Little to Change?

In the 2000 presidential campaign, education has become a buzzword.

Republican candidate George W. Bush is hoping to refashion himself as a compassionate conservative by taking a more moderate stance on education than other Republicans. Democratic candidate Al Gore '69 is simply trumpeting the Clinton administration policies.

But neither candidate is going out on a limb. Experts say each candidate's proposals closely resemble the other's--and the current administration's policies.

And neither has offered comprehensive higher education plan.

Higher education analysts expect Bush and Gore to develop more detailed policies over the next four months. They say, however, they are wary that these plans will be as slick and glittery as the two presumptive nominee's political machines.

Not Much on Higher Ed

Overall, Bush and Gore have made few concrete proposals about higher education. Most of their statements thus far have focused on elementary and secondary schools.

"They seem far more focused on K-12," says Don Stewart, a higher education expert at the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a grantmaking foundation. "I haven't really seen a coherent policy statement" about higher education.

Kevin Casey, Harvard's senior director of federal and state relations, says the lower schools provide a larger audience for the candidate's ideas.

"They've been focusing on K-12 as a hot issue," Casey says.

Now that Democratic and Republican Party challengers Bill Bradley and John S. McCain have dropped out of the race, however, Gore and Bush should start making concrete higher education-related proposals, Casey says.

Terry W. Hartle, the senior vice president of the American Council on Education, a trade association which represents 1,800 colleges and universities including Harvard, says that substantive proposals are not the basis of this campaign.

"We're going to have an election that will focus more on personality than policy," Hartle says. "I think that [concrete plans] will develop in more detail over the next couple of months."

But it may be that the candidates find little to change.

The current administration is primarily interested in improving higher education through greater student aid and investments in scientific research and technology, Hartle says.

He adds that the "general thinking" is that the education policies now in effect are, on the whole, successful.

Thus, the candidates are intent on tinkering, not on sweeping reforms.

Historically, things have been different, Hartle says. In 1988, Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis came up with a comprehensive plan for an income-contingent student loan program, which was a central facet of his campaign until the election.

"We haven't seen that [type of program] yet from either candidate, and with the exception of elementary and secondary education, it's not clear that we will," Hartle says.

He adds that an unusual dichotomy has developed on the campaign trail: while federal support for student aid and university research has never been higher, neither candidate is talking about higher education very much.

"The existing policy mechanisms seem to be working reasonably well," Hartle says.

On the Issues

Although the two major candidates have said little about their higher education plans, a few trends have emerged for education in elementary, middle and high school.

Forced to the right by McCain's surprisingly strong challenge in the Republican primaries, Bush is now racing towards the center for the November general election.

Though education has traditionally been a Democratic issue, Bush--who presided over an educational renaissance in Texas--is hoping to challenge Gore for education-minded voters in November.

Unlike many Republicans, Bush wants to keep the Department of Education, and even wants to expand it by making Head Start, a child development program, one of its programs.

Education is "an issue that is particularly important to your less partisan, more independent-minded voters," said Ari Fleischer, a Bush spokesperson, in yesterday's New York Times.

Hartle says such maneuvering towards the center is "not the least bit surprising," as it happens in every presidential election.

Bush needs Democratic and independent votes to get elected, just as Gore does, he says.

The centerpiece of Bush's education platform is his "affirmative access" program. As part of this program, a state law signed by Bush in 1997 requires Texas public colleges and universities to admit the top 10 percent of graduates from each of the state's high schools.

"I support what I call 'affirmative access'--not quotas, not double standards, because those divide and balkanize, but access--a fair shot for every single person," Bush told The Chronicle of Higher Education in February.

Bush admits that equal access doesn't guarantee equal results, but says that his legislation means that every student will get a "fair shot" based on their potential and merit.

Bush's "affirmative access" plan is catching on around the country. California, which, like Texas, no longer uses affirmative action, adopted a class-rank plan last year, while public college leaders in Florida approved a top-20-percent policy under Governor Jeb Bush in late February.

But Bush's "affirmative access" replacement for the Democrats' bread-and-butter affirmative action remains untested on the national level.

"The top-10-percent plan works as well as it has because of a very unfortunate situation--we still have de-facto segregated schools," Bruce Walker, University of Texas at Austin's director of admissions, told The Chronicle.

As a result of his program, "more of the minority students who did attend selective schools would be from low income segregated backgrounds and fewer from integrated and suburban schools," according to Gary A. Orfield, Professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard.

Bush also wants to expand Pell Grants--federal grants to financial aid students--and has proposed "education savings accounts" through which parents would be given a $5,000 each year to save for their children's tuition.

For the most part, however, Bush favors local control of the nation's schools.

Gore, meanwhile, is following in the footsteps of President Clinton.

"Basically the Gore higher ed proposals are same as the Clinton agenda--a strong focus on making more loans and scholarships available particularly to the middle class and high scoring students, a modest increase in aid for poor students, and a continued support for affirmative action," Orfield wrote in an e-mail message.

The central feature of Gore's plan thus far is his "National Tuition Savings" plan, which would allow parents to invest money free of tax in preparation for their child's college bills.

"We should allow each parent's savings to be used in any participating state, and use incentives to encourage states that do not have the programs to create them," Gore said in May 1999. "Under this plan, if you make small, regular contributions to the program after your child's birth, you'll be able to afford college tuition--with protection from taxes, inflation, and rising college costs."

Gore says he plans to continue several programs begun during the Clinton Administration and wants to increase Pell Grants to help low-income students.

"I am proud of the fact that our Hope Scholarship, Lifetime Learning Tax Credits and substantial increases in Pell Grants have opened the doors of college for millions of Americans," Gore told The Chronicle.

But Gore's program is also more centrist than a traditional Democrat's--a reflection of the "New Democrat" ideology that got the Clinton-Gore ticket twice elected to the nation's highest offices.

"The Clinton-Gore program is much more conservative than earlier Democratic programs in that it does not make a high priority of keeping access to college open for low income and working class students," Orfield wrote. "The social class gaps in college access and completion of broadened substantially in the last two decades."

The Harvard Angle

Orfield says that Gore's few higher education proposals fit in nicely with Harvard's policies.

"As far as Harvard students go, it is a strong positive program for most of them, including the tax exempt status of some tuition debt payments," Orfield wrote.

But Casey says it is "hard to glean conclusions from campaign-type situations" in terms of how the candidates' proposals would affect Harvard's policies.

Nevertheless, his office has been heavily involved in the campaign. Before Super Tuesday, they funneled higher education-related paperwork to all four major candidates, he says.

Casey says that Harvard has two main priorities for the 2000 election.

Continued support for student aid access is a "top priority on any list," he says, emphasizing the importance Harvard places on its need-based financial aid program.

"Preserving access is really a key," Casey says.

How that access is preserved will depend on which candidate is elected.

"Harvard is very strongly committed to affirmative action and the position of the new president, particularly as expressed in his Justice Department and judicial appointments, will be critical," Orfield wrote.

Second in importance for Harvard is "broad-based support for federal research programs," Casey adds.

A Divided Future?

Regardless of which candidate is elected, certain trends will continue in upcoming years, analysts say.

Stewart predicts that an increasing number of students from lower income families will go to community colleges and technical schools, and that not enough low-income and minority students will go to 4-year liberal arts colleges.

"We have an increasing gap between middle-income and low-income students," Stewart says.

The result, he says, is that there will be less diversity in the workforce and leadership of American society.

Student financial aid, meanwhile, is becoming increasingly "short-sighted," Stewart says.

In what he calls the "old days"--the late 1960s and early 1970s--financial aid was primarily for the poor. But as schools have become more competitive in the last decade, financial aid has become less and less of a tool to promote equality, he says.

"What financial aid has become is a marketing tool" to boost college enrollments, Stewart says.

And neither candidate is focusing on financial aid as a leveraging tool, he says.

"I think that's unfortunate," Stewart says.