The President's commitment to make college more affordable through the expansion of the federal Pell Grant program is laudable but sadly incomplete. In expanding the Pell Grant program, some students are aided while others are left behind.
The first signs that this proposal was inadequate should have been obvious. The last major educational policy that President Bush and Senator Kennedy agreed on was No Child Left Behind - another proposal that had inadequate planning for the full scope of the issue it wished to address. Though in this case the two are not as united in their goal's execution, this new policy could still suffer the same fate. The administration and Congress should not repeat prior mistakes and should make sure that a program designed to help students afford college actually does so.
Despite the shortcomings of the expansion, there are significant positives within the new measure. The Pell Grant proposal offers more to the lowest income students attending college. Any time that the students who need the most help funding their education get aid, it is great news. It's within the realm of possibility that the expansion of Pell Grant limits could increase college enrollment of lower income students and make more expensive colleges within reach of new students. There are undeniable benefits to expanding aid to students who need the biggest boost in making a college education a reality. We're glad the administration and Congress are addressing this issue.
However, Congress' work is by no means done. Like many of this administration's education policies, there are too many students "left behind." Middle class students who rely on federally subsidized loans and their lower interest rates could suffer under the plan as it is currently constructed. Elimination of the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) Program removes part of the safety net that makes college more affordable to families in the middle of America's income spectrum. These families will now have to look elsewhere to find relief from spiraling college costs.
Whatever the end result of this policy, the government should aim to increase the level of student aid in general for students of all socio-economic backgrounds. As stated by Tufts Financial Aid Director Patricia Reilly, a Pell Grant increase that comes at the cost of cutting funding to other programs isn't actually an increase to total funding to financial aid in this country.
On the Tufts campus, the effect of the expanded Pell Grants might be less obvious. The elimination of federal low interest grants and federally subsidized student interest rates could be harmful to middle income Tufts families who do not qualify for federal grants.
For those families who rely on both federal and private loans to handle their college costs, higher interest rates could potentially add thousands to their debt. For the many Tufts families who must rely solely on loans, this development certainly would be unwelcome news.
While there is a kernel of good policy here, the work on this issue is far from done. The President and Congress should look out for all college students who need federal financial assistance and not just those in need of and who qualify for Pell Grants. The government should find the necessary funds to expand its successful Stafford Loan program as well.
This issue is not yet settled, and it is possible that key changes will emerge before anything is signed into law. In the meantime, elected officials must make sure to truly leave no student behind.
