Americans have lost their competitive edge in math and science, according to proponents of a new form of federal academic grants.
To combat this problem, President Bush signed Academic Competitiveness Grants into law on Feb. 8 as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
The grants set aside need-based funds for students with math or science aims to enhance the quality of these subjects at the secondary level.
Effectively, students who have taken a "rigorous" course of math and science will enjoy an advantage in loan allocations at a time when other sources of funding have been cut.
Eligible students must be United States citizens, qualify for certain need-based aid, complete a "rigorous secondary school program of study", and attend a two- or four-year undergraduate college or university, according to the legislation.
The passage of these grants has sparked controversy among partisan and non-partisan sources alike.
In a press release immediately following Bush's signing of the bill into law, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said that the math and science focus of the grants will help America regain global prominence in these areas.
"This action by the Congress will not only help those who are financially disadvantaged obtain a higher education, but also prepare our students for the challenges of a changing world," Spellings
said.
The need to improve literacy in these areas has received bi-partisan support. Katie Joyce, a policy director for Senator John Kerry (D-MA), indicated that the senator feels these subjects are particularly important.
"Senator Kerry supports the idea that we need to dedicate more resources to math and science," she wrote in an e-mail. "He believes that increasing our commitment to math and science is essential for the economic well-being and competitiveness of our country."
There are concerns, however, about the availability and implementation of these grants.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) also believes that these areas of study are important, but said that the government should also focus on students pursuing other subjects.
The government must "ensure that the hundreds of thousands of [potential] college students ... who don't go to college because they can't afford to do so, can go to college - even if they do not study one of these subjects," Kennedy said through his press office.
Kerry has similar qualms. "The senator has concerns ... that these grants will not reach all of the students that need and deserve assistance," wrote Joyce.
The legislation is written such that grants are limited to students who have "completed...a rigorous secondary school program of study established by a State or local education agency and recognized as such by the Secretary [of Education]."
The Department of Education has declined numerous attempts to elaborate on the meaning of the term 'rigorous,' noting that all standards have not yet been determined.
"Some of the details of the programs have not yet been worked out," wrote Jane Glickman, a spokesperson for the Department of Education, in an e-mail. "Secretary Spellings said...that regulations for the programs are expected to be ready by
May 1."
Even in the absence of concrete standards, Kennedy objects to the concept of the government tying aid to academic performance.
"[The program] focuses on a very small group of students, places conditions on the funds that are not in control of the students, and sadly abandons the federal commitment to prioritize the neediest of students," he said through his press office.
The grants will also only apply to students who are eligible for Federal Pell grants. Pell grants are a more general, less restrictive form of need-based aid.
Kerry feels that the government should be more concerned with enhancing the general Pell grants and other forms of financial aid.
"Many students are not eligible and the grants cannot replace Pell grants and the additional cuts to financial aid that were included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005," wrote Joyce in an e-mail.
Kennedy said that change in economic policy is particularly disturbing considering other decisions made by the Republicans.
"I am disappointed that while dedicating $13 billion in student loan cuts to tax giveaways for the rich, the Republicans did not provide one penny for increased general aid so every student in America has the opportunity to go to college and pursue the American Dream," he said.
Many Democrats are also disappointed about the manner in which the grants were passed. According to Kennedy, they were a last-minute and confusing addition to the Deficit Reduction Act.
"In a backroom deal, the Republicans crafted a new program that neither the House nor the Senate had even debated or considered. This program had more twists and turns than a roller coaster," Kennedy said.
Local implications: How might the grants affect Tufts and Somerville?
Not all, however, are opposed to the idea of creating an incentive for students to excel in math and sciences.
Patricia Reilly, the Director of Financial Aid and Co-Manager of Student Financial Services here at Tufts, notes that regular Pell grants will still be issued.
She expressed satisfaction that the Academic Competitiveness Grants focus on needy students. "As long as the aid is based on need, that's my biggest priority," she said.
Though the grants focus on only a certain group of students, she said that this policy will not hurt students applying to Tufts who may not have access to a rigorous program.
"At Tufts it won't [matter] because we meet the full need of all of our students," she said.
Bob Snow, the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum for the Somerville School District, said that there is a "significant shortage" of high school students pursuing these fields.
Connecting rigor to Advanced Placement (AP) classes, he disagreed with the assessment that access to difficult classes is sometimes beyond the control of students, stating the availability of such classes in Massachusetts.
"Those courses are in place at the high school level in Massachusetts," he said. He did, however, question the ability of external bodies to subjectively define rigor.
"I don't think they'll know how to do it," he said. "I think it's much too arbitrary a word." He suggested the objective standard of performance on AP examinations.
According to the legislation, state and local officials will have a role in determining the meaning of academic rigor.
Nate MacKinnon, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Education, said that there is currently no state-wide definition, but that Massachusetts is currently using money from an unrelated grant to look into finding one.
"We received a high school reform grant and as part of that grant we are taking a look at exactly what a rigorous program at the secondary level would be," he said. This effort has not yet concluded.
Kerry says that the definition in Massachusetts should be created by people with experience in the field of education.
"What [Massachusetts] decides is rigorous will need to be determined by education professionals who work with students everyday," wrote Joyce.
"Senator Kerry believes that students should be challenged and held to high but reasonable academic standards," wrote Joyce.
"He also believes that this can be done in a way that gives all students, regardless of their socio-economic background, the same educational opportunities."
Potential effects of the grant on student recipients
At Tufts, Reilly said that there may be administrative issues unrelated to a specific definition of rigor.
By the third year of study, when the name of the grant changes to a National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant), students must be "pursuing a major in" one of a number of specific areas.
The options are "the physical, life, or computer sciences, mathematics, technology, or engineering (as determined by the Secretary pursuant to regulations)" or a foreign language deemed "critical to the security of the United States," according to the legislation.
The Department of Education declined to comment as to whether or not students must make a formal agreement to pursue one of these subjects in order to receive grants for their first and second years.
Reilly said that there are often ambiguous cases when it is not clear if a student falls into these prescribed categories.
"At Tufts...many students have more than one major, many students change their majors and students sometimes don't declare their major until their junior year," she wrote in an e-mail.
"Although I am very much in favor of any federal program that increases need-based grant aid to students, the administrative complications of this program will be significant," she wrote.
The program will be funded by money from the United States Treasury. The Department of Education will be able to use specific amounts of money "out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated," according to the legislation.
$790,000,000 will be available for 2006, with the amount appropriated increasing every year. Funds not used one year can be carried over to the next. At least $1,010,000,000 will be available for the single fiscal year of 2010.
For each individual student, $750 will be available for the first year, $1,300 for the second year, and $4,000 each for the third and fourth years of study.
Ultimately, according to Kerry, whether or not this money will achieve its purpose and help the United States to regain an edge in math and sciences through promotion at the secondary level is still unclear.
