples including the following:

· Institutions in the top 5 percent with respect to increases in tuition and fees or net price would be required to file reports with the Secretary explaining the causes and the steps they will take to address cost. Additional cost-related reporting requirements in another part of the bill were dropped. Although this represents a significant improvement from previous language, we argued against the whole set of cost-related provisions.

· The final bill also includes a modified version of a "multi-year tuition calculator" that would be created and maintained by the Secretary. In its simplest terms, the mechanism would allow students and their families to create nonbinding estimates of future tuition and fee levels based on the changes over the past three years. It is not yet clear how this will work.

· The expansive "Coburn language" on use of federal funds was modified so that the language only applies to federal HEA funds.

· Progress on "peer-to-peer" (P2P) was made. The final language requires institutions to certify that they have a "plan" in place to combat illegal file sharing, but the bill language and accompanying report language provide some institutional flexibility in terms of the elements of such a plan. There is no longer a technology mandate as in earlier versions of the bill and the overall role of the Department of Education in this issue has been significantly minimized. In addition, while the bill directs institutions to offer alternative downloading services, the language includes the qualifier "to the extent practicable," The report language for the bill may provide additional flexibility for institutions. A big concern with these provisions is that they may become the basis for further inappropriate federal intrusion in the future.

· The bill also contains language on textbooks that would place new requirements on both publishers and institutions. Institutions would be required, "to the extent practicable," to make available to the public via the Internet information about the course materials, such as International Standards Book Numbers (ISBNs), author(s), title, publisher, and copyright dates in a proactive manner.

· With respect to the broad range of new reporting and data disclosure requirements, a number of the community's recommendations were accepted, but some remain.

Although the bill continually improved throughout the legislative process, it still remains flawed in many ways. The cumulative impact of new regulations and rules on colleges and universities may not be quantifiable but will still be considerable. The stated overarching goal of this reauthorization was to reduce college costs for students. And yet, the net impact of these new unfunded mandates placed on our institutions seems to run counter to that objective. Consider the following examples:

· The final bill requires institutions to keep track of their alumni with respect to their employment and pursuit of graduate education by seeking illustrative examples. Although a formal information system is not called for, all colleges are aware of the problems regarding the tracking of alumni.

· The final bill creates duplicative requirements on colleges and universities with respect to reporting foreign gifts.

· We also know that the current federal graduation rates are flawed. Yet, the final bill calls for the disaggregation of graduation rates by student aid status.

Finally, when the House and Senate conferees met to finalize the bill late Tuesday, they adopted language that would mandate that states maintain a certain level of funding ("state maintenance of effort") for their public colleges and universities in order to remain eligible for a new program. The impact of this provision remains to be seen.

The final bill has provisions we support and those with which we have problems. Due to your tremendous involvement and assistance, we were able to improve and mitigate many of the truly unacceptable items. After the bill gets signed into law, the next step will be to work with the Department of Education and Congress to ensure that the implementation of this bill is carried out as smoothly as possible.

Again, thank you for your assistance throughout this experience.

HEA Update

They started in 2003. After many false starts it now appears House and Senate conferees have reached an agreement on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Last night votes were taken on a final package that is planned to be voted on before members scat for the summer.


The legislation in not put per se, but here are some issue of interest as reported from the good folks at NASULGC:

• With respect to accreditation, the language would prohibit the Secretary from dictating standards for accreditors to use in academic areas.

• On the cost front, the language would base "net price" on the "cost of attendance." The various "college affordability and transparency lists" would be based on both "tuition and fees" as well as "net price." Institutions in the top five percent of each category with respect to increases in tuition and fees or net price would be required to file reports with the Secretary explaining the causes and the steps they will take to addresses cost. Additional cost-related reporting requirements in Title VIII have been removed.

• The conference report also includes a modified version of a "multi-year tuition calculator" that would be created and maintained by the Secretary. In its simplest terms, the mechanism would allow the public to create nonbinding estimates of future tuition and fee levels based on the changes over the past three years.

• The bill also contains language on textbooks that would place new requirements on both publishers and institutions. Institutions would be required, "to the extent possible," to make to the public information about the course materials, such as International Standards Book Numbers (ISBNs), author(s), title, publisher, and copyright dates.

• The "Coburn" language has been modified so that the language only applies to federal HEA funds while the ban on use of federal funds for lobbying, which is current law, remains in place.

• With respect to the broad range of new reporting and data disclosure requirements, it appears that many of the recommendations of the community were accepted. At the same time, however, the language on the disaggregation of graduation rates by income level remains. Also, institutions would still be required to provide illustrative examples of the employment and graduate education pursuits of their employees.

• Progress on "peer-to-peer" has been made as well.

The Chronicle of Higher Education adds:
"But lobbyists for traditional institutions have been more measured in their praise of the bill. While they appreciate the new grant programs and accreditation protections, many resent the increased federal oversight that the bill would bring. Under the bill, colleges would be required to disclose everything from their policies on illegal downloading of music and video files to the details of their arrangements with lenders.

More Paperwork
Colleges are also grumbling about the bill's new reporting requirements, which they maintain would increase their costs at the same time Congress is pressuring colleges to hold the line on tuition growth.
Under the bill, the secretary of education would publish annual lists of the institutions with the highest and lowest tuition and fees, and net prices, by sector, as well as lists of the institutions with the largest percentage increases in net price and in tuition and fees over the previous three years. Institutions appearing on the percentage-based lists would be required to report to the education secretary on the factors that contributed to their price increases and the steps they were taking to hold down costs.
Still, nonprofit colleges can claim some victories. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's conference, they persuaded lawmakers to drop language that would have required them to notify students and employees within 30 minutes of an emergency and to report any gift over $250,000 that came from a private-sector corporation (though lawmakers left in such a reporting requirement for gifts from foreign governments if the money was to be used for a center receiving funds under the bill).
Colleges also persuaded lawmakers to abandon a requirement that institutions whose net tuition and fees outpaced their sector's average submit a report to the secretary and provide the secretary with certain tax documents from the previous three years.
And while lawmakers retained a controversial requirement that colleges offer students music and video through subscription-based services, they provided a possible out, adding "to the extent practicable" to the language. Still, the language is considered a coup for the entertainment industry, which contends that illegal downloading on college campuses costs it millions of dollars. The bill also would require colleges to use technology to curtail copyright infringement on their campuses.
The compromise bill also contains some good news for the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which was created more than two decades ago to counsel Congress and the Education Department on student-aid issues. The House version of the bill would have abolished the influential committee, but the final version preserves it."

Will report back when the conference committee report is out.

A&M in the House!

Literally. Well, U. S. House of Representatives that is. Specifically the Science and Technology's Research and Science Education Subcommittee. Interim VP for Research Jim Calvin sat on a panel before the committee to discuss international research (academic relationships) between American universities and foreign universities, entities or governments. Sort of "Diplomacy through Science." The committee is quite interested in NGO's (Non-governmental organizations) and international agreements in science and technology.

Dr. Calvin highlighted for the committee the need for a mechanism to stabilize funding, long-term between the American and foreign entity. Often gaps in funding occurs when one of the two partners hit a funding snag or disruption which often delays a project or jeopardizes it.

For a recap of the hearing, here's the link. Good job Jim!

http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2259

Approps FY '09--Summer Status

Conventional wisdom--no FY '09 appropriations until early spring in '09. Likely continuing resolution until after the election to see what happens in November elections--POTUS and congressional makeup. Regardless, April seems to be mentioned as when a non-CR type of approp bill(s) may emerge.

In case you're keeping score, here's where things stand as of today. I have spared the day-by-day, ebb and flow of the FY '09 approps process thus far because of what I just wrote above. However these House and Senate actions are not exercises in futility in that the parameters for decisions will be set based upon what's done before the election.

Here's a link to R&D and higher ed interested agency status thanks to the kind folks at AAU that consolidate the info into a nice table. Membership has its privileges. http://www.aau.edu/budget/09Priorities.pdf

FY '08 Supplemental--It's Done!

The president signed the FY '08 supplemental appropriations bill. If you want to read what's in the entire package here's the House Approp's Committee release--a nice synopsis of what got in http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/EmergencySupplemental6-19-08.pdf

Again, $400 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and NASA. The breakdown is noted in an earlier blog.

One area not discussed earlier is Veteran's financial aid. Included in the package are provisions to update and expand the Montgomery GI Bill and provide current veterans with college tuition, room and board. Veterans who have served on active duty for three years since Sept. 11, 2001, are eligible for a full four-year college education. More than 1.6 million veterans have served since 2001 and about 450,000 veterans are expected to make use of the new GI bill. Veterans will be able to transfer their education benefits to their spouses and children under a provision added to garner additional support.

FY '08 Supplemental--More Stuff

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring the FY 2008 Appropriations supplemental bill up tomorrow. CongressDaily, Roll Call, etc. are reporting that the senate will adopt the house measure with the numbers noted below in the 19 June blog.

After passage, and it is predicted to pass unamended, it goes to the president. Now he has said he'd veto the bill if it contained too may "ornaments on the tree"--again, this is the bill to fund the war effort. So we'll wait and see.

Why is this important? First, the NSF is Texas A&M's primary source of federal research dollars. Second, A&M has over 100 researchers that utilize the department of energy national labs for their work--and with the case of Lawrence Livermore we're on the recently configured management team with the University of California.

Will update accordingly....

FY 2008 Supplemental--Help is on the way, we hope.....

In FY 2008 (our current FY) Dept. of Energy, NSF, etc. did not fare as well as the research community had hoped. Numerous layoffs at several national energy labs, which affects some A&M researchers, plus the slowdown at NSF sends a pall over R&D in the country.

Today, the House released information for forthcoming vote likely to be enacted a measure to help address the measure. It's attached to the DoD supplemental bill that primarily funds the war effort. There is a veto threat. But before that, the bill must be approved by the Senate.

Here are the numbers as to be voted on by the House:

The measures include $400 million in funding for science. The breakdown of the science funding is as follows:

--$150 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
--$62.5 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science
The DOE is instructed to utilize this funding to eliminate all furloughs and reductions in force which are a direct result of budgetary constraints.
--$62.5 million for DOE Environmental Cleanup
--$62.5 million for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
--$62.5 million for the National Science Foundation (NSF), of which:
--$22.5 million would be directed to research, with $5 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
--$40 million would be directed for education, with $20 million allocated to the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program and $20 million is to develop a new Program to encourage top college juniors and seniors majoring in STEM fields.

The supplemental also includes the veteran's education provisions supported by the higher education community.