DATE: Sunday, April 27, 1997                TAG: 9704250805

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: BY TOM ROBOTHAM 

                                            LENGTH:  198 lines

THE COLLEGE DEBATE CLINTON'S FINANCIAL AID PLAN HAS BEEN CALLED EVERYTHING FROM ``HAREBRAINED'' TO ``JUST PLAIN HUCKSTERISM.'' BUT THERE ARE EDUCATIONAL LEADERS WHO BELIEVE THE PROPOSAL DESERVES A SECOND LOOK.

We must make the 13th and 14th years of education - at least two years of college - just as universal in America by the 21st century as a high school education is today, and we must open the doors of college to all Americans.

President Clinton in his 1997 State of the Union Address

Should the federal government encourage all Americans to go to college?

President Clinton thinks so - and he's proposed a new set of financial-aid packages to spur enrollment. But in recent weeks the plan has been harshly criticized by commentators of all political persuasions.

Chester E. Finn, Jr., who served as assistant secretary of education in the Reagan administration, summed up the debate nicely in an essay for the National Review: ``So many liberals have criticized Clinton's proposal that conservatives may begin to wonder if it's not a decent idea after all. However, this one deserves bipartisan denunciation.''

Another opponent, Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel, has called the plan ``harebrained,'' while Robert Zemsky, the widely-respected director of the Institute for Research on Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania, labeled it ``just plain hucksterism.''

President Clinton may indeed be misguided in pushing for ``universal'' college enrollment. But there are educational leaders in Hampton Roads and elsewhere who believe that the proposal deserves a second look.

``I was surprised by Robert Zemsky's remark,'' said Maurice R. Berube, Old Dominion University's Eminent Scholar of Educational Leadership and Counseling. ``I know and respect his work, but in this case I think he was grandstanding.''

Berube says he has some reservations about the plan - most notably, the fact that it focuses on the middle class rather than the poor - but he says he was encouraged that Clinton has at least put a spotlight on higher education.

Clinton's initiative has several key components, only some of which have been highlighted in the press. Among them are:

The Hope Scholarship. Modeled after a program established several years ago in Georgia, this scholarship would give families a tax credit of $1,500 for each of the first two years of college. Only students maintaining a B-minus average or better would be eligible for the tax credit in their second year.

A $10,000-a-year tax deduction for all tuition after high school. This would be an alternative for families who chose not to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship.

A 21 percent increase In Pell Grant monies. Pell Grants are aimed at poor students who cannot take advantage of tax credits or tax deductions.

Oddly enough, the Pell-Grant component - the biggest expansion of that program in 20 years - has received relatively little attention. Instead, critics have focused on the tax-credit initiative, arguing that it has several flaws.

First, they say, the Hope Scholarship would result in a lowering of academic standards within higher education.

``College enrollment right after high school is at an all-time high: about 64 percent,'' Finn notes. ``The great problem is that far too many of those who enter aren't prepared for college-level work.'' Encouraging universal enrollment, critics argue, would force colleges to devote even more resources to remedial programs.

Inevitably, they say, this would lead to grade inflation and a dilution of the college experience for everyone. Critics also fear that a new infusion of tax money would, in Finn's words, ``tempt colleges to jack up prices'' so that they could ``harvest the new federal windfall.'' Finally, many commentators have argued that Clinton's proposal - which is aimed at the middle class - would channel money to students who don't really need it.

One thing that's been missing from most of the commentaries is historical perspective. As Berube points out, the idea that the federal government should stimulate college enrollment is not new - nor has it been championed only by liberals.

In 1946, when only about 20 percent of Americans went to college, President Truman established a commission to study the issue. The study concluded that ``at least 49 percent of our population has the mental ability to complete 14 years of schooling,'' and ``at least 32 percent . . . has the mental ability to complete an advanced liberal or specialized professional education.''

The Truman commission went so far as to propose free public education for two years beyond high school. The GI Bill, implemented three years earlier, already had begun to push up college enrollments, but the idea proposed by the commission remained largely academic.

Federal aid to higher education became a higher priority under President Eisenhower, especially after the launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik. Americans feared that Russia was winning the ``space race'' and saw higher education as a way for this country to catch up.

Presidents Kennedy and Johnson subsequently picked up the higher-education torch, and, by 1965, Congress had passed legislation that provided extensive financial aid to both public and private colleges as well as to individuals. By 1970, the percentage of college-age Americans who entered college approached 50 percent. President Nixon thought the country could do even better. By 1976, he predicted, the figure would reach 70 percent.

Nixon argued that higher college enrollments would benefit not only the individuals who attended, but society as a whole, because a better-educated population would stimulate economic growth and civic involvement.

``No element of our national life is more worthy of our attention, our support, and our concern than higher education,'' Nixon said.

By 1971, many academics and political leaders were debating the idea of universal higher education. Fritz Machulp, a professor of economics at Princeton University, called ``universal higher education'' a contradiction in terms, as not everyone was capable of college-level work. But there was widespread support for the idea within the academic community.

Among the contributors to a book of essays titled Higher Education for Everybody? there was a consensus that universal college enrollment was a good idea, and that the federal government should support it.

Attitudes toward financial aid to higher education changed drastically during the Reagan administration. The shift in outlook did not simply reflect a desire to scale back federal programs in general: Conservative critics argued that the political left had taken control of colleges and that the government shouldn't be subsidizing their political agenda.

Dr. Larry Whitworth, president of Tidewater Community College, believes that this attitude prevails today and that it may be coloring the debate over Clinton's proposals.

``There's a large group of people out there who are frightened of education,'' he said. ``They seem to believe that widespread higher education produces more liberal thinking. As a result, they want college to remain an elitist institution.'' Whitworth thinks that's a dangerous attitude.

``The future of this country depends on the education level of our citizenry,'' he said. ``Everybody should be encouraged to pursue as much education as they are capable of.''

Critics argue, however, that it makes no sense to put more money into higher education when elementary and secondary schools are turning out students who have yet to master basic language and math skills. The argument is hard to refute. Nationally, more than a third of college students require remedial courses. (At some local colleges the figure is even higher.)

Clinton's proposal, Finn argues, ``signals the futility of reforming grades 1 through 12.''

Assistant Secretary of Education David Longanecker says this is nonsense: ``Of course we need to improve elementary and secondary education, and this administration is trying to do that with Goals 2000 and other initiatives.

``But we need to focus on education at all levels.''

Berube agrees that there is a need for ``big-time remediation programs all the way along the line,'' and he admits that Clinton's plan could result in even higher numbers of ill-prepared students going to college. But he says that barring all students who need remediation would do more harm than good.

``Sometimes granting students access to college is half the battle,'' he said, adding that once they complete the remedial courses in a college environment, they find that they're able to do college-level work.

The question is, to what end? Do most Americans really need post-secondary education?

Studies conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that the answer is no. According to the Bureau, only 26 percent of job openings between now and the year 2005 will require a college degree.

Longanecker says the Bureau is wrong.

``There are plenty of other studies which show a much higher percentage of jobs requiring post-secondary education,'' he said. Moreover, he notes that while low-level jobs may not require post-secondary education, most high paying jobs do. ``There is a direct relationship,'' he said, ``between education level and earning potential.''

Longanecker acknowledges that four-year liberal-arts colleges are not for everybody. But he says Clinton's proposal applies to all post-secondary education, not just liberal arts and pre-professional programs. In other words, a Tidewater Community College student, working toward a certificate in automotive repair, is just as eligible for a Hope Scholarship as a first-year English major at ODU.

But Longanecker believes that higher education ``does more than just prepare people for the world of work. It gives people a higher quality of life because they become more literate. It also gives them a stronger sense of civic involvement. There are substantial benefits to society as well as to individuals.''

Some critics of Clinton's plan accept this underlying premise but argue that the administration, in focusing on the middle class, is overlooking the very students who need help the most.

``Many of the students who come to Norfolk State can't take advantage of tax credits and tax deductions because their families don't make enough money to pay taxes,'' said Dr. Jesse Lewis, the college's Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The Pell Grant increase is intended to help those students, Longanecker said. But he says middle-class students need help too: ``There are studies indicating that many middle-class students enroll in college but don't complete their studies, and the reason they cite is a lack of funds.''

TCC President Whitworth agrees: ``I can assure you that a lot of our middle-class students need financial aid. The average age here is close to 30. These are people who have been out there working for a number of years and have decided they need more education.

``But they still have to worry about rent or mortgage payments, child care, car maintenance, and so on.''

And what about the argument that Clinton's plan would encourage colleges to raise tuition costs?

``We don't believe it will,'' said Longanecker. In fact, he says, history suggests just the opposite - that college tuition rises when there is a cutback in government funding.

Longanecker says the administration has not turned a deaf ear to critics of the plan, and he concedes that changes in the proposal are not out of the question. But in general, he thinks the critics are guilty of shortsightedness.

``This is not unlike the GI Bill,'' he said. ``I'll bet there were folks who initially thought that was a bad idea. But it fundamentally changed America, and made us a leader in the world for a number of generations. We're trying to do something comparable.'' MEMO: Tom Robotham, a Norfolk writer, has authored several books on

history and American culture, and has contributed to Cosmopolitan and

Esquire magazines. ILLUSTRATION: STAFF/File color photo

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu